This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 1991, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
An independent panel of recognized scientists has complimented the National Cold Fusion Institute for its high quality research and intelligent scientists. The bad news is that the panel is not convinced those scientists have seen nuclear fusion,
"excess heat" or anything else that would make cold fusion a promising investment.
The result is that the state Fusion/Energy Advisory Council believes it must have yet another scientific review before deciding how to proceed with the state's dwindling cold fusion funds. Another review won't help matters.
The problem with the just-completed review is that cold fusion's so-called inventors, Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, did not reveal everything to the reviewers because they say the state's patent attorney recommended against it. Institute director Fritz Will maintains there was no reason for them to withhold anything from the reviewers, who had signed confidentiality agreements.
Whatever the cause of their reluctance, the result is that Drs.
Pons and Fleischmann have missed another opportunity to gain a level of respect for their renegade research.
Remember how the University of Utah worked for weeks shortly after the March 1989 announcement to set up a collaboration with scientists from the prestigious Los Alamos National Laboratory? Eventually it fell through because Dr. Pons did not want to work with them.
Then came the Department of Energy's cold fusion review panel.
Dr. Pons first refused to admit some panel members he felt were predisposed against cold fusion. Later, he allowed other panelists into his lab, but they were not given complete data and saw no working experiments when they arrived.
The DOE panel eventually reported to the Secretary of Energy that cold fusion held no particular promise.
Now comes the independent panel of four scientists who each submitted reports in their areas of expertise after spending a day last November at the institute. The scientists united in saying that Dr. Pons must provide more information before his claims of "excess energy" can be substantiated.
As it stands, Dr. Pons is only convincing the state's patent attorneys, who continue to file and defend patent applications for him. As advocates for the state and its inventors, the attorneys cannot be expected to be impartial judges of Dr. Pons' research.
They get paid regardless of whether the invention works.
- So the state Fusion/Energy Advisory Council has now put the job of verifying the Pons-Fleischmann results with Wilford Hansen, a Utah State University physicist/chemist who sits on the state council.
With all due respect to Dr. Hansen, the endorsement of a Utah State University professor will not bring the level of credibility that was intended with the independent review. Even if the Pons-Fleischmann experiments receive Dr. Hansen's blessing, finding a financial backer for cold fusion would not be any easier.
Drs. Pons and Fleischmann have been given ample opportunity in the past 21 months to make their case, and they have not been persuasive. The state should make its decisions based on what has been verified, and put an end to what appears to outside observers as a charade.