Refs. on CF, refs. on Wright Bros.
jedro...@delphi.com
for sticking his foot in his mouth, by asking me (of all people!):
"How often do you actually supply literature references as opposed to
spouting nonsense about 'reading the literature'"?
How often? Several times a day, some days. Good Grief! I myself *originate* a
large chunk of the material floating around. Go look at Logajan's home page,
or in CompuServe SCIENCE library 2, or read Fusion Facts or Infinite Energy.
Lokkit all them footnotes! (I confess, I grab a lot of them straight out of
the Fusion Facts diskette bibliography, which is the handiest thing since
sliced bread.) I recently uploaded my brief list of Recommended Publications
here. As it happens, I had accidentally deleted Mitch Swartz's magazine from
that list, so let me make amends:
Cold Fusion Times, by Mitchell Swartz, P.O. Box 81135, Wellesley Hills,
MA 02181 E-mail address: mi...@world.std.com
Shultz also whines:
"I suppose, if I were the countersuggestible type, I might ask why you
continued to state that the "media" refused to believe that the Wright
Brothers had flown or even that heavier-than-air flight was possible
*after* I posted quotations from the New York Times that said the exact
opposite.
Ha! You wish! "Countersuggestible" is the wrong word here. This is a case of
an auto-suggestible or hypnotic belief in one's own fantasies. You don't know
beans about the Wrights. Nothing! Heck, I am no expert, but at least I have
read six or eight popular books about them. For readers who actually do want
to learn something about the Wrights, here is a nice starter bibliography:
Fred Kelly, "The Wright Brothers," (New York: Harcourt, Brace 1943)
Harry Combs, "Kill Devil Hill," (Boston: Houghton Mifflin 1979)
Tom Crouch, "The Bishop's Boys," (New York: W. W. Norton 1990)
The Wrights were great scientists and wonderful people, well worth learning
about. I recommend the other books by Tom Crouch, who is chairman of the
department of aeronautics at the National Air & Space Museum of the
Smithsonian Institution. He is also a nice guy, as you see in the recent
interview in The Learning Channel biography of the Wrights. As for the press
versus the Wrights, here is one of my canned quotes showing how things stood
until the morning of September 3, 1908. This quote appears in most books about
them:
"If such sensational and tremendously important experiments are being
conducted in a not very remote part of the country, on a subject in
which everyone feels the most profound interest, is it possible to
believe that the enterprising American reporter, who, it is well known,
comes down the chimney when the door is locked in his face -- even when
he has to scale a fifteen-story skyscraper to do so -- would not have
ascertained all about them and published them broadcast long ago?"
"The Wright Aeroplane and its Fabled Performances" article Scientific
American, January 13, 1906 (three years after the Kitty Hawk flight)
Here is an interesting thought about the Kelly book. Apparently it is in the
public domain, so I am thinking of scanning it and uploading it into Internet,
because it is so delicious. Anyone who would like to assist in that is welcome
to contact me. (Proof reading an OCR'ed document is hard work.) In their 50
year retrospective column, the Scientific American recently took *yet another*
potshot at this book, because it showed what asses they were at the turn of
the century. Like the Bourbon Dynasty, the Sci. Am. editors learn nothing and
they forget nothing.
- Jed
Richard Schultz
>As for the press
>versus the Wrights, here is one of my canned quotes showing how things stood
>until the morning of September 3, 1908. This quote appears in most books about
>them:
You like to go on and on about how any theory has to be thrown out if
experiment disagrees with it. You might try applying the same philosophy
to your own postings. I posted quotes from the New York Times dating
from 1903. One reported without comment the Wright Brothers' intial
flight. One was an editorial criticizing Langley, not because heavier
than air flight was a priori impossible, but because his deficiencies as
an engineer were endangering the lives of the people trying to fly his
planes. To paraphrase a certain J. Rothwell, I don't know why these
historians ignore those New York Times articles and editorials, and I
don't much care. The simple fact is that the Wright Brothers' flight
was reported at the time it happened, and the fact is that the "media"
(at least as represented by the New York Times) did not reject the
idea that manned heavier-than-air flight was possible. There's an
interesting lesson to be learned here, but alas, I doubt that you will
ever see it.
--
Richard Schultz
"You don't even have a clue as to which clue you're missing." -- Miss Manners
Mitchell Jones
(Richard Schultz) wrote:
Richard, I really fail to see the point of your post. You seem to be
trying to dispute Jed's claim that major elements in the media and the
"scientific" community continued to deny that the Wright brothers had
flown for literally years after the fact. But your citations are
irrelevant. Do you really believe that the mere fact of two newspaper
articles failed to dispute the claim or to be openly skeptical about it
implies that the scientific community accepted the claim with open arms?
Surely you are aware that many of the initial articles written in response
to the Pons-Fleischmann announcement--i.e., in late March and early April,
1989--were also inclined to take the claim at face value. Would you cite
those articles as evidence that the media did not reject the
Pons-Fleischmann claims?
--Mitchell Jones
===========================================================
Barry Merriman
21cen...@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:
> Surely you are aware that many of the initial articles written in response
> to the Pons-Fleischmann announcement--i.e., in late March and early April,
> 1989--were also inclined to take the claim at face value. Would you cite
> those articles as evidence that the media did not reject the
> Pons-Fleischmann claims?
>
> --Mitchell Jones
>
Yes. Certainly the popular media in no way rejected the
P&F claims. Also, the scientific media was pretty accepting,
at first. Later, it polarized, with certain journals like Nature
wanting nothing further to do with CF, and others, like Fusion
Technology, still readily accepting papers.
The reason for these polarizations is not clear---i.e. to what
extent it represents personal biases of the editors, vs the
extent it represents the spotty record and nature of the field
itself. Fusion Technology has a long history of welcoming
speculative ideas in fusion, both in letters and articles, so
it is not surprising they picked up the ball. But it is also
understandable that more general purpose journals may not
want to report speculative ideas in fusion, as it is too far
off their topic and specialty.
--
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
bmer...@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
Barry Merriman
21cen...@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:
>
> Get it?
>
> --Mitchell Jones
>
I appreciate fully your original thesis that initial accepting
media articles don;t rule out the possibility of the media later
rejecting/negating some occurence. That is certainly true.
I was simply pointing out that this _did not_ happen with
could fusion:
The mainstream media has never rejected CF...it has just slowly
lost interest, due to a lack of accepted results. I was just
looking at a clipping from WSJ* reporting on the Maui CF
conference (1993) last night, and there was no tone of rejection
in the article. It was fairly balanced, pro and con.
As for the scientific media, it has polarized: most journals
ignore, and a few reject, CF, but at least one prominent and appropriate
venue---Fusion Tech---gives it ample attention.
SO: where is the uniform media rejection of CF? In your prior
post you mentioned the media rejection of CF as if it were
an obvious, accepted fact. If it is, Why does Britz maintain
an ever growing bibliography?
*(By the way, in that article, Pons says they were getting reliably
4 x out what they put in, at absolute excess heat levels of 100--200
watts. Given that that was about 2 yeasr ago, one wonders...)
Mitchell Jones
Merriman) wrote:
> --
> Barry Merriman
> UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
> UCLA Dept. of Math
> bmer...@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
Wow, talk about dropping context!
Barry, the issue here arises out of the dispute between Jed Rothwell and
Richard Schultz. Jed took the position that, for several years after the
original Wright brothers flight, most of the U.S. media and the
"scientific" establishment denied that the flight had ever taken place.
Richard attempted to rebut that position by citing a couple of newspaper
articles which, immediately after the flight, took the Wrights' claims at
face value. His point was apparently that those two articles proved that
Jed was wrong--i.e., that the mainstream media did *not* continue to deny
that the Wrights had flown for *years* after the flight had taken place. I
then pointed out the absurdity of Richard's argument by noting that a
number of the early articles that responded to the original
Pons-Fleischmann claims took those claims at face value and that, by
Richard Schultz's reasoning, that would indicate that the mainstream media
did not (and, by implication, do not) reject the Pons-Fleischmann claims.
How did you respond to this? You simply fixated on the fact that I used
the past tense ("did not") rather than the present tense ("do not"),
ignored the obvious implication of what I said, and proceeded to natter on
and on about "polarization" in the media, varying policies at different
journals, etc. In the process, you totally ignored, and apparently totally
missed, the point. Therefore, let me spell it out for you: Richard Schultz
cited two early articles that took the Wrights' claims at face value as
proof that, years after the fact, the majority of the media did *not* deny
the Wrights' claims. Therefore, if he were logically consistent, Richard
Schultz would also have to take the early articles which accepted the
Pons-Fleischmann claims at face value as proof that, today, the majority
of the media do not deny the Pons-Fleischmann claims!
Get it?
--Mitchell Jones
===========================================================
Mitchell Jones
Merriman) wrote:
[snip]
>
> I appreciate fully your original thesis that initial accepting
> media articles don;t rule out the possibility of the media later
> rejecting/negating some occurence. That is certainly true.
>
> I was simply pointing out that this _did not_ happen with
> could fusion:
>
> The mainstream media has never rejected CF...it has just slowly
> lost interest, due to a lack of accepted results. I was just
> looking at a clipping from WSJ* reporting on the Maui CF
> conference (1993) last night, and there was no tone of rejection
> in the article. It was fairly balanced, pro and con.
***{Frankly, Barry, the above paragraph left me open mouthed with
amazement--particularly the statement: "The mainstream media have never
rejected CF." It never entered my mind that any literate person, living in
the United States for the past 6 years and, presumably, conscious, would
dare to make such a statement. I have a folder in my file cabinet labeled
"CF Articles." That folder is about three inches thick, and contains maybe
1% of the articles on this subject that have appeared since March, 1989. I
made no attempt to select in favor of sarcastic or sneeringly hostile
articles, and yet, with the exception of articles appearing in the first
month after the original Pons-Fleischmann announcement and a sprinkling
thereafter, that is vastly disproportionately what the folder contains.
While I long ago stopped adding articles to that folder, I have not ceased
reading the mainstream press, and I have not perceived anything going on
there which could be characterized as even handed treatment of CF. The
vastly predominant attitude remains as before: doubt, derision, contempt,
and sarcastic rejection, when and if the subject is mentioned at all,
which for the most part it is not. That you, or anyone, could fail to be
aware of such an overwhelmingly obvious fact, I find to be quite mind
boggling. --Mitchell Jones}***
>
> As for the scientific media, it has polarized: most journals
> ignore, and a few reject, CF, but at least one prominent and appropriate
> venue---Fusion Tech---gives it ample attention.
>
> SO: where is the uniform media rejection of CF? In your prior
> post you mentioned the media rejection of CF as if it were
> an obvious, accepted fact. If it is, Why does Britz maintain
> an ever growing bibliography?
***{At this point, the explanation for your seemingly mind-boggling
statements emerges: you are playing word games, rather than engaging in
serious discourse. Rather than respond to the position actually taken by
your opponents--to wit: that the mainstream media have *overwhelmingly*
rejected CF--you choose to ignore their actual statements and pretend that
they have claimed that the rejection has been *uniform*--i.e., that every
single solitary article on this subject in the mainstream press has been
negative. Given your behavior, I suppose it would be appropriate, at this
point, for me to deliver forth a string of expletives, but I will resist
the temptation. Instead, I will simply ask you a direct question: do you
deny that the overwhelming majority of the mainstream and scientific media
have rejected CF? If you do, then I would suggest that your problems are
psychiatric, not intellectual, and that they should be addressed by a
therapist, not be me. If you do not deny it, then what in the hell is the
point of your post, as quoted above? Do you merely intend to irritate
people? Or do you really think that there are people out there ("hot
fusion" proponents excepted, of course) who are dumb enough to actually be
fooled by this kind of nonsense? --Mitchell Jones}***
>
>
>
>
>
> *(By the way, in that article, Pons says they were getting reliably
> 4 x out what they put in, at absolute excess heat levels of 100--200
> watts. Given that that was about 2 yeasr ago, one wonders...)
>
>
>
> --
> Barry Merriman
> UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
> UCLA Dept. of Math
> bmer...@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
===========================================================
Barry Merriman
21cen...@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:
> I have a folder in my file cabinet labeled
> "CF Articles." That folder is about three inches thick, and contains maybe
> 1% of the articles on this subject that have appeared since March, 1989. I
> made no attempt to select in favor of sarcastic or sneeringly hostile
> articles, and yet, with the exception of articles appearing in the first
> month after the original Pons-Fleischmann announcement and a sprinkling
> thereafter, that is vastly disproportionately what the folder contains.
Fine. I have no reason to disagree, as I have not been monitoring the
popular media. All I said is that the WSJ 1993 report on Maui conference
was not biased, and that that coinccides with my general impression
of what has appeared in the popular media (I never claimed that
impression is statistically accurate.)
> >
> > As for the scientific media, it has polarized: most journals
> > ignore, and a few reject, CF, but at least one prominent and appropriate
> > venue---Fusion Tech---gives it ample attention.
> >
> > SO: where is the uniform media rejection of CF? In your prior
> > post you mentioned the media rejection of CF as if it were
> > an obvious, accepted fact. If it is, Why does Britz maintain
> > an ever growing bibliography?
>
> ***{At this point, the explanation for your seemingly mind-boggling
> statements emerges: you are playing word games, rather than engaging in
> serious discourse. Rather than respond to the position actually taken by
> your opponents--to wit: that the mainstream media have *overwhelmingly*
> rejected CF
It is sort of amazing that if they *overwhelminghly* reject CF, that
the few articles I randomly stumble upon seem rather balanced. Maybe
we have different definitions of balanced.
>--you choose to ignore their actual statements and pretend that
> they have claimed that the rejection has been *uniform*--i.e., that every
> single solitary article on this subject in the mainstream press has been
> negative.
No---my definition of uniform corresponds to your definition of
overwhelming.
> Given your behavior, I suppose it would be appropriate, at this
> point, for me to deliver forth a string of expletives,
It would? Gee, I guess you hang out with a tough crowd.
Mitchell Jones
>
> ***{At this point, the explanation for your seemingly mind-boggling
> statements emerges: you are playing word games, rather than engaging in
> serious discourse. Rather than respond to the position actually taken by
> your opponents--to wit: that the mainstream media have *overwhelmingly*
It is sort of amazing that if they *overwhelminghly* reject CF, that
the few articles I randomly stumble upon seem rather balanced. Maybe
we have different definitions of balanced.
>--you choose to ignore their actual statements and pretend that
> they have claimed that the rejection has been *uniform*--i.e., that every
> single solitary article on this subject in the mainstream press has been
> negative.
No---my definition of uniform corresponds to your definition of
overwhelming.
>
> > Given your behavior, I suppose it would be appropriate, at this
> > point, for me to deliver forth a string of expletives,
>
> It would? Gee, I guess you hang out with a tough crowd.
>
***{As it happens, Barry, most of my friends are convicted murderers.
Seriously, my comment about the string of expletives was an instance of
hyperbole: conscious exaggeration to emphasize a point. In doing that, I
merely took a leaf from your book. After all, if you can substitute
"uniform" for "overwhelming," how can you complain when I exaggerate?
By the way, your response of "Gee, I guess you hang out with a tough
crowd" was what is known as "a perfect squelch." Congratulations!
--Mitchell Jones}***