From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Subject: RE: Britz Reveals A Fraud; is revealed as Ruthless Hyena
Reply-To: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 15:23:41 GMT


Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>

>Dieter Britz writes:
>...
>She said that, I translated it and said it right here, and you ignored me,
>because you are crank and a fool, I suppose. What on earth do you think she
>could accomplish by setting up a 'false front?' It would last until the
>afternoon of December 3rd. It is nuts! She would simply destroy her career and
>become a laughingstock. And how on earth would she get people like Mizuno and
>her boss Enyo to go along with it? Mizuno was quoted in the national
>newspapers and on television saying that he had observed he laboratory
>experiments, and they were solid and reliable. Why would *he* want to destroy
>himself? What is the motive?

I don't know, mate; suppose you tell me?

>As to WHY a fine wire was used, she said it was the first thing at hand on her
>workbench, and she did not think twice about it. She had no other reason for
>using it. You are wrong, it was no trouble to work with. She disassembled both

For one thing, I still say wire like that doesn't just appear at your elbow;
secondly, if one wanted to set up a convincing demo, one would want to use
thick wire on both sides. I remain unconvinced. The only thing that speaks
against the PR-demo theory is that this would be too easy to spot (as it
indeed was), for it to have been done deliberately. It still invalidates the
demo, though. I do hope someone will tell us what they see at MIT.

>she told me, you can go jump into a lake.
Do it!

>As for you, Dieter, for years, you have been pretending that you are an
>objective, fair minded, impartial observer. The man we trust to read the
>literature and give us a "balanced view." Now we see you crawl out from under
>your rock and accuse someone of committing deliberate fraud. You have only the
>...
>*not* trusting, and therefore not trustworthy. It has all been a masquerade,
>you are part of the pack of ruthless hyenas who will attack any cold fusion
>scientist who dares to make any important claim, like the gang that drove Pons
>and Fleischmann out of the country, and into the arms of Toyota Motor Company.
>You are revealed yourself as a fraud.

Frothing a little, aren't we? And it was just a short time ago, your associate
Mallove was referring to me as "world renowned cold fusion skeptic". I didn't
ask for that, of course, but it was good enough for Mallove to keep quoting
what I said about his book. And "gang"? What gang?

>I am through with you, and I will not be
>baited into saying anything more. I could not "allay your suspicions" in 100
>years, because they are based on nothing more than your own unyielding,
>irrational lack of imagination and lack of trust in your fellow scientists.

I am glad to read this, at least - no more floods of verbiage to wade through.
Let me, however, straighten you out on one point: my objectivity and
impartiality. When I see a carefully done quality experiment that comes out
with thumbs up for cold fusion, I acknowledge it, as I have done, for example,
for the "Huggins" work, among others (my little "quality positives" list).
I have never concealed the fact that I am very skeptical of cold fusion, but
can be convinced by solid evidence. When however, confronted with shoddy work,
which then gets defended tooth and nail with ad hoc new "theories" or a flood
of protest and ridiculous accusations, I conclude - as anyone would - that
this is plain merde. The reasons I keep on with the bibliography are that
(1) this field is of great science-historical/sociological interest, and
(2) there might just be an effect here, be it fusion or whatever, that has so
so far escaped us; I have always tended towards the fractofusion scenario, and
still do. You may recall (when you stop frothing) that I have even made some
positive suggestions for how to optimise the effect, if there be one, such as
to raise the LiOD concentration, to use metals that do NOT copiously absorb
deuterium, etc. I have never driven anybody out from anywhere, and in fact
noone has been driven out of cold fusion. For Fleischmann and Pons, the money
simply ran out; that's not the same as being driven out.
 I agree, Jed, you could not allay my suspicions in a hundred years; but a
real scientist, coming up with real evidence, would convince me in no time.

Once again, I will make my prediction: cold fusion, as far as the scientific
community as a whole is concerned, will most likely be dead by the end of this
year. There will remain a small group of people, who for one reason or other
- mainly money, in the form of research grants or sale of company shares -
will keep on with it; these will even be able to publish in uncritical
journals like Fusion Technology, but on the whole, the thing will be dead.
I will publically take all this back the minute I see really good evidence,
produced repeatedly (as the Huggins work was not), and not pushed by hoopla
PR, and defended with post-hoc caveats and unmannered personal attacks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion