Re: Tech: Wired article about cold fusion
Sun, 5 Dec 1999 21:22:44 EST

In a message dated 12/5/99 7:22:43 PM Central Standard Time, writes:

> I'm glad the writer didn't

> put the conspiracy monging on too thickly. It would have instantly
> destroyed any credibility for me.
> Summary: Tell me something we didn't already know ten years ago.
> I'll be only too happy to accept cold fusion--and boy, the
> consequences!--but until there's something more concrete, I'll be
> just as happy to ignore it.

(I'm writing on Sunday night . . . never a good idea . . .)

I've consistently sneered at cold fusion. The thing that caught and kept my attention about this article was how the author showed that there is a community of people with relatively good credentials who continue to nag at the problem and who seem ready to admit that they can't seem to explain the phenomena they observe on an intermittent basis. I'd be ready to completely dismiss the whole phenomenon if there WAS some glib theory being offered to explain both why it works and why it doesn't. Of course, I also wouldn't buy into any sort of "conspiracy" explanation for why the matter hasn't been pursued more vigorously. In fact, I was impressed by how much money has been put into the research by reputable institutions over the last decade. It just seems damned odd to me that the whole matter hasn't been completely put to rest one way or the other by now.

      Greg Burch     <>----<>
      Attorney  :::  Vice President, Extropy Institute  :::  Wilderness Guide   -or-
        "We never stop investigating. We are never satisfied that we know 
        enough to get by. Every question we answer leads on to another    
       question. This has become the greatest survival trick of our species."
                                           -- Desmond Morris