Jones Beene wrote:
Moreover, any official at DoE who decides to be influenced by the
naysayers such as Park . . .
He isn't the only one. Unfortunately, many scientists will not even
glance at a proposal to do cold fusion. From my point of view, they
resemble the people at the SEC who refuse to glance at the reports
indicating that Madoff was a crook, but since there are so many of
them and since cold fusion has no credibility with them, I think
there is little likelihood anyone can get a grant application considered.
I suspect that Pelosi, in particular, will have an open-ear to
rooting out deliberate attempts to prevert the obvious intent of
this important legislation.
If anyone could get through to Pelosi with a letter suggesting that
she consider funding cold fusion, she would give the letter to a
scientific advisor. Dollars to doughnuts that advisor would glance at
the letter for a moment, see the words "cold fusion," crumple it up,
and throw it away.
I have spoken with dozens of leading scientists and this is how they
react. Not all of them of course -- we do have scattered supporters.
Unfortunately, most of these supporters have no guts and they will
not draft a letter to Pelosi or anyone else. A letter from a major
scientist might just get through. A letter from me would go nowhere
and would be a waste of time to write.
Here is an example of a recent letter from an influential scientist to me:
". . . I've seen some of the literature, including the papers
presented at last year's Amer. Chem. Socy' mtg. It is vast. My
impression is that the described results do not congeal around any
common mechanism, nor any precise way to replicate the results. There
may be something there. But maybe means, in my mind, probably not.
When Science or Nature, or a new, third panel from the Nat'l Acad of
Sciences say there is new physics involved, I'll get very interested.
For now it looks more like a hobby - just my opinion - than science. . . ."
Below is part of my response back. He said nothing in return, which
is what I expected. Such people never do respond.
". . . I know nothing about theory, but some theorists tell me that
the results that have been most widely replicated, such as helium in
the same ratio to the heat as plasma fusion, do congeal around common
mechanisms. . . .
[Regarding Nature and Science] the editors at these journals have
some peculiar and mistaken notions about cold fusion. I can send you
copies of letters from them to illustrate what I mean, but it is
unimportant. The important thing is that many scientific disputes
have arisen and the editors of these particular journals have not
always been on the winning side. . . .
[Regarding the "hobby" comment] . . . I think you should review the
literature more carefully before arriving at that conclusion -- or
any conclusion, positive or negative. Roughly $100 million has been
devoted to this research worldwide, and roughly 2,000 professional
scientists have published positive results. Some have devoted 20
years to the research. They include many distinguished people such as
the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, Gov't of India. That
does not sound like a hobby to me.
Bear in mind also that many of these results have been obtained at
high s/n ratios. It is unlikely that hundreds of experts in
calorimetry, x-ray detection, tritium detection, mass spectroscopy
and other well established disciplines have all been making gigantic
errors for 20 years, or that they are all lying. . . ."
- Jed
