I keep on saying it: Bring CF to the people - both investors and users - emphatically not the government. Once a decent application is created, advertised and sold, the people will know what to do with it. Edison and Ford understood that.
Keep good ideas away from the government teat. P. ----- Original Message ---- From: Jed Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 5:24:52 PM Subject: [Vo]:Should Congress support cold fusion? I vote no! Here is part of a message I just sent to some friends. . . . This may sound strange coming from me, but I think it is unreasonable for us to expect a congressman or government official to support cold fusion research. In fact, I think it would be irresponsible for a government official to lend support to it. As long as nearly all mainstream scientists vociferously oppose cold fusion, and as long as they consider it no better than creationism, I do not think Congress should overrule them. After all, if cold fusion really did resemble creationism or faith healing, we would not want a Congressman to step in and promote it over the objections of experts. In other words, the failure here is in the scientific community, not in the national political leadership. People such as Huizenga, Park and the editor of the Scientific American have acted unethically and unprofessionally. They should be held responsible. The people at the DoE who reneged on their promise should be held responsible. (See http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LENRCANRthedoelies.pdf) They -- not elected officials -- are to blame. Conversely, I think the public should bring pressure on the Congress and on places like the APS to fund cold fusion. The public should tell Robert Park to shut up. This is a subtle distinction: Congress is not to blame, but if the people tell them to fix the problem, they should turn around and order the DoE to fund cold fusion. The fire department is not to blame when a fire breaks out, but after you call 911 and tell them about it, they should come and put it out. Think about a systematic failure in some other institution. For example, it is likely that fast food restaurants are contributing to obesity. That is a problem with the food industry, not with the Congress, although it is caused in part by agricultural subsidies. Perhaps Congress should do something about this, but only if the public demands action. Suppose the public is satisfied with the quality of fast food. Or suppose it feels that fast food restaurants have the right to serve anything they want despite the effects on public health. Or that obesity is a personal problem rather than a public-health issue. These arguments have merit, and if that is the public perception, we should honor it and do nothing about fast-food obesity. Political leaders and nutrition researchers should present their best case, but in the end, the voters decide the agenda. If U.S. voters agree that cold fusion should not be publicly funded, I reluctantly go along with their decision. I think they have been deceived by malicious opponents, but people have a right to be deceived. You might argue that 0.1% of scientists and the voting public support cold fusion research, so it would be fair to allocate 0.1% of the energy research budget for this purpose. But, by the same standard, I suppose 1% of the public believes in perpetual motion machines such as the one Joe Newman claims he has. I would not want to see the government spend research money on that sort of thing. Some polls indicate that half of the public believes in creationism instead of evolution, but I would not want to see government money spent on creationism. (I suspect these polls exaggerate the support for creationism.) Public funding for cold fusion is a complicated issue, but as I said in the introduction to the book, in the end it is up to the public. Private funding by individuals, universities or corporations is a simple issue. They should fund this research as much as they want to! - Jed
