See, if you don't keep up, you miss everything:
My Man, John Huizenga, died.
Who's John Huizenga you ask? He's the guy Mitt Romney never heard of either. How do I know? Because Mitt still thinks the Mormon bozos in Utah invented "cold fusion" - John Huizenga proved they didn't:
Because of the potential implications of the finding, the U.S. Department of Energy established the Energy Research Advisory Board, co-chaired by Huizenga and Norman Ramsey, to investigate.
Cold fusion, Huizenga told the New York Times in 1999, "is as dead as ever. It's quite unbelievable that the thing has gone on for 10 years."
It's also unbelievable anyone would try to make an obvious idiot supplement manufacturing cult leader president, but there he was.
"Sloppy techniques and wishful thinking"?
Not if you're familiar with humanity, Johnny:
Not if you're familiar with humanity.
But you're outta here now - sleep tight, Bubby,….
my macho responses are:
ReplyDeleteHuizeng prevented real technology to develop, anyway non academic do the job:
http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/
For the story, I quote the book of Charles Beaudette, the best one:
http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/lenr%20home%20page/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf
"Unfortunately, physicists did not generally claim expertise in calorimetry, the measurement of calories of heat energy. Nor did they countenance clever chemists declaring hypotheses about nuclear physics. Their outspoken commentary largely ignored the heat measurements along with the offer of an hypothesis about unknown nuclear processes. They did not acquaint themselves with the laboratory procedures that produced anomalous heat data. These attitudes held firm throughout the first decade, causing a sustained controversy.
The upshot of this conflict was that the scientific community failed to give anomalous heat the evaluation that was its due. Scientists of orthodox views, in the first six years of this episode, produced only four critical reviews of the two chemists’ calorimetry work. The first report came in 1989 (N. S. Lewis). It dismissed the Utah claim for anomalous power on grounds of faulty laboratory technique. A second review was produced in 1991 (W. N. Hansen) that strongly supported the claim. It was based on an independent analysis of cell data that was provided by the two chemists. An extensive review completed in 1992 (R. H. Wilson) was highly critical though not conclusive. But it did recognize the existence of anomalous power, which carried the implication that the Lewis dismissal was mistaken. A fourth review was produced in 1994 (D. R. O. Morrison) which was itself unsatisfactory. It was rebutted strongly to the point of dismissal and correctly in my view. No defense was offered against the rebuttal. During those first six years, the community of orthodox scientists produced no report of a flaw in the heat measurements that was subsequently sustained by other reports.
The community of scientists at large never saw or knew about this minimalist critique of the claim. It was buried in the avalanche of skepticism that issued forth in the first three months. This skepticism was buttressed by the failure of the two chemists’ nuclear measurements, the lack of a theoretical understanding of how their claim could work, a mistaken concern with the number of failed experiments, a wholly unrealistic expectation of the time and resource the evaluation would need, and the substantial ad hominem attacks on them. However, their original claim of measurement of the anomalous power remained unscathed during all of this furor. A decade later, it was not generally realized that this claim remained essentially unevaluated by the scientific community. Confusion necessarily arose when the skeptics refused without argument to recognize the heat measurement and its corresponding hypothesis of a nuclear source. As a consequence, the story of the excess heat phenomenon has never been told."
I'm just sad he could not admit "I screw up, sorry".
RIP
I just published that answer, more kind...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.lenrnews.eu/answer-to-la-times-about-john-huizenga-the-physicist-who-helped-discredit-cold-fusion/
If you know of cold fusion existing anywhere on the planet, you're right.
ReplyDeleteIf not, you're into pseudoscience.
Don't be that guy,...
And, before you try some pseudoscientific nonsense on me, remember it's that simple:
ReplyDeletePut-up-or-shut-up.
Otherwise, quack, quack, quack, quack, quack,...