From: Kenneth Chang [kchang@nytimes.com] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 3:17 PM To: Grant, Paul Subject: RE: Batlogg I'm right here. (212) 556-7271 At 06:13 PM 5/23/02, you wrote: >Are you near a phone now? > >-----Original Message----- >From: Kenneth Chang [mailto:kchang@nytimes.com] >Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 3:05 PM >To: Grant, Paul >Subject: RE: Batlogg > >Can I use this? > > >The Bell Labs Imbroglio. Yes, there's been an enormous amount of > >buzz for well over a year, with a number of attempts to reproduce the > >"results" by several very good labs (I knew that IBM was trying). > >Even the "simplest" experiment, that of the quantum Hall effect in a > >single crystal buckeyball, has not been reproduced. Congratulations > >for breaking this story. > > > >At the March meeting in Indianapolis on the last day there was a talk > >by Kloc on the sample growth. I went and during the question period > >directly confronted him as to why the series of results in question > >had not been reproduced. His answer was that nobody had tried...I > >said this wasn't >true, > >and asked for a show of hands in the audience...about 3 or 4 raised > >their hands. Kloc then said the samples were hard to make...this is > >a typical response when something suspicious might be underway. Why > >hadn't samples been given to other institutions for testing? Answer: > >they're unstable...another smoking gun. And...only a few samples > >show any effect...hmmm. > > > > > From my perspective, I hope > >1) That Schoen, et al., are right...or > >2) They've made some egregious, yet forgivable, errors. > >Is there any way that either is conceivable? > > >If you'd like, I'd be willing to talk on the record about the Bell > >Labs story, but Frisbie will have to wait a few more weeks. >Yup, I want you on the record about Bell Labs. Is there a time & place >I can get you on the phone? > >Thank you very much. >-- >Kenneth Chang >Science reporter >The New York Times >(212) 556-7271 -- Kenneth Chang Science reporter The New York Times (212) 556-7271