1995.08.26 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 1995 02:21:03 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <browe-2208952107200001@192.0.2.1>, browe@netcom.com (Bill
Rowe) wrote:

> I won't respond to your response point by point to conserve bandwidth.
> 
> My comment about your "assuming the worst" is your assumptions about
> motivations. I don't disagree with your observations of fact. Your choice
> of words imply malevolent intent. I strongly suspect that most researchers
> are not conspiring to "loot the taxpayers". 

***{They obviously do not think of what they are doing in that way, but
that is unimportant. The issue here is not whether the "hot fusion"
parasites are in denial; the issue is whether, in fact, they have embraced
a parasitic lifestyle. It is well known that misbehavior is generally
perpetrated by persons who are in denial. The examples are legion. Most
men who beat their wives do not think of themselves as the cowardly,
immoral creatures which, in fact, they are. Instead, they excuse their
behavior by blaming their wives. Similarly, most burglars do not think of
themselves as character deficient social parasites: they excuse their
behavior by blaming "society," or their "environment," or the flaws of
mankind in general. If we ask ourselves why misbehavior tends so strongly
to be accompanied by denial, the answer is obvious: looking honestly at
the facts and their implications activates the faculty known as
"conscience," and tends to bring about an alteration of the behavior. Seen
in this light, denial is simply one of the preconditions that make
misbehavior possible. Because of that, we should never be surprised to see
misbehavior and denial coexisting in one person. Bottom line: I feel quite
sure that the vast majority of "hot fusion" researchers deny that there is
anything wrong with what they are doing. They are, in fact, looters who
are riding on the backs of the people; but I do not, and did not, claim
that they see themselves in that light. --Mitchell Jones}***

  Rather, I think they most
> likely believe they are honestly pursuing reasonable lines of research.
> 
> As far as your comments about most scientists not wanting to advance ideas
> that thier peers consider crackpot, to a large extent you have a point.
> However, I wouldn't ascribe the motivation as a "fear of being laughed
> at". Instead, I would ascribe this as the natural caution to be sure of
> your facts before you jump of the deep end. In fact, the difference I am
> attempting to describe is perhaps only a matter of degree.

***{Bill, I have no problem with the notion that extraordinary conclusions
must be supported by extraordinary proofs. In the case of "over unity"
claims, the only reasonable interpretation is that the claim is wrong or
that there is some as yet unidentified energy source (fuel) hidden in the
apparatus. Since the discovery of new energy sources is much more rare
than is the making of mistakes in an experimental design, I believe that
extremely intense scrutiny should be given to designs that are associated
with "over unity" claims. However, once that scrutiny has been given and
no potential sources of error have been identified which can account for
the over-unity result, I believe that we must adjust our positions to
reflect that state of affairs. As I noted in an earlier post, it is one
thing, having lost one's billfold, to theorize that it may be on the
kitchen table, and quite another to maintain that position after having
looked and found it not to be there! The former is a reasonable
supposition, while the latter is an instance of pathological thinking. And
the same considerations apply to our little debate, in this thread, about
the Griggs result. It was OK for you guys to suppose that there were
errors in the design which could account for the over unity claims, prior
to having publicly dissected the design for two months and having failed
to find them; but it is quite pathological now, after that experience, to
continue to maintain the same position and make the same claims. And
please don't assume that I don't live by the same standards I am urging on
you. Remember: before I began defending the Griggs result, I attacked it
in print, and actually posted specific theories which attempted to
identify the errors which were involved. Result: I argued with Jed about
it, mostly via e-mail, in an exchange that came to roughly 200 pages of
messages back and forth, and I lost. Did I dig my heels in and continue to
make the same claims that I had made before? Did I pretend that the fact
that I had fought that battle and lost had no significance? No. I reversed
my position, and began to argue the other way. If I had not done so, I
would deserve the accusation of pathological thinking as fully as, right
now, you guys deserve it. When you lose the argument, Bill, *that is a
fact of significance.* In that event, you are morally obligated to change
your position. If you don't, then you can't complain if others begin to
distrust your motives. --Mitchell Jones}***    
> 
> Finally, I am curious. When your refer to me as being one of "you guys",
> what assumptions are you making about me? As far as I know I have not
> provided anyone here my professional affiliation. Nor I have I included in
> my .profile file. Are you assuming, based on my post, I have an
> affiliation with say Princeton or other lab involved in conventional
> fusion research?

***{"You guys," as noted above, simply refers to those who have argued
against the validity of the Griggs result and who, subsequent to getting
their butts publicly kicked, continue to maintain the same position as
before. Because you guys refuse to budge, I now harbor dark suspicions
about your moral characters and your motivations. Result: I have put forth
several possible explanations for your behavior, one of which was the
looters-in-denial theory mentioned above. Another theory which I have
mentioned, which is probably more likely, is simply that most people tend
to be paralyzed with terror at the thought of being laughed at by their
peers, and tend to struggle with might and main, far beyond the point of
absurdity, to avoid adopting positions that will lead to that result. By
that theory, you guys want to fit in, and that desire constitutes a
conflict of interest which is preventing you from seeing the truth. While
this may seem more innocuous than the looters-in-denial theory, I urge you
to be very careful: nothing is more important than the truth, and to put
anything above it is to succumb to evil. (Never forget that the desire to
fit in led "good Germans" to look the other way and, as a result, made the
Holocaust possible.) Those who refuse to adjust their positions when they
lose an argument are on a very slippery slope indeed, and would be well
advised to look very closely at what they are doing. --Mitchell Jones}***
  
> -- 
> William Rowe                                                  
browe@netcom.com
> MD5OfPublicKey: F29A99C805B41838D9240AEE28EBF383

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.26 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 1995 02:33:03 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <DDt53A.BzI@actrix.gen.nz>, bruce@faxmail.co.nz wrote:

> zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC) wrote:
> 
> >For those here that are not up to date in the Griggs device:
> 
> >It is a machine that rotates a cylinder full of holes. The device heats
> >water by working against the hydrodynamic resistance (it stirs the water)
> >and it apparently generates more than ten percent excess heat over the
> >work the pump puts in. It has been replicated a number of times and it
> >produces consistant results. 
> 
> What is this miracle of physics that defeats the conservation of
> energy laws we've all come to know and love :-)

***{To my knowledge, no one has claimed that the conservation laws are
being overturned. The presumption, I think, is that the "over unity"
results, if valid, indicate the presence of a previously unidentified
energy source buried somewhere in the experimental apparatus. That,
certainly, is my interpretation of the results. I consider the validity of
the conservation laws to be an incontrovertible metaphysical fact.
--Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> ie: how is this anomoly explained?

***{The best parallel I know of would be to a nuclear power plant. Note
that, if we were not aware that U235 is a fuel, all of our calculations
would seem to indicate that nuclear power plants are over unity--i.e.,
that they impart more heat to the water that flows past the reactor core
than can be extracted from the energy used to pump the water. Logically,
if the Griggs device is over unity, then there must be some new energy
source that is being tapped, and which conventional physical theory does
not explain. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> 
> *----[Fixed-price software development over the net ]----*
> |     bsimpson@iprolink.co.nz or bruce@faxmail.co.nz     |
> *--[C/C++, Win, OS/2, POSIX, device-drivers, fax, comms]-*

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.26 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Droege's experiments proved nothing
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Droege's experiments proved nothing
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 95 09:16:38 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Mitchell Jones <21cenlogic@i-link.net> writes:
 
>nothing less. Thus Droege, properly, is to be judged on the basis of his
>arguments, as are we all. 
 
Tom Droege actually did an experiment, unlike most of the people here.
Therefore, we can judge him on the basis of his work, rather than his
arguments. I judge him as follows:
 
Calorimetry  A
Picking the right tool for the job  B-
Reporting results  A+
Electrochemistry  F-
 
Overall grade:
 
A for effort, F for results.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjedrothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.26 /  cormac@therive /  Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
     
Originally-From: cormac@theriver.com ()
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 1995 14:30:23 GMT
Organization: The River Internet Access Co.

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
 
>I find it annoying when Mario Pain writes that CF "does not exist as a
>SCIENTIFIC OBJECT. With more research, CF could became scientific, but only
>when this experiment is found." By his standards, transistors did not become
>SCIENTIFIC OBJECTS until the late-1950s, thirty years after research on them
>began, and a couple of years after the the Bell people got a Nobel prize for
>inventing them! He would dismiss all of the scientists and all of the work
>done on incandescent lights before Edison. That's absurd. Even Edison would
>not have done that.

Since the failure of cold fusion experiments to produce excess heat is
ALSO unpredictable and therefore not uniformly predictable, does that
not also imply using the same rules of logic that cold fusion failures
are not proven thus proving the successes? Interesting logic.  "If it
doesn't happen every time it cannot happen."?
> 

>And they have the gall to
>accuse *us* of running irreproducible experiments!!! Good Grief! According to
>the standards they apply to us, the whole of high energy plasma physics should
>be tossed into the garbage. By 1990 CF had been reproduced by dozens of labs,
>including Amoco, TAMU, SRI and many others. A year after the Quark experiment,
>who has replicated Fermilab? Where is there another Fermilab quark-finding
>gizmo? These findings have not been reproduced!!! Therefore they do not exist.
>Can they show me a quark any time, on demand, with 100% reproducibility? No?
>Then it isn't science *by their standards that they apply to us*.

Interesting point.

What has happened to curiosity and humility nowadays?  Anything
unexplained SHOUL BE very interesting because it provides the
possibility of new insights once understood.  Just the fact that this
effect refuses complete explanation by standard models should be
enough to create much interest.

I have little respect for those who are afraid to wonder at the
universe and seek its truths on ITS terms.

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudencormac cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.26 / Bill Rowe /  Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 1995 12:19:32 -0700
Organization: AltNet - $5/month uncensored news - http://www.alt.net

In article <21cenlogic-2608950221030001@austin-1-12.i-link.net>,
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:

>In article <browe-2208952107200001@192.0.2.1>, browe@netcom.com (Bill
>Rowe) wrote:
>
>> I won't respond to your response point by point to conserve bandwidth.
>> 
>> My comment about your "assuming the worst" is your assumptions about
>> motivations. I don't disagree with your observations of fact. Your choice
>> of words imply malevolent intent. I strongly suspect that most researchers
>> are not conspiring to "loot the taxpayers". 
>
>***{They obviously do not think of what they are doing in that way, but
>that is unimportant. The issue here is not whether the "hot fusion"
>parasites are in denial; the issue is whether, in fact, they have embraced
>a parasitic lifestyle. It is well known that misbehavior is generally
>perpetrated by persons who are in denial. The examples are legion. Most
>men who beat their wives do not think of themselves as the cowardly,
>immoral creatures which, in fact, they are. Instead, they excuse their
>behavior by blaming their wives. Similarly, most burglars do not think of
>themselves as character deficient social parasites: they excuse their
>behavior by blaming "society," or their "environment," or the flaws of
>mankind in general. If we ask ourselves why misbehavior tends so strongly
>to be accompanied by denial, the answer is obvious: looking honestly at
>the facts and their implications activates the faculty known as
>"conscience," and tends to bring about an alteration of the behavior. Seen
>in this light, denial is simply one of the preconditions that make
>misbehavior possible. Because of that, we should never be surprised to see
>misbehavior and denial coexisting in one person. Bottom line: I feel quite
>sure that the vast majority of "hot fusion" researchers deny that there is
>anything wrong with what they are doing. They are, in fact, looters who
>are riding on the backs of the people; but I do not, and did not, claim
>that they see themselves in that light. --Mitchell Jones}***

I understand your point that often pwople who behave badly don't believe
they are behaving badly. Consequently, the criteria for determining bad
behavior can't be set by those exhibiting the behavior. 

As for the examples you cited, I think there is a common thread. The
behaviors described are illegal in some form. This gives an objective
standard for judging those behaviors. However, fusion researchers are not
engaging in illegal behaviour. Whether or not you believe current fusion
research is valid, it is patently unfair to characterize these researchers
in the same light as buglars, wife beaters etc who blame there behavior on
either the "environment" or "society"


[ skipped ]

>> Finally, I am curious. When your refer to me as being one of "you guys",
>> what assumptions are you making about me? As far as I know I have not
>> provided anyone here my professional affiliation. Nor I have I included in
>> my .profile file. Are you assuming, based on my post, I have an
>> affiliation with say Princeton or other lab involved in conventional
>> fusion research?
>
>***{"You guys," as noted above, simply refers to those who have argued
>against the validity of the Griggs result and who, subsequent to getting
>their butts publicly kicked, continue to maintain the same position as
>before. Because you guys refuse to budge, I now harbor dark suspicions
>about your moral characters and your motivations. Result: I have put forth
>several possible explanations for your behavior, one of which was the
>looters-in-denial theory mentioned above. Another theory which I have
>mentioned, which is probably more likely, is simply that most people tend
>to be paralyzed with terror at the thought of being laughed at by their
>peers, and tend to struggle with might and main, far beyond the point of
>absurdity, to avoid adopting positions that will lead to that result. By
>that theory, you guys want to fit in, and that desire constitutes a
>conflict of interest which is preventing you from seeing the truth. While
>this may seem more innocuous than the looters-in-denial theory, I urge you
>to be very careful: nothing is more important than the truth, and to put
>anything above it is to succumb to evil. (Never forget that the desire to
>fit in led "good Germans" to look the other way and, as a result, made the
>Holocaust possible.) Those who refuse to adjust their positions when they
>lose an argument are on a very slippery slope indeed, and would be well
>advised to look very closely at what they are doing. --Mitchell Jones}***
>  

Yes, it is fair to include me in the group who isn't convinced the Griggs
device is an over unity device. I agree that I personally do not have an
adequate explaination of the Griggs results. However, I see my inability
to find such an explaination as evidence of my limitations not as evidence
the Griggs device is an over unity device.

As I see it, many of the issues that have been raised here concerning the
accuracy of the data taken as well as the interpretation of that data hve
not been adequately addressed. If these issues were addressed and there
were more rigor in the data taking I suspect I and other skeptics would
become convinced. Simply put claims of over unity require much more for my
belief than what has been put forth for the Griggs device.

As for my motivation --- Well I have no scientific standing so I have no
reason to fear ridicule. I work for an aerospace company who would have no
interest in the Griggs device nor any interest in my position regarding
the Griggs device. Is it really that hard for you to accept there are
people who find the data less than convincing on just the merits of the
data? Not everyone operates from the position you describe above.

Finally, I the reason I follow this group is in the hope that I will learn
that I am wrong about CF, the Griggs device etc. I would very much like to
see CF proved sucessful. But this won't happen with wishful thinking or by
ignoring critics.
-- 
MD5OfPublicKey: F29A99C805B41838D9240AEE28EBF383
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.26 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 1995 15:45:42 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <41el6f$b6p@anemone.saclay.cea.fr>, Mario Pain
<pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr> wrote:

> 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:
> >Of course they are: the energy source is the taxpayers, on whose backs
> >you guys have a proven history of riding. It must be very frightening,
> >when you actually contemplate the possibility of giving up your parasitic
> >lifestyle and dealing with your fellow men on a voluntary basis!
> >--Mitchell Jones
> 
> Well, well, well. That is a nice scientific tone, is it not ?. 

***{Mario, what can I say? If a truth is unpleasant, is it "unscientific"
to state it? I think not. These types of situations arise over and over
again in the history of science. Semmelweis, for example, proved
conclusively that the death rate of birth mothers due to staph infections
could be enormously reduced if the physicians would simply wash their
filthy hands. Did they change? No. They were outraged by the
implication--to wit: that *they* were personally responsible for the
deaths of most of the women whose children they delivered--and they
proceeded to hound Semmelweis out of his profession and into a nervous
breakdown. By your rules of civility, Semmelweis would have simply noted
the unpleasant nature of the truth he was about to state, and would have
elected to muzzle himself rather than state it. This would have been in
his self-interest, undoubtedly, but it also would clearly not have been in
the interests of the larger society, or of the birth mothers who would
have continued to die. By the same token, someone needs to point out the
nature of the opposition to "cold fusion," and the underlying motivations.
We are dealing with a vested interest here, acting reflexively to protect
its turf. The proof lies in the refusal of these guys to budge despite
their utter inability to muster a shred of an argument against the
validity of the Griggs result. The failure of their attempts to argue
their case, if they were unbiased, would by now have led them to call for
attempts at replication. Since they are not doing that, we are justified
in looking for a non-rational explanation for their behavior. --Mitchell
Jones}*** 

Can there be a
> scientific discussion if the two parties think the other are crooks,
"frightened"
> to having to give up "your parasitic lifestyle" ?. 

***{I don't know what you mean by "the two parties." The hot fusion
proponents are the only ones riding on the backs of the taxpayers. The
parasitic lifestyle is theirs. Thus, they are the only ones who can give
up such a lifestyle, and they are the only ones who can be frightened by
the prospect of having to do so. --Mitchell Jones}*** 

I do not think so.
> Having read the whole posting, I find difficult to separate your scientific
> conviction that CF will work from your hate of "hot fusioners."

***{Hate is a pretty strong word. What I feel would be more accurately
described as irritation, along with a bit of indignation. What they feel,
on the other hand, may be somewhat stronger. They, after all, are the ones
whose positions are threatened. --Mitchell Jones}***

 Since you 
> feel free to accuse "hot fusioners" of taxpayer-riding, I do not think why
> I could not suggest that your goal seems less to promote CF than to recover
> the "billions" spent in hot fusion so you can get to live a "parasitic
lifestyle"
> yourself. 

***{Mario, if you do not consider yourself to be constrained by logic and
evidence, you can suggest anything whatsoever. All I can say in response
to your suggestion is simply that you have not a shred of a rational basis
for it. The fact that I want to kick the "hot fusion" hogs away from the
public trough does not mean I want to take their place, and I have said as
much many times in the past. My position is that government should limit
itself to the protection of property rights. "Transfer payments,"
"subsidies," "economic regulations," and all the other euphemisms for
legalized theft should be ended. Period. In short, I advocate a social
system in which nobody, including myself, can indulge in a parasitic
lifestyle. --Mitchell Jones}*** 

So much for science.
> 
> People who live in glass houses should not throw stones. And that works both 
> ways.

***{True enough. Fortunately, my house is made of steel! :-) --Mitchell
Jones}*** 

> 
> Thanks for listening
> 
> Mario Pain

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.26 / A Anderson /  Re: tornado article
     
Originally-From: Alexander Anderson <sandy@almide.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: tornado article
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 1995 20:14:49 GMT
Organization: Mide Services


Dear Mitchell Jones,

    Thank's very much!  It's always very tricky being part of a 
newsgroup.  Absolutely anyone can, and I think should, be able to 
partake.

    Unfortunately, this leads to me wondering if a slightly 
risque "hypothesising" long letter is going to turn out to be by 
Plutonium.  Or worse, someone like him, that I'll _also_ have to make a 
mental note to skip around.  A bit like light brown envelopes 
dropping through the letter box.

    But then I feel I have a duty to ward off others from wasting 
energy *reasoning* with this type of author, and finally mouthing off.  
However, it's tricky not to rub the Plutoniums of this world up the 
wrong way.  They're no different from anyone else.  Especially after a 
couple of joints, listening to Reggae, over the weekend.  Know what I 
mean!  

    It would help a great deal if we had more Religion in our culture.  
That's what these people are really searching for.  All embracing 
philosophies, to anchor ourselves with the people and the world around 
us.

    However, having said that, yeah, I started laughing at my 
Doobeewahwah Theory too.  And I must thank Edward Lewis for creating 
this newsgroup opportunity.  You are not alone.



Sandy
-- 
// Alexander Anderson                         Computer Science Student //
// Home Fone    : +44 (0) 171-794-4543            Middlesex University //
// Home Email   : sandy@almide.demon.co.uk                Bounds Green //
// College Email: alexander9@mdx.ac.uk                          London //
//                                                                  UK //

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudensandy cudfnAlexander cudlnAnderson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Aug 27 04:37:03 EDT 1995
------------------------------
