On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 4:22 AM, Peter Gluck <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Terry, > > can you explain how was this possible: > "The whole bloody fiasco probably set back CF 30 years". > > As you probably know (I hope you are reading my Blog, I hope) i > have an alternative explanation- the first discovered variant of > LENR is not viable and we have to investigate better variants > > If you don't like the idea just forget iy. > > Peter
The ensuing feeding frenzy halted the very investigation of which you speak. Dr. Storms said it best in the next paragraph of the article I referenced: "These excuses weren't well received. "Conventional science requires you to play by certain rules," comments cold fusionist Edmund Storms. "First, thou shalt not announce thy results via a press conference. Second, thou shalt not exaggerate the results. Third, thou shalt tell other scientists precisely what thou did. They broke all of those rules."" <end quote> As flawed as our present method of scientific verification is, the actions by the university ensured that true verification could not happen. Everyone with a piece of Pd and some heavy water on hand threw together a test cell. The initial reports of a false positive by my own alma mater are a perfect example of the sloppy science resulting from using the public media to make a monumental announcement. http://www.nytimes.com/1989/04/14/us/georgia-tech-team-reports-flaw-in-critical-experiment-on-fusion.html The thrill and following disenchantment devastated me personally. It was not until a brilliant and kind gentleman by the name of Chris Tinsley responded to a comment I made as a forum manager on CompuServe (the nascent internet), questioning my dismissal of CF that I opened my mind again. "Are you sure they were wrong? Why not find out for yourself by joining Vortex-l?" Who knows. Had greed not caused disclosure through the press and F&P followed the normal scientific process of silent verification, where might we be today? We know what happened; but, who is to say what might have happened if those two electrochemists had a few nuclear physicists to back them? Or anyone other themselves? In my opinion, we would be better off today. But, maybe not. > > On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 3:23 AM, Terry Blanton <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> Was he instrumental in releasing F&P finding to the Press? >> > >> > >> > In the chapter I uploaded, he said no: >> > >> > "Fleischmann reportedly said (for reasons never clear) that the >> > University >> > of Utah had required the two investigators to go public when they did. >> > When >> > I subsequently asked for clarification from the relevant university >> > office, >> > people there clearly stated that their policy was to honor all faculty >> > requests with respect to publication and announcement, not initiate >> > them." >> >> >> It meant a lot to the university to be the first to announce. From: >> >> http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/6.11/coldfusion_pr.html >> >> "In their defense, Pons and Fleischmann explained that they couldn't >> reveal all the details because the University of Utah's patent had not >> yet been approved. They admitted that the press conference had been >> premature, but claimed the University had urged them to go public when >> another scientist - a physicist named Steve Jones - turned out to be >> pursuing similar work." >> >> Jones later became one of F&P's greatest antagonists. The whole >> bloody fiasco probably set back CF 30 years. >> >> Sour grapes indeed. >> > > > > -- > Dr. Peter Gluck > Cluj, Romania > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
