Ms Begley, et.al., should keep this at hand: http://bertc.com/subfive/recipes/threecrows.htm
Terry On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > Someone with the pen name "nextbigfuture" who I believe is Brian Wang wrote > an excellent response to Sharon Begley's article in newsweek, which is here: > > http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/labnotes/archive/2009/03/23/cold-fusion-at-20-hope-springs-eternal.aspx > > I quote Wang in full: > > 20 years of ridicule and quashing this field and now the naysayers have > retreated to "this could be unusual new physics but won't be an energy > source". The quashing and ridicule was claiming that it was complete fraud > and pathological errors. Now it could be "unusual new physics". Even if it > was "only" "unusual new physics", that is definitely a worthy thing to > investigate. "Unusual new physics" is valid science. Public apologies and > mia culpas should be published if that is all this has been. But it is > "unusual new physics" with the chance of effects which could lead to nearly > unlimited clean energy. > > You have been hearing it for years and years and now it is turning out that > those who have ridiculed and suppressed it were wrong to varying degrees. It > should be funded to figure out exactly what is there. The ridicule should > stop. At the very least this has been proven to be valid science. String > theory has been valid as science and absorbed a lot of funding and many > thousands of researchers, but there has been no promise of any practical > result. > > If this does result in practical power, I will be among those who will > remind the Sharon Weinbergers of their role in surpressing valid science and > whatever benefits result from the truth finally being encovered. > > I already think that if you Sharon Begley are agreeing with the "level > headed participants" that this is "unusual new physics". Then if it is > unusual and new, then how do they know that it will not lead anywhere > interesting or useful? It is new and unusual so they don't know. It is a > prediction. Science is you make hypothesis and then you test it. You do not > pre-judge the research before you do it. You can choose not to research it > but once you say that it is unusual and new physics then it is valid and > worthy of study and not ridiculed as fraud and error. > >
