Chris Tinsley seems like an insightful observer. According to an earlier remark, he passed away at some point. It would be nice to have a few details about him. I'm sure there are a number of people who have been following cold fusion that someone only starting to read this list will not know about. I've read about Gene Mallove and a handful of other people, but I'm sure there were many others.
It's been twenty three years since the Pons and Fleischmann press conference. It's frustrating to read Tinsley's optimism, on one hand, and to see the only incremental progress since then, on the other. I guess it's a lesson that even very promising developments cannot be rushed, especially when there is political opposition. The essays from Tinsley were written in 1993 and 1994, which must have seemed like a long time after the initial announcement. From today's perspective, they were not very far after it. Recently I skimmed through the vortex archives. It was interesting reading. Some of you have been on this list for a long time. There are a few others who are well-known but no longer participate. The archives go back to 2004 -- was this just when the archiving began? I think the list itself is a lot older than that. Is there a writeup of the history somewhere that goes into more detail than the overview page? I realize that this list hasn't been focused solely on cold fusion, but cold fusion has been an important topic. In my mind, the history of cold fusion goes beyond the research and researchers. There are a whole host of amateurs and hobbyists that have supported it and cheered it on. It's tempting to think that this is something unusual about cold fusion -- that in contrast to many recent scientific discoveries, the hobbyists have played a critical role in keeping the research alive and even advancing it. When an adequate history of the early days of the field is written -- think of something along the lines of "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" -- it will no doubt need to go into some of these details. Eric On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > Here's another: > > > > The 'New Scientist' article of May 1, 1993 > > Christopher Tinsley > > 'New Scientist', for those who don't know it, is a British science > magazine. In addition to articles by scientists and science journalists it > also has news, reviews, and various comment columns. Judging by all the job > advertisements, it is read by many scientists. I enjoy it each week. > > Its reporting of cold fusion largely ended with articles by Profs Close > and Bockris arguing their cases in January 1991. Since then, it has made > only passing references to the subject, except to report the accident at > SRI and the NTT announcement in October 1992. In the latter case it took > the usual line, obtaining comments from a notable opponent of cold fusion > who had clearly not read the paper in question. There was a laughing > comment on the cold fusion testimony to Congress. But although ignorance is > rather inexcusable in science journalism, a truly charitable person might > conclude that the magazine's ignorance might explain their reporting. > > So it was with alarm that I read their account of Fleischmann and Pons' > Physics Letters A paper. The magazine had obviously got a preprint, since > they reproduced a graph from the paper. It was quite clear from the article > that the two scientists were publishing nothing more than a weakened > version of their original paper. Although it was mentioned that the paper > claimed that the cathode gave more power per volume than does a fission > plant's fuel rod, much play was made of the actual result of a mere two > watts per cubic centimetre. This gave Morrison of CERN and Williams of > Harwell a marvellous opportunity to rubbish the work as marginal, and > within the bounds of error. Most of the article seemed to consist of such > comments. Well, it sure fooled me! > > The next day, comparing the article with the actual paper, it was possible > to see that the graph was just about the only point of contact between the > article and the paper. The paper had another graph on the same page, but > this one showed not two but about twenty watts per cubic centimetre, rising > to nearly four thousand watts per cubic centimeter as the water in the > flask started to boil. After a few minutes the flask had boiled dry, the > high-temperature plastic supports in the flask had melted and the cell > remained - without input power - at about boiling point for about three > hours. The article had mentioned none of this. In the same issue, the > editor had written of the importance of accuracy in science journalism, > attacking two British newspapers. To discuss properly the errors and > distortions in the article would require several pages. It would seem > impossible that these could all be due to honest error. The question now is > not so much how many of the four people involved - the writer, the editor > and the two quoted sources - were aware of the discrepancies, but why the > article took the form it did. We know from the graph that someone had a > copy of at least a part of the paper, so it is reasonable to suppose that > this person at least was aware of what was in the rest of it. But what > could this person hope to gain from the article's publication? Even in the > short term, there will be letters of protest and any interested person will > compare the paper with the article and draw his own conclusions. A further > negative outcome for opponents of cold fusion will be that their > credibility will be badly damaged by the fact that they will inevitably be > seen as being in a camp shared by such a person, and be regarded as guilty > by association. > > For supporters of cold fusion, on the other hand, it is a happy time. Not > only do we have the extraordinary paper itself, but the paper has finally > revealed the true colours of the opposition. To mix a metaphor, it has > flushed them out of the woodwork. And perhaps down the pan. > >
