CMNS/LENR Update August 4, 2008

From New Energy Times: [CMNS/LENR Updates are archived here.]

Anomalies Within the Anomalies Conference
Larry Forsley of JWK Technologies Corp. sent an e-mail to Ashraf Imam, secretary of the technical program committee, and Jed Rothwell, responsible for the compilation of abstracts for the 14th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science and Cold Fusion (ICCF-14).

"I just received the ICCF-14 agenda...," Forsley wrote. "Has it been rejected?"

Rothwell wrote back to Forsley with reply and said he had just spoken with D. Nagel, chair of ICCF-14 conference and that Forsley's paper, "Quantitative Spatial Analysis of Pd/D Co-Deposition Induced Nuclear Particle Tracks," had not been rejected, it just had not been included in the schedule.

On Aug. 1, New Energy Times reported that Forsley had not been scheduled for a chance to speak at ICCF-14.

On Aug. 2, D. Nagel, conference chairman, apologized to Forsley for the "confusion" about the omission of a speaking opportunity for Forsley and advised that he had now been provided an opportunity to speak on Friday, Aug. 15 from 9:45 a.m. to 10 a.m.

This brings to light some additional peculiarities of this conference. Some speakers have been afforded 30-minute time slots, others 20-minute time slots, and others only 15-minute time slots. Ordinarily, plenary talks at a science conference are clearly designated as such, and the respective speakers are given more time than other speakers. From the looks of the most recent draft schedule, the provision of speaking time afforded to speakers seems to follow no consistent pattern. What is the explanation for this?

Such an uneven allotment of time suggests political favoritism and runs counter to the principles of fair play, good will and open science. It also runs counter to precedent, for example in the last ICCF conference and the recent "Anomalies" conference organized by Bill Collis, executive secretary of the International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science.

How can such favoritism breed anything but contempt and divisiveness within this research community, pitting the favored researchers against the nonfavored ones? How can the provision of incentives to some researchers, and disincentives to others be viewed in any other way than a political control mechanism?


They Come to Praise Yoshiaki Arata and Stan Szpak

It gets even stranger. Conference organizers have planned two sessions supposedly honoring two current members of this research community.

The concept of the "Arata Fest" and the "Szpak Fest," as they were called by conference organizers on July 6, is unprecedented in recent, and perhaps all of, ICCF history. On July 29, these sessions were relabeled "Honoring Yoshiaki Arata" and "Honoring Stanislaus Szpak."

Isn't singling out Szpak and Arata like this fundamentally wrong?

As the conference organizers know, Szpak won't even be there, he is not able to travel.

Not that Arata and Szpak don't deserve praise and honor, but this is a conference for and about the community. Isn't it divisive for conference organizers to be showing such bias toward particular researchers who are active in the field? Dozens of researchers in this community deserve special recognition. How can the consequences of this "honoring" be anything but divisiveness?

At the Catania conference in October, George Miley - a participant, not an organizer - took it on himself to honor Giuliano Preparata, an Italian pioneer in cold fusion theory who died in 2000.


Source: http://www.newenergytimes.com/news/2008/CMNS-LENR-Update-20080804.htm
http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=AvantGo&op=ReadStory&sid=2972