I'm aware of that history with Jones but BYU and UofU don't have a monopoly on science by press conference. I stand by my assertion that if the exact same inter-institutional competition had led an Ivy League institution to hold such a press conference, we'd probably be driving around CF powered cars today.
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]>wrote: > James, if you read further you will discover Fleischmann had no say in > when and where the news conference was held. This was forced on them by the > U of U that wanted to get credit. Fleischmann wanted to get better data > before they went public but Jones forced his hand. If you want to blame > someone, I suggest you focus on Jones. Jones thought he had discovered a > new phenomenon and he was trying to get credit, which U of U did not want > BYU to get. It turns out Jones discovered nothing except fractofusion, and > then he spent his time trashing Fleischmann. > > Ed > > On Dec 23, 2013, at 4:06 PM, James Bowery wrote: > > I don't recall exactly Beaudette's breakdown of "assignment of blame" but > I do recall being rather peeved that it was not admitted candidly by > Beaudette that if Fleischmann had had the good sense to partner up with > someone in the Ivy League (including CalTech and Stanford of course) or the > University of Chicago, the exact same press conference could have been held > and there would have been an immediate DoE crash program. > > Basically the degree system has defaulted into a peerage granting life > patents of nobility -- and the royal bloodlines must be defended at all > costs -- even millions dead as collateral damage. > > > On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Alain Sepeda <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> the quote about the 4 articles is in chapter one >>> >> >> Thanks. >> >> >> >>> The first report came in 1989 (N. S. Lewis). It dismissed the Utah claim >>> for anomalous power on grounds of faulty laboratory technique. >>> >> >> Lewis, N.S., et al., Searches for low-temperature nuclear fusion of >> deuterium in palladium. Nature (London), 1989. 340(6234): p. 525 >> >> Well, it was more a report on Lewis' own work. It was a pretty good paper >> except of the conclusion. I learned a lot from it. It had a lot of valid >> information about what can go wrong with calorimetry. I can't upload it, >> but I wrote about it here, and you can get the gist of it: >> >> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJhownaturer.pdf >> >> >> >> >>> A second review was produced in 1991 (W. N. Hansen) that strongly >>> supported the claim. >>> >> >> Hansen, W.N. Report to the Utah State Fusion/Energy Council on the >> Analysis of Selected Pons Fleischmann Calorimetric Data. in Second Annual >> Conference on Cold Fusion, "The Science of Cold Fusion". 1991. Como, Italy: >> Societa Italiana di Fisica, Bologna, Italy Y HansenWNreporttoth. >> >> >> >>> An extensive review completed in 1992 (R. H. Wilson) was highly >>> critical though not conclusive. >>> >> >> Wilson, R.H., et al., Analysis of experiments on the calorimetry of >> LiOD-D2O electrochemical cells. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1992. 332: p. 1 >> >> Beaudette discussed this in detail in a chapter at the end of the book. >> >> >> But it did recognize the existence of anomalous power, which carried the >>> implication that the Lewis dismissal was mistaken. A fourth review was >>> produced in 1994 (D. R. O. Morrison) which was itself unsatisfactory. >>> >> >> I guess this refers to: >> >> Morrison, D.R.O., Comments on claims of excess enthalpy by Fleischmann >> and Pons using simple cells made to boil. Phys. Lett. A, 1994. 185: p. 498 >> >> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf >> >> - Jed >> >> > >
