From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Subject: Re: Terry's Two Bits
Originator: terry@aslws01
Organization: Me.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 18:23:02 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.112802.9057@michael.apple.com>
ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:

> Mr. Rothwell seems to me to have been rather well spoken in describing
> the attacks and rude manners displayed here.

Mr. Rothwell is very well spoken.  Rudeness?  Try a grep function for ad
hominem words in both Mr. Rothwell's, and my own archives of postings into
this group.  And don't forget to try the same for Dr. Jones and Dr. Morrison,
two of the people whom he described as rude.  See who wins, especially
on postings since the Nagoya conference.  (I figure I'll come in second.)

> I have no idea if the wire was fraud or folly...

Nothing I've seen described about Dr. Notoya's experiment indicates any fraud.

Quite the contrary -- I think Dr. Notoya had and has nothing but the best
intentions, and I am very much in agreement with the suggestion earlier
today that her experiment would benefit greatly from the expertise of some-
one like Tom Droege who is has some solid experience in making high quality
heat measurements, and who is sincerely committed searching for real heat
production effects.  If Dr. Notoya's results are reproducible, Tom Droege
could add a lot more experimental clout to her results than Mr. Rothwell's
words-only defenses will ever accomplish.

By the way, I truly do not think the kind of "ignore any problems, she's
right, she's right!" approach that Mr. Rothwell has taken in defending
Dr. Notoya is going to be of much benefit to her either experimently or
careerwise.  Perhaps Dr. Notoya or some of her co-workers could speak for
themselves on this group?  Can anyone out there other than Mr. Rothwell
provide direct comments from her or her co-workers?

I personally found some of what she has been doing very interesting, and
would like to see futher discussion -- but hopefully with fewer comments
about people and more comments about data.

> but Occams Razor says it was a simple mistake...

I concur.

> No, 'We' don't.  I don't want to hear a thing about LaRouche.  Period.
> I want to hear about experiments done that show the state of research
> into cold fusion and don't give a tinkers damn about LaRouche.

Alas, when figures like $8 billion dollars and the reputations of large
companies are involved, I'm afraid that certain aspects of this little
affair have gone outside of "simple" science.  It is for precisely this
reason that I'm adamant that Mr. Rothwell *should* define his associations
or lack thereof with any special interest groups, especially ones like the
LaRouche organization that are noted for often obscure (but adamantly held)
political agendas.

Barring his comments, my default assumption is (and has been) that he
is *not* associated with the LaRouche organization.  But if he is, I
think he should be frank and open about it, because it *is* an important
data point for any person or organization who has sunk money into this.

This is one reason why I very much prefer the low-profile approach taken
by folks like Tom Droege.  I don't give lickety-split what political
views he has, because he has been so scrupulously careful to focus only
on actual results, and because he has been so consistent in bringing up
and openly discussing experimental problems.

> Can we ... get back to some science now?

Several folks have been trying hard to do that.  Look at the comments of
Tom Droege and Dr. Steve Jones, both of whom are noted *advocates* of
their being something interesting going on in palladium hydrides (although
not necessarily heat).  READ their comments.  Look at the conservative tone
they have used, and their emphasis on facts, measurements, and the need to
eliminate uncertainties.

I'm a bad example, alas.  Silly me, after about the fifth or sixth posting
ripping in to someone I know or respect, I get ticked off.  Sigh.

				Cheers,
				Terry Bollinger
				(Speaking only for myself)