http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/2010/03/acs_cold_fusion_calorimeter.html
Still skeptical, but you can tell she's beginning to think, Katherine
Sanderson notes this:
The discussion about excess heat in these reactions could be one of
semantics, says Michael McKubre, of SRI International in Menlo Park,
California. Presumably by this he is alluding to the controversial
nature of the phrase cold fusion. He asserts that LNER [sic] is no
longer an oddity. Others don't agree. One person who was once a huge
devotee of cold fusion, Steve Krivit, a journalist from the magazine
New Energy Times has changed his mind. Krivit didn't give a talk
this year but he prepared some thoughts about the session at the ACS
this year. You can read about Krivit's change of heart
<http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/RealityOfLENRMythologyColdFusion.shtml>here.
At the press conference, McKubre dodged a question about when
commercial applications of cold fusion might be realised. I think
avoiding that question was a sensible decision.
Notice how Krivit's presentation is being read. The negativity is
being picked up, the positive aspects, Krivit's assertions that LENR
is real, are not being seen. This is typical and to be expected.
Steve, you really screwed up, and based on? Some sort of idea that
synthesis of helium through ULM neutrons isn't fusion? Promoting the
idea that just about everyone in the field is wrong?
Sanderson can be reached, I suspect. The article began with a bad
sign: "... one of the greatest scandals of modern science when the
results turned out to be impossible to reproduce."
That was the common "wisdom," repeated as if it were a fact. Is it?
Surely, one would think, reporters would be interested in the actual
fact, not just in repeating what they can find asserted in previous
reports, quoting previous reports, quoting previous reports, based on
the failure of a handful of groups to reproduce in an impossibly
short time, in 1989?
