From: Frank Close <FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk>
Subject:  The nature of Nature
Reply-To: Frank Close <FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 13:47:17 GMT

I am sorry that Larry Wall was offended by, or misunderstood, my posting on
the Brightsen - Mallove - Rothwell et al company and my comments about
the scam being played on gullible people who are selling up in expectation
of the second coming. It was intended as a serious warning and reminder.

Recall Larry that, from first hand experience, I have seen Gene Mallove
publish untruths on this net about David Worledge of EPRI and me; he has never
apologised let alone retracted these. Then we have received on several occasions
Jed Rothwell berating critics with claims that the Japanese are pouring in
vast amounts of dollars; figures which, as Dieter Britz has noticed, are 100
to 1000 times exaggerated relative to those in reports that have appeared
in the serious media.Now we have the floating of a company based on an
idiosyncratic version of nuclear physics, with some concepts that fly in the
face of experimental data, with flawed logic as Dick Blue has succinctly noted,
but apparently endorsed by scientists including a `former director' of Oak Ridge
and 15 others. Such endorsements hardly reduce the enthusiasm that some
gullible people have for emptying their pockets,(though Utah taxpayers, who
are still awaiting the dividends of an earlier investment, - though not one
associated with the present cast - are perhaps unlikely to be in the rush).

I knew of the following when I sent my previous message but could not publish
it then as it was embargoed.It has now appeared in Nature (p616, 20Aug) and I
abstract from it.

"Ten scientists cited as supporters of a nuclear theory that is the
foundation of a new cold fusion company are complaining that they do
not in fact support the theory and that their names have been used
without their knowledge"

    [Stuff deleted]

"Many physicists including some of Brightsen's alleged supporters have
dismissed [the] model". [Warren Buck is quoted in similar vein to the remarks
that he has already published on this net]. - - - - - - - - - - -
"Besides Buck, ten other "supporters" have repudiated the model.[So it seems
that the negative total is eleven rather than ten]. Of the
remaining five two could not be contacted and two - including retired Admmiral
Elmo Zumwalt, former chief of US Naval operations - are non-scientists".

I hope that this side of the affair and the reactions of professional
scientists on this net and elsewhere are advertised as widely as has been
the original press release. The good news perhaps is that further nonsensical
claims and attacks on the reputations of serious scientists such as Dr Huizenga
et al. emanating from the Mallove Rothwell quarter will now be recognised for
what they are. The bad news is that careful and sincere work in the wider
theatre of hydrogenated metals, some of which we hear about regularly on
this net, may be tainted by association.

There is a delightful quote at the end where it is claimed that "the press
release is accurate subject to interpretation".
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion