Re: cold fusion

[Stefan Jeglinski <jeglin@4PI.COM>]

I thank Rondo Jeffery for his clarifying remarks. It is clear I am
rusty on certain items, and for that misinformation I certainly
apologize to the list; however, I would like to clarify one point.

I had originally stated:

> > Had anyone in the physics department been consulted (it was a
> > *complete* surprise to the Utah physics department), there would
> > have been a chance to avoid the press conference.

to which Mr. Jeffery replied:

> Here Stefan is off just a bit. The fact of the matter is that
> members of the U of U physics department *did* go to the president
> of the university, and tried to warn him that the  effect P & F were
> claiming did not add up.

Finding it initially difficult to believe that I had been so far off
in both my historical and scientific viewpoints, I contacted 2
professor acquaintances who are currently still at Utah physics and
who were part of the group of University of Utah physicists at the
time who were called upon to review the matter. I have heard back
from one so far. Paraphrasing his reply, since I neglected to get
direct permission to quote:

To his knowledge, *no one* in the University of Utah Physics Dept
knew of the impending announcement UNTIL THE PRESS CONFERENCE
OCCURRED. It was indeed a complete surprise. The one possible
exception to this was in fact Jim Brophy, mentioned by Mr. Jeffery,
who while technically attached to the physics department, was VP of
Research at the time, answering primarily to Chase Peterson. Jim
Brophy's area of expertise was not particle/radiation detection
techniques, so it was considered questionable whether he could or
should have considered himself a reliable critic of the measurements.
Again, no immediate active members of the physics department were
consulted beforehand, to my correspondent's knowledge.

"One week" -after- the press conference, 4 members of the dept
finally were allowed to meet Pons and read his paper for the *first
time,* including my correspondent. Only the day after did the first
meeting between representatives of the physics department and
Peterson actually take place. This crucial communication therefore
happened 5-7 days -after- the press conference, more or less, so
there was absolutely *no* opportunity for them to have headed the
matter off at the pass, so to speak. Privately, the counsel was that
there was considerable doubt as to the scientific accuracy of the
claim. Publically, the counsel was to soften the university's claim
for table-top fusion, probably in deference to a Peterson's political
need. Apparently that evening he did in fact modify his stance for
the local TV news, but after that returned to the hardcore position
for good.


> The university president, Chase Peterson, chose to ignore the
> warnings of the physicists and go with the dollar signs.  They
> convinced the governor, then the legislature of Utah, that the
> science was all there, and all they needed was seed money to develop
> the technology.  They said they could have a prototype water heater
> ready to demonstrate the techology within 6 months.


True, but all of which happened well *after* the press conference, in
particular the legislative matters.


> > Pons' real legacy was
> >being the only person who could really stop it, and did not.
>
> There is one other person that I blame for this, even more than
> Pons.  That is James Borphy, now deceased.  He was a physicist and
> at the time was vice president of research at the University of
> Utah.  He became the biggest 'cheerleader' of the CF team.  But I'd
> like to think that, as a physicist, he should have been more
> critical of the claims.


That would be "Brophy." :-) Most that I know are reluctant to discuss
Brophy extensively since he is of course no longer around to defend
himself, but I and I believe they too certainly would agree with
Rondo's remark.

I once again apologize to the list for my earlier inaccuracies. It
will teach me to humbly review my notes rather than to hastily rely
on my fading memory for the sake of getting a word in edgewise. When
I hear from my second correspondent, I will pass his remarks on if
they add to the discussion.


Stefan Jeglinski