It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I can tell by your avatar you're really into it!
Originally posted by metalshredmetal
Has anyone here pondered about the relationship of evolution & INvolution?
The identity map is a trivial example of an involution.
So, would this involution be like, the identity map that occurs when I argue with myself in the mirror, and the mirror returns the same value that I used in my argument?
In mathematics, an identity function, also called identity map or identity transformation, is a function that always returns the same value that was used as its argument. In terms of equations, the function is given by f(x) = x.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I like posting the truth.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I asked you if this sentence somehow negated what followed and you never really answered except to post that.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
However I don't really see your passion for truth, because I only see you questioning sources you don't like, and the sources you really should be questioning, like Bearden and Rodin, well, frankly, I don't see you questioning them.
Originally posted by Mary Rose
"Swedish Skeptics Confirm 'Nuclear Process' in Tiny 4.7 kW Reactor"
From the above link:
. . . Denial was immediate. MIT and Caltech, who had been leaders in hot fusion work, immediately went to work “trying” to replicate the experiment. In just five weeks Caltech announced negative results. At a May 1st 1989 APS meeting in Baltimore, two thousand physicists gave a standing ovation to the Caltech team’s presentation. A lynch mob mentality, combined with denial, turned the exciting discovery of cold fusion into an enemy.
MIT helped set the tone by arranging a front page story in the Boston Herald on the day of the meeting with the headline, “MIT bombshell knocks fusion “breakthrough” cold.” The story was an interview with leaders of the MIT fusion lab that accused Fleischmann and Pons of fraud. The charge was later denied but tapes of the actual interview confirm what was said.
MIT further disgraced itself by altering data in its failure to replicate study. This was discovered two years later by MIT employee Eugene Mallove, who found copies of the July 10 and July 13 drafts of the paper. The July 10th version had a graph that clearly showed excess heat. In the July 13 version the graph was redrawn to show no excess heat. The atmosphere at MIT, as shown by a “Wake for Cold Fusion” party (before the data was analyzed) and t-shirts and mugs offered by the plasma fusion lab, was hardly impartial. . . .
Originally posted by Mary Rose
'results'"
McKubre at SRI International expressed his view on what happened at Caltech:
The way that Nate Lewis conducted his calorimetry was just wrong. It was amateurish and silly, actually. What he did was change his calibration every day to make sure that the excess heat was zero; he changed his calibration with the assertion that the answer is zero, so by definition he observed zero every day, even though he had to change his calibration constant to do it.
I think it was a semi legitimate thing for an ignorant and impatient man. Every day they came in, and the calorimetry was either producing positive excess heat or negative excess heat, both of which were unbelievable to Lewis, so that what they did was change the calibration constant so that it went away.[ 25]
Didn't you see the link I posted regarding the US Navy's findings? That got a lot of attention.
Originally posted by Mary Rose
No rebuttal?
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Didn't you see the link I posted regarding the US Navy's findings? That got a lot of attention.
I have an observation with an analogy rather than a rebuttal.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The scientific community at large seems skeptical of both claims, but it looks to me like they are willing to test them further
Originally posted by Mary Rose
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Didn't you see the link I posted regarding the US Navy's findings? That got a lot of attention.
I have an observation with an analogy rather than a rebuttal.
I'm focusing right now on allegations of fraud and what goes on at universities, etc. The lessons to be learned from history.
Originally posted by Mary Rose
"Swedish Skeptics Confirm 'Nuclear Process' in Tiny 4.7 kW Reactor"
From the above link:
. . . Denial was immediate. MIT and Caltech, who had been leaders in hot fusion work, immediately went to work “trying” to replicate the experiment. In just five weeks Caltech announced negative results. At a May 1st 1989 APS meeting in Baltimore, two thousand physicists gave a standing ovation to the Caltech team’s presentation. A lynch mob mentality, combined with denial, turned the exciting discovery of cold fusion into an enemy.
MIT helped set the tone by arranging a front page story in the Boston Herald on the day of the meeting with the headline, “MIT bombshell knocks fusion “breakthrough” cold.” The story was an interview with leaders of the MIT fusion lab that accused Fleischmann and Pons of fraud. The charge was later denied but tapes of the actual interview confirm what was said.
MIT further disgraced itself by altering data in its failure to replicate study. This was discovered two years later by MIT employee Eugene Mallove, who found copies of the July 10 and July 13 drafts of the paper. The July 10th version had a graph that clearly showed excess heat. In the July 13 version the graph was redrawn to show no excess heat. The atmosphere at MIT, as shown by a “Wake for Cold Fusion” party (before the data was analyzed) and t-shirts and mugs offered by the plasma fusion lab, was hardly impartial. . . .
I'm asking to see the evidence you are citing. Where is this July 10th version and the July 13th version? I need to examine the evidence before I agree or disagree.
Originally posted by Mary Rose
So, are you agreeing that MIT and Caltech committed fraud when they "tried" to replicate the experiment, or are you not agreeing?
The July 10th version had a graph that clearly showed excess heat. In the July 13 version the graph was redrawn to show no excess heat.
So the original authors F&P probably made more changes to their paper than MIT did. And of course Mallove certainly seems biased. While that doesn't mean he's wrong, it does mean that I won't just take his word for what he found on these papers, I'd like to see them myself.
F&P’s paper was sloppy, and they even forgot to include the name of their grad student. The errata were longer than their original paper
Mosier-Boss and Szpak are using a deposition technique that hadn't been developed yet when MIT did their research, so it may be more consistent but as that says other labs are still having difficulty getting consistent results even with that method.
Objectors also point to the difficulty of reproducing these results. While Mosier-Boss and Szpak claim they can produce the reaction at will, other labs have struggled to reproduce consistent, if any, results using co-deposition. One researcher who has had some success is Winthrop Williams at the University of California, Berkeley, who has replicated the navy's experiment with CR-39.
So it looks like the US Navy has been researching cold fusion since 1989 for about 22 years now. They apparently weren't deterred by the negative findings of MIT. And others are trying to replicate the Navy's results.
Several respected scientists at universities in the US, Europe and Asia are attempting to replicate the US navy's lab experiments. David Nagel, a physicist and research professor at George Washington University in Washington DC who has followed the cold fusion saga since its inception, reports a growing willingness by the US Department of Energy to consider funding experiments to follow up these tantalising hints.
If the trails form the right pattern that are consistent with the experimental setup, it sounds like it could be convincing, but apparently not everyone is convinced.
That's where Gordon's sliver of polymer comes in. It is made of CR-39, a clear polycarbonate plastic that is commonly used to make spectacle lenses and shatter-proof windows - and which can also record the passage of subatomic particles. The neutrons, protons and alpha particles that spew from genuine nuclear reactions shatter the bonds within the polymer's molecules to leave distinctive patterns of pits and tracks that can be seen under a microscope.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
And of course Mallove certainly seems biased.
Originally posted by Mary Rose
So, are you agreeing that MIT and Caltech committed fraud when they "tried" to replicate the experiment, or are you not agreeing?
Originally posted by Mary Rose
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
And of course Mallove certainly seems biased.
He was working for MIT, correct? What do you base this on?
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Cold Fusion-History (powerpoint)
Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem
While working for MIT?
Mallove taught science journalism at MIT and Boston University and was chief science writer at MIT's news office