The deal
Kurt Werle
findings in the fusion experiments.
Would some helpful soul out there in net.land please write a summary of
what has been going on?
Thanks,
Kurt
Ric C Helton
fusion in any other media, news channel or "real world" discussion.
Is this thing being covered at all by the general media? CNN's announcer
gave the impression by his attitude, that this was another "Yawn,
perpetual motion hoax" type affair..... Even so, you'd think the papers
would have *something* about it.
-Ric Helton R...@cup.portal.com
-Freestyle BBS 404/546-8256
J Storrs Hall
>Aside from a quick blurb on CNN, I have not heard *anything* wrt cold
>fusion in any other media, news channel or "real world" discussion.
I have personally seen stories in Science, Science News, the NY Times,
and Business Week, and a preprint of one of the papers.
...of course, you're seeing *this* message over the net, so you still
don't know what to think... :^)
--JoSH
Travis Lee Winfrey
>Aside from a quick blurb on CNN, I have not heard *anything* wrt cold
>fusion in any other media, news channel or "real world" discussion.
>Even so, you'd think the papers
>would have *something* about it.
It was prominently featured in the NY Times, as well as in the
Economist, a well-respected British news magazine. There was an NPR
correspondent on the net posting info not too long ago, so he'll
probably get a report out. All of these news sources are especially
well-read in the Washington community.
I think public discussion of room-temperature superconductivity took
at least as long -- and met an equally perplexed lay audience. You
have to keep in mind how technically minded the audience is on usenet.
t
Arpa: tra...@mojo.cs.columbia.edu Usenet: rutgers!columbia!travis
Joel Upchurch
> Aside from a quick blurb on CNN, I have not heard *anything* wrt cold
> fusion in any other media, news channel or "real world" discussion.
> Is this thing being covered at all by the general media?
The Wall Street Journal had a fairly long article on it in Monday's
paper. I was rather intrigued to a couple of references that were
made to copies of the paper on the cold fusion experiment being faxed
all over the world in a matter of hours. It seems to me that fax
machines may cause a fundemental change in the way that scientific
information is spread. Current computer networks have the limitation
that the person you want to send to may not be on the same net, or the
information may not be in machine readable form. But with fax machines,
you can send to practically anybody in a matter of minutes.
--
Joel Upchurch/Concurrent Computer Corp/2486 Sand Lake Rd/Orlando, FL 32809
jo...@peora.ccur.com {uiucuxc,hoptoad,petsd,ucf-cs}!peora!joel
Telephone: (407) 850-1040 Fax: (407) 857-0713
Walter Bright
<Aside from a quick blurb on CNN, I have not heard *anything* wrt cold
<fusion in any other media, news channel or "real world" discussion.
<Is this thing being covered at all by the general media? CNN's announcer
<gave the impression by his attitude, that this was another "Yawn,
<perpetual motion hoax" type affair..... Even so, you'd think the papers
<would have *something* about it.
The Wall Street Journal has had a number of well-informed articles about
it. I think that other papers don't cover it because they don't understand
the significance of it. It is very possibly the discovery of the century
(though only time will tell!). The usual media is only interested in stuff
like who is sleeping with who, Oprah's new diet plan, and the latest
movie star who's recovered from alcoholism.
Martin Francis Ryba
I saw a story on cold fusion on the CBS Evening News (mainstream
enough?) with a noticeably uncomfortable Dan Rather *very carefully*
reading a short script (~1 min.) with a lame piece of artwork in the
background. It has gotten some press; actually, about all it currently
deserves/desires at the moment. Give the thousands of groups around the
world the chance to *really* verify this claim without worrying about
patents/press releases before we really go nutso.
The story I referred to was broadcast ~1 week ago.
Marty Ryba (slave physics grad student)
They don't care if I exist, let alone what my opinions are!
James_J_...@cup.portal.com
<Aside from a quick blurb on CNN, I have not heard *anything* wrt cold
<fusion in any other media, news channel or "real world" discussion.
<Is this thing being covered at all by the general media? CNN's announcer
<gave the impression by his attitude, that this was another "Yawn,
<perpetual motion hoax" type affair..... Even so, you'd think the papers
<would have *something* about it.
There have been stories daily in both of the major Salt Lake City, Utah,
newspapers (usually on the front page) since the initial announcement on
March 23, 1989. Of course, being close to the source does tend to make
things a bit more "newsworthy." The added intrigue of "BYU vs U of U" has
also been the source of quite a few articles. :-)
Jim Kowalczyk
Kowa...@chemistry.utah.edu
Sundaresan Chandrashekhar
>Pons was on Science Journal tonight. I have no idea what time this
>normally shows, as I get it off the PBS feed on my satelitte dish. They
>gave him about 20 minutes (I missed half of it). The panel seemed to be
>skeptical about it all.
>
>Last week a MIT professor barely missed calling Pons a liar on the same
>show.
>--
>lizzy
>som...@njin.pilot.net
A lot of scepticism is being openly expressed in the media. In the LA times
(April 6, Metro section), there was an article by a Prof. H.W.Lewis of UC at Santa Barbara,
in which he states unequivocally that the Utah team did not achieve cold fusion. According
to him,
" The fusion process produces energetic radiation ( that is where the energy comes
from), and half the time an energetic neutron. If the Utah scientists had really
produced as much as a watt of power through fusion, they would have been bathed in
a deadly beam of neutrons that fried them to a crisp. ... That they lived to hold
their press conference is unambiguous proof that they did not produce any noticeable
amount of power through cold fusion. "
He goes on to make some rather harsh remarks to the effect that the experiments of F&P,
and others of the kind, are "distractions [that] impair our will to attack the hard jobs".
___________________
chandra.
Ric C Helton
> It seems to me that fax
>achines may cause a fundemental change in the way that scientific
>nformation is spread. Current computer networks have the limitation
>hat the person you want to send to may not be on the same net, or the
>nformation may not be in machine readable form. But with fax machines,
>ou can send to practically anybody in a matter of minutes.
...provided they have a compatible fax machine. I think right
now there are more computer network users than fax machine
owners. But you are right, both computer networks *and* fax
machine technology (really the same telecomm electronics) are
changing the way any information in our society/world is being
distributed.
Dave Mack
Do you have any idea what this looks like in an 80-column window? Arrgh!
I've reformatted it to prevent eye burnout.
>
> A lot of scepticism is being openly expressed in the media.
> In the LA times (April 6, Metro section), there was an article by
> a Prof. H.W.Lewis of UC at Santa Barbara, in which he states
> unequivocally that the Utah team did not achieve cold fusion. According
> to him, " The fusion process produces energetic radiation ( that is
> where the energy comes from), and half the time an energetic neutron.
> If the Utah scientists had really produced as much as a watt of power
> through fusion, they would have been bathed in a deadly beam of neutrons
> that fried them to a crisp. ... That they lived to hold their press
> conference is unambiguous proof that they did not produce any noticeable
> amount of power through cold fusion. "
> He goes on to make some rather harsh remarks to the effect that the
> experiments of F&P, and others of the kind, are "distractions [that]
> impair our will to attack the hard jobs".
If this is an accurate quote, it's rather amazing. Lewis is calling
Pons and Fleishman not only liars, but inept as well. If doesn't appear as if
Prof. Lewis knows anything at all about nuclear technology - the language
used here is that of the anti-nuclear demagogue, not a scientist.
I would be marginally interested in knowing what Prof. H. W. Lewis ( UC
Santa Barbara) is a professor of, if anything. And if it should turn out
to be physics, I wonder whether or not he's working on grants involving
other fusion technologies. The last quoted sentence certainly seems to
indicate a hidden agenda. I can easily imagine how scientists who have
been working on inertial and magnetic confinement since Project Sherwood
might feel about the P&F claims, but issuing a statement like this to
the popular press is extremely unprofessional.
--
Dave Mack
Dr. Michael M. Cohen
-If this is an accurate quote, it's rather amazing. Lewis is calling
-Pons and Fleishman not only liars, but inept as well. If doesn't appear as if
-Prof. Lewis knows anything at all about nuclear technology - the language
-used here is that of the anti-nuclear demagogue, not a scientist.
-
-I would be marginally interested in knowing what Prof. H. W. Lewis ( UC
-Santa Barbara) is a professor of, if anything. And if it should turn out
-to be physics, I wonder whether or not he's working on grants involving
-other fusion technologies. The last quoted sentence certainly seems to
According to the UC Directory:
LEWIS, Harold W. Professor, Physics, 5125 Broida Hall (SB) 2670,3888
HLE...@SBITP.BITNET, HLE...@SBPHY.UCSB.EDU