Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dan B. who wrote (15531)	11/22/1998 6:59:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Oh dear. Somebody's still taking cold fusion seriously? Fleishman and Pons sure gave chemists a bad name for a while. I used to follow this stuff, the variations sure got baroque, but not as baroque as the theories to explain it all. And of course, Wired is the first place I'd look for serious information on the subject. It'd be nice if it were true. But, as anyone who's done a basic P-chem lab course can tell you, getting good calorimetry numbers isn't that easy. And anyone who's looked at a list of current research topics within any decent university Chemistry dept. can tell you that calorimetry just isn't a hot topic, hasn't been for a long, long time. Modern experimental physical chemists do a lot of spectroscopy, nuclear physicists too. That's where cold fusion always fell apart, or has there been some breakthrough where something other than heat comes out? They laughed at Einstein, but they laughed at a lot of crackpots too. Actually, they didn't really laugh much at Einstein when he published his results, even when he was a patent clerk. Experimental confirmation came fast. Cheers, Dan.