Re: Media tracking of Bubble Fusion Story
Sorry previous message went out a little on the unripe side... ...did you (or the media) pick up on that little detail ?? ...should have been a little clearer on the identity of another possible "bad apple" ... or is that "bad orange" ... "Mr. Naranjo [the whistle blower] said that the pattern of particles seen in the experiment much more closely matched that given off by californium, a radioactive element that is used in Dr. Taleyarkhan's laboratory." The press ran this blurb almost without question, even though Mr. Naranjo is an undergrad who is working with Putterman on a competing device and even though this new Taleyarkhan report was extremely embarrassing to Putterman, due to his BBC 'slime job'... now totally discredited. Not to mention the "pattern of particles" [sic] does NOT match californium, but I guess the media was a bit to lazy to check with someone other than an undergrad working on a competing project It should be noted that "With $350,000 from the Defense Department, Seth J. Putterman, a professor of physics at U.C.L.A. is the thesis adviser to Mr. Naranjo," and 'reportedly' has tried to build a replica of Dr. Taleyarkhan's apparatus but has not seen any signs of fusion, YET he has his own competing LENR device which he claims does work ... and he is trying to distance himself from Taleyarkhan's sonofusion device... which BTW is far more robust, than Putterman's and has far greater potential to commercialize. Academic jealousy is slimier than anything on the morning soap operas... Jones
Re: Media tracking of Bubble Fusion Story
Another huge problem with the bulk of media coverage on this story is that even if Taleyarkhan or someone else turns out to be a "bad apple" in terms of credibility, which may indded be the 'proximate' case... ...they failed to look at the numerous other work in the field - some of it superior in a number of ways - PLUS - just like the case with the BBC using Putterman, as their agent-provocateur, who it turned-out was also a likely jealous-suitor with a "competing" device (LENR but claimed to "really" be hot fusion) this new whistle blower has one too ... ...did you (or the media) pick up on that little detail ?? Jones
Re: Media tracking of Bubble Fusion Story
Hi Richard... nice hearing from you. I'm the new guy on the Vortex block. I've been in communication with Steve Krivit, and a few weeks ago had the pleasure of meeting him in person, when I was in California. He put me in touch with Vortex. I'm not the most patient of people, and I've been hanging around "Cold Fusion" ever since it started. When I saw the very nasty (and very closed-minded) reaction to what these two Chem Eng professors had come up with, I was immediately incensed to the point where I smelled several rats. I'm a Chemical Engineer myself, and I've never met a professor who made some of the elementary mistakes thrown at the media by the professional debunkers. Steve Krivit is exactly what Cold Fusion (I call it LENR to prevent the usual automatic reaction) needs. My tack - and Steve knows this - is that, as I said in my posting, we need solid applications asap, even if they don't yet operate at the theoretical peak efficiency. Why? Because as with the automobile and all major inventions - even the humble light bulb - it's ordinary people who make the ultimate decision to accept or not, and the only way to get ordinary people involved is to offer them the prospect of something extremely attractive... preferably before some government naysayer enacts some legal obstacle to its use, which is quite likely these days. Unfortunately, the average person knows very little about nuclear physics, so the only alternative, as I see it, is to show them a working unit. Philip. At 08:01 AM 3/9/2006 -0600, you wrote: Winestone wrote.. >Like I tell people all the time; the ONLY way to prove that any of the Low Energy Nuclear Reactions actually work in a practical sense, is to quickly incorporate each into a simple prototype working device. Scientists - especially the closed-minded (non-intuitive) ones - can spend endless hours debating how many angels can dance on a pinhead, but when an actual physical device is operating continuously according to what looks like a new paradigm, it's very difficult to argue that the reason for the original results of the bench study was that the test tube was dirty. Howdy Philip, The tides of time have a way of "flushing" the estuaries of science. Overlooked in the reports are the undercurrents of interest by the science community. Steven Krivit of New Energy Times again demonstrates integrity, class and style with his factual reporting and analysis by listing the chronology of the " breaking" stories. The accelerating interest in new energy research is the " story". The trials and tribulations of one scientist is irrelevant. Let facts be submitted to a candid world. We can handle the facts. Richard
Re: Media tracking of Bubble Fusion Story
Winestone wrote.. >Like I tell people all the time; the ONLY way to prove that any of the Low Energy Nuclear Reactions actually work in a practical sense, is to quickly incorporate each into a simple prototype working device. Scientists - especially the closed-minded (non-intuitive) ones - can spend endless hours debating how many angels can dance on a pinhead, but when an actual physical device is operating continuously according to what looks like a new paradigm, it's very difficult to argue that the reason for the original results of the bench study was that the test tube was dirty. Howdy Philip, The tides of time have a way of "flushing" the estuaries of science. Overlooked in the reports are the undercurrents of interest by the science community. Steven Krivit of New Energy Times again demonstrates integrity, class and style with his factual reporting and analysis by listing the chronology of the " breaking" stories. The accelerating interest in new energy research is the " story". The trials and tribulations of one scientist is irrelevant. Let facts be submitted to a candid world. We can handle the facts. Richard
Re: Media tracking of Bubble Fusion Story
Like I tell people all the time; the ONLY way to prove that any of the Low Energy Nuclear Reactions actually work in a practical sense, is to quickly incorporate each into a simple prototype working device. Scientists - especially the closed-minded (non-intuitive) ones - can spend endless hours debating how many angels can dance on a pinhead, but when an actual physical device is operating continuously according to what looks like a new paradigm, it's very difficult to argue that the reason for the original results of the bench study was that the test tube was dirty. At 02:37 AM 3/9/2006 -0800, you wrote: The New York Times breaks a preview of the main story 23 hours ago University to Investigate Fusion Study http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/08/science/08fusion.html Nature breaks the full story with a 4-part splash 14 hours ago. A sound investment? http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060306/full/060306-4.html Bubble fusion: silencing the hype http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060306/full/060306-1.html Is bubble fusion simply hot air? http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060306/full/060306-2.html Bubble bursts for table-top fusion http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060306/full/060306-3.html Reuters runs this erroneous lead 13 hours ago, based on the Nature story, and starts to call it cold fusion: University checks "bubble fusion" fraud claim WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Purdue University is investigating complaints about a scientist who claimed to have achieved "cold fusion" using sound waves to make bubbles in a test tube, the university said on Wednesday. http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyID=2006-03-08T140246Z_01_N0836255_RTRIDST_0_SCIENCE-SCIENCE-FUSION-DC.XML Then, 11 hours ago, CNN repackages the same Reuters story and calls it cold fusion in the title Purdue probes 'cold fusion' fraud claim http://edition.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/03/08/fusion.probe.reut/ UPI picked up the story 7 hours ago, apparently based off the NYT story. http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060308-112608-2313r Purdue investigates professor's research AP does their own original reporting and puts their story out 4 hours ago: Purdue probes 'tabletop fusion' study http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/living/health/14050194.htm At about 23 hours after the first NYT story broke, Google News reports that this story has appeared in 54 news outlets. Based on a very quick analysis, only four outlets apparently have done original reporting on this story and everyone else is ripping and reading it. 2 of the 3 wire services apparently did not do original reporting. DAY 2 Washington Post (Perhaps the most best report so far) T+24hrs EST Tabletop Fusion' Research Under Review http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/08/AR2006030802052.html NYT does follow-up story at T+24hrs EST Scientist Says He Stands by Fusion Data http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/09/science/09fusion.html LA Times has several direct and indirect allegations of fraud from Suslick and Putterman. Perhaps the most slanderous and inaccurate article so far. T+25hrs College Reviews Physicist's Tabletop Fusion Claims http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-sci-fusion9mar09,1,2142402.story?coll=la-news-a_section Indianapolis Star T+25hrs Purdue scientist is under scrutiny http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060309/NEWS01/603090431/1006/NEWS01 Boston Globe reprints Reuters story, reuses CNN title T+25hrs Purdue investigates scientist over 'cold fusion' claims http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/03/09/purdue_investigates_scientist_over_cold_fusion_claims/ Google News reports a total of 67 stories at T+30hrs EST
