I wrote:
Some of the paper cannot be read.
I meant that some of the Acrobat files cannot be read, so I did not
index them. I don't know what's in 'em. Probably corrupted files.
Regarding the old editorials, #4 is here:
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/04/30/opinion/the-utah-fusion-circus.html?scp=1&sq=the%20utah%20fusion%20circus&st=cse
ENTIRE TEXT QUOTED:
April 30, 1989
The Utah Fusion Circus
For the last month, scientists around the world have been poised
between deepest doubt and highest hope. The University of Utah
claimed on March 23 that two researchers had learned how to fuse
atomic nuclei at room temperature. Yet despite a month of attempts to
repeat the Utah experiment, no one yet knows if the claim will
evaporate in smoke and recrimination or prove the first step to a
revolutionary new source of energy.
Conventional attempts to attain fusion rely on multimillion-dollar
machines working at enormous temperatures. So it was thrilling to
hear that Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, with simple equipment
and a mere $100,000 of their own money, had apparently attained
fusion at room temperature by passing electric current through heavy
water and a palladium electrode.
But the two apparently neglected a basic caution that scientists have
learned to impose on themselves for fear of being carried away - a
control experiment, like repeating the test with ordinary water
instead of heavy water. The University of Utah encouraged them to
hold a press conference when the report of their results had been
submitted to Nature, a leading scientific journal, but not yet
accepted by its editors. When the journal's referees raised
criticisms, the authors said they were too busy to respond and
withdrew the paper.
None of this means the claim is wrong, just that at present it
totally lacks the guarantees of reasonable credibility that attach to
research claims published in refereed journals. Given such nakedness,
the University of Utah should be embarrassed indeed that many
competent laboratories have been unable to repeat the
Pons-Fleischmann experiment. Two teams that at first reported having
done so later withdrew their claims. A rival group, at Brigham Young
University in Utah, has now published a similar claim, but the few
neutrons it reports as evidence of fusion may not greatly exceed
those that occur naturally.
The claims of cold fusion could still turn out to be correct. And
even if not, they have sparked scrutiny and theorizing that could
lead others to a fruitful attack. But it's equally possible that some
subtle experimental error or self-deception will prove to be the
explanation. It's just such errors that the procedural safeguards of
science are designed to catch. Imperfect though the safeguards are,
they have saved many from the pitfalls of wishful thinking and overenthusiasm.
Last week Chase Peterson, president of the University of Utah,
appeared before a House committee to drum up Federal funds. Asked how
much, he replied, ''The figure that comes to mind is $25 million.''
Given the present state of evidence for cold fusion, the Government
would do better to put the money on a horse.
For Mr. Pons and Mr. Fleischmann, the best bet is to disappear into
their laboratory and devise a clearly defined, well-understood
experiment that others can reproduce. Until they have that, they have
nothing. As for the University of Utah, it may now claim credit for
the artificial-heart horror show and the cold-fusion circus, two
milestones at least in the history of entertainment, if not of science.
- Jed
