<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: ACS Endorses Quackery</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.chemistry-blog.com/2008/08/12/acs-endorses-quackery/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.chemistry-blog.com/2008/08/12/acs-endorses-quackery/</link>
	<description>We have technical difficulties, it will take a day or two to get back to normal.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 14 Mar 2010 06:11:39 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Ed</title>
		<link>http://www.chemistry-blog.com/2008/08/12/acs-endorses-quackery/comment-page-1/#comment-2023</link>
		<dc:creator>Ed</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 Aug 2008 13:19:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chemistry-blog.com/?p=293#comment-2023</guid>
		<description>Mitch, 

If the mind of Nobelist Julian Schwinger, obviously well versed in basic physical chemistry, was curious enough and convinced enough by the early evidence to suppose an alternate explanation for the Pons-Fleischmann Effect than the one you assume, do you suppose you might reconsider your reflexive response?  The evidence has grown much stronger since Schwinger&#039;s comments.

http://www.newenergytimes.com/news/2008/CMNS-LENR-Update-20080818.htm

So you are an experimentalist who dismisses experimental evidence with apparently non-applicable theory.  No one I&#039;ve seen who argues theory in cold fusion is unaware of the obvious Coulomb barrier problem.  This presupposes a plasma environment, which is not observed in these experiments.  The proof is not in the theoretical explanation.  It is in the evidence.  If the evidence agrees with theory, great!  If not, then the evidence or its interpretation might be wrong, but so might the theory!  The lack of a viable theory does not invalidate a contradictory valid observation.  It is characteristic of the pathological skeptic to avoid examining evidence and resort to ad hominem or worse.  At least you admit that you do not know of what you write.

Do you want to find yourself in the position of the abandoned Japanese soldier left on some remote south sea island long after the war has ended, lurking in the jungle, unaware that your side has surrendered?  You neglected to mention that ACS just published their &#039;Cold Fusion Sourcebook&#039;.  Were you unaware?


Do yourself a favor and examine the data.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mitch, </p>
<p>If the mind of Nobelist Julian Schwinger, obviously well versed in basic physical chemistry, was curious enough and convinced enough by the early evidence to suppose an alternate explanation for the Pons-Fleischmann Effect than the one you assume, do you suppose you might reconsider your reflexive response?  The evidence has grown much stronger since Schwinger&#8217;s comments.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.newenergytimes.com/news/2008/CMNS-LENR-Update-20080818.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.newenergytimes.com/news/2008/CMNS-LENR-Update-20080818.htm</a></p>
<p>So you are an experimentalist who dismisses experimental evidence with apparently non-applicable theory.  No one I&#8217;ve seen who argues theory in cold fusion is unaware of the obvious Coulomb barrier problem.  This presupposes a plasma environment, which is not observed in these experiments.  The proof is not in the theoretical explanation.  It is in the evidence.  If the evidence agrees with theory, great!  If not, then the evidence or its interpretation might be wrong, but so might the theory!  The lack of a viable theory does not invalidate a contradictory valid observation.  It is characteristic of the pathological skeptic to avoid examining evidence and resort to ad hominem or worse.  At least you admit that you do not know of what you write.</p>
<p>Do you want to find yourself in the position of the abandoned Japanese soldier left on some remote south sea island long after the war has ended, lurking in the jungle, unaware that your side has surrendered?  You neglected to mention that ACS just published their &#8216;Cold Fusion Sourcebook&#8217;.  Were you unaware?</p>
<p>Do yourself a favor and examine the data.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Enahs</title>
		<link>http://www.chemistry-blog.com/2008/08/12/acs-endorses-quackery/comment-page-1/#comment-1886</link>
		<dc:creator>Enahs</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Aug 2008 22:30:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chemistry-blog.com/?p=293#comment-1886</guid>
		<description>And also for the record, Photoshop came out in 1988, before 90. When you can understand how the Gregorian calender works, then you can talk about physics :).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And also for the record, Photoshop came out in 1988, before 90. When you can understand how the Gregorian calender works, then you can talk about physics <img src='http://www.chemistry-blog.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> .</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Chemist (AKA ChiralDecay)</title>
		<link>http://www.chemistry-blog.com/2008/08/12/acs-endorses-quackery/comment-page-1/#comment-1879</link>
		<dc:creator>The Chemist (AKA ChiralDecay)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Aug 2008 12:14:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chemistry-blog.com/?p=293#comment-1879</guid>
		<description>If I had all the requisite knowledge, I&#039;d attend the lecture and take a few notes. Then I would use those notes as reminders for specific pointed questions that might redden a few faces.

Then again, I&#039;m confrontational like that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If I had all the requisite knowledge, I&#8217;d attend the lecture and take a few notes. Then I would use those notes as reminders for specific pointed questions that might redden a few faces.</p>
<p>Then again, I&#8217;m confrontational like that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mitch</title>
		<link>http://www.chemistry-blog.com/2008/08/12/acs-endorses-quackery/comment-page-1/#comment-1869</link>
		<dc:creator>Mitch</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Aug 2008 02:28:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chemistry-blog.com/?p=293#comment-1869</guid>
		<description>For the record, I&#039;m an experimentalist.

Mitch</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For the record, I&#8217;m an experimentalist.</p>
<p>Mitch</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Janique</title>
		<link>http://www.chemistry-blog.com/2008/08/12/acs-endorses-quackery/comment-page-1/#comment-1866</link>
		<dc:creator>Janique</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Aug 2008 00:57:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chemistry-blog.com/?p=293#comment-1866</guid>
		<description>Psst ..I hate to tell a fully competent theoretician like yourself that your wrong ..but.

You might not have noticed, but this autoradiograph photo done by folks over at BARC in India circa 1990 (almost twenty years ago) was a pretty darned good photoshop fake huh?   Even made with D2O gas too.

Too bad photoshop didn&#039;t even exist back then. Huh?

Can theorists take a hint? This stuff is &#039;REAL&#039; and guess what ?? ..YOUR THEORIES CAN&#039;T EXPLAIN IT.  How&#039;s that for a wake up call to something going on at &#039;low energy&#039;?

http://www.lenr-canr.org/Experiments.htm#AutoradiographsMSrinivasan</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Psst ..I hate to tell a fully competent theoretician like yourself that your wrong ..but.</p>
<p>You might not have noticed, but this autoradiograph photo done by folks over at BARC in India circa 1990 (almost twenty years ago) was a pretty darned good photoshop fake huh?   Even made with D2O gas too.</p>
<p>Too bad photoshop didn&#8217;t even exist back then. Huh?</p>
<p>Can theorists take a hint? This stuff is &#8216;REAL&#8217; and guess what ?? ..YOUR THEORIES CAN&#8217;T EXPLAIN IT.  How&#8217;s that for a wake up call to something going on at &#8216;low energy&#8217;?</p>
<p><a href="http://www.lenr-canr.org/Experiments.htm#AutoradiographsMSrinivasan" rel="nofollow">http://www.lenr-canr.org/Experiments.htm#AutoradiographsMSrinivasan</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Maz</title>
		<link>http://www.chemistry-blog.com/2008/08/12/acs-endorses-quackery/comment-page-1/#comment-1863</link>
		<dc:creator>Maz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Aug 2008 18:31:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chemistry-blog.com/?p=293#comment-1863</guid>
		<description>maybe I could stick a vibrating spoon in a glass of water and use it as a heater?  After all, 1 in every 6500 H-atoms is heavy, and all the gammas released from the fusion are absorbed by the neighboring nuclei.  So...fusion heater!  I am gonna be rich.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>maybe I could stick a vibrating spoon in a glass of water and use it as a heater?  After all, 1 in every 6500 H-atoms is heavy, and all the gammas released from the fusion are absorbed by the neighboring nuclei.  So&#8230;fusion heater!  I am gonna be rich.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: j</title>
		<link>http://www.chemistry-blog.com/2008/08/12/acs-endorses-quackery/comment-page-1/#comment-1862</link>
		<dc:creator>j</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Aug 2008 18:14:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chemistry-blog.com/?p=293#comment-1862</guid>
		<description>Will Dr. Emma Russell be presenting her equation describing cold fusion? 

Sorry, &lt;i&gt;The Saint&lt;/i&gt; reference</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Will Dr. Emma Russell be presenting her equation describing cold fusion? </p>
<p>Sorry, <i>The Saint</i> reference</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: New Energy Times &#187; Calling All Quacks</title>
		<link>http://www.chemistry-blog.com/2008/08/12/acs-endorses-quackery/comment-page-1/#comment-1858</link>
		<dc:creator>New Energy Times &#187; Calling All Quacks</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Aug 2008 13:33:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chemistry-blog.com/?p=293#comment-1858</guid>
		<description>[...] ACS Endorses Quackery [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] ACS Endorses Quackery [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
