That explains why Ekstrom provided this link:
Cold fusion: A case study for scientific behavior
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/cold_fusion_01
This twelve page article uses a check-list of good scientific practice to
explain how Pons and Flieschman practiced bad science, while the rest of the
scientific community practiced good science.
On the last page it says:
"However, there was still a price to pay for this misconduct: time, energy, and
upwards of 100 million tax dollars were squandered on cold fusion."
I wonder where they got that figure!
Harry
>
>From: Alan Fletcher <a...@well.com>
>To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>Sent: Sat, May 21, 2011 9:55:11 PM
>Subject: [Vo]:Re: Ekstrom on a Swedish blog -- fuel -- Kullander -- Uppsala
>eCat
>after June
>
>
>Ekstrom: Crazy or not, you can sell a certain thing does not work. There
>have
>been many times. Rossi's agenda is simply to generate interest and support
>from
>those who believe in him or are too polite to tell the truth. Critics ignoring
>him completely. Mats Lewan on New Technologies was an absolutely perfect
>person:
>gullible, speaks Italian and writes in a newspaper that at least so far had a
>decent reputation ('ll see how it is when this is over).
>
>
>... [ google won't let me copy & paste ] on p3 he says:
>
>I still believe the energy balance is a scam and know at least one way to
bluff.
>
>
>
>
