Hi Ed, I think you need to look at it from the university position. There have been some high profile cases of fraud in the sciences, perhaps the most press being devoted to the South Korean cloning scientist but I could name several more if you like. Academia is no different than the corporate world, in fact the two are quickly converging into one monolithic system. So given the history of the energy field, and the high profile fraud cases, can you understand why they might proceed to investigate? There is nothing irrational about this, given that both prestige and money are in play.
Let me turn the question around and ask you, what sort of due dilligence do you perform before you engage in a business venture? Do you independently verify the backgrounds of the business people and investors involved? Do you look at SEC filings and related financial information? It's been my experience that the reason frauds are so prevalent is that people greatly prefer the fraud to the honest man. They will fight tooth and nail to _not_ do the things I am suggesting above, in order that the promises made by the frauds remain "real". I do not know if Taleyarkhans experiments were successful, but given that we have seen reproduction of the basic effect here on Vo. some years ago ( Knuke... ) I suspect they might be. K. -----Original Message----- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 12:25 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: My take on the Taleyarkhan affair skip > > Ed Storms was baffled by the brouhaha in the press. He said: "Naturally > the detected amounts are wrong because the measurements are not > sensitive enough to see the expected ratio. What is the advantage to > anyone to mix these two phenomenon?" As I said, the advantage is that > you crush the opposition by associating them with cold fusion. But > Storms, in an uncharacteristically naïve moment, said he does not > understand why anyone would attack research in the newspapers in the > first place. "This situation makes no sense." If these other researchers > feel there is a problem with the experiment, they should discuss it by > e-mail, or publish papers showing an error. > > Here is my take on the situation: > > Think Zeitgeist. This is the kind of age we live in. This is what > science has come to. When people publish experimental results that > contradict theory, instead of debating the issues according to logic and > textbook knowledge, academic rivals spread false rumors, they threaten > lawsuits, they meddle, and they conduct witch hunt investigations to > derail the research and destroy careers. It worked with cold fusion, so > now they do it every time something new comes along. > > Taleyarkhan is being investigated for "academic misconduct" because a > theoretician thinks the experiment contradicts theory. It is now > officially "misconduct" to do experiments that challenge textbook > theory. Theoreticians have appointed themselves the high priests of > science, and an experimentalist who does anything to upset them is not > merely mistaken or foolish, as they said back in 1989. Now he is > unethical, and he must be "investigated" and crushed. > > Perhaps, as Schwinger predicted, this will be the death of science. > Science is at a low point, and no one can say when, or if, it will > recover. But I expect it will. Valuable, vital institutions seldom > collapse completely. Usually after they reach an dysfunctional extreme, > a crisis occurs, and then the problems are fixed. I still think something is odd about the approach taken by the press to bubble fusion. All fields of science have internal conflict and questions about the data. These issues are routinely resolved in the pages of scientific journals and in discussion between scientists. The press does not get involved and the general public never knows or cares about the issues. In recent times, the press has taken notice of emotional scientific issues such as stem cell research and global warming. General interest in these issues is understandable. However, why would bubble fusion get press attention and be of interest to anyone except the few people working on the subject? That is what seems strange to me. In addition, why would an important university such as Purdue risk its reputation for academic freedom by initiating a formal investigation of a minor conflict between professors? Rejection of cold fusion made sense because the phenomenon has the potential to disrupt science as well as industry. Bubble fusion has neither possibility. Of course, Jed might be right. Everyone is slowly being infected by irrationally by the examples we see in the world in general. Ed > > - Jed > > > >
