Posted on 09/10/2013 5:20:03 PM PDT by Kevmo
Cold Fusion and Skeptopathy
skeptopathy Web definitions Pathological skepticism; an irrational belief that a phenomenon must be false merely because it is unusual. en.wiktionary.org/wiki/skeptopathy
There is no better example of skeptopathy doing great harm to humanity than the history of cold fusion. Everyone is probably familiar with Fleischmann and Pons’ claim that they had discovered a nuclear reaction that occurs at (or near) room temperature, compared with temperatures in the millions of degrees that is required for hot fusion. Furthermore, I bet everyone is also under the impression that their claim had been discredited – wrong! Pons and Fleischmann never retracted their claim, but moved their research program to France after the controversy erupted. [1]
“I would sooner believe that two Yankee professors lied, than that stones fell from the sky” – Thomas Jefferson, 1807 on hearing an eyewitness report of falling meteorites.
In March of 1989 Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann introduced us to a new field of science called “Cold Fusion.” It appeared to contradict prevailing nuclear fusion theory. Nuclear reactions at room temperature were generally unheard of before Fleischmann and Pons (although they are not unheard of today – for instance crystal-piezo and acoustic inertial confinement fusion). The scientist’s claims were viewed as inconceivable and impossible, and they were accused of making reckless unsupported unscientific claims. Furthermore, they were shamed for discussing their claims in a press conference before their paper’s publication. [2]
“The more important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have all been discovered, and these are now so firmly established that the possibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new discoveries is exceedingly remote…. Our future discoveries must be looked for in the sixth place of decimals.” – physicist Albert. A. Michelson, 1894
Belief in the validity of Fleischmann and Pons’ claim ought to have been based solely upon the repeatability of their experiments. Unfortunately, scientific investigation is conducted by men who are prejudiced by their belief system, economics, and politics. Fleischmann and Pons’ claim was hard to believe, was a direct threat to hot fusion research, and it upset the status quo in many ways, so many people were upset. Furthermore, their experiments were difficult to replicate, and the effect called “cold fusion” turned out not to be the same as what we refer to as “hot fusion.” The stage was set for scientists, the media, and laymen to exercise pathological skepticism and prematurely label it a hoax rather than give Pons and Fleishchmann the benefit of the doubt that the effect was real. As a result of cold fusion being discredited few scientists dare work in this area of research for fear of being labeled crazy by their colleagues, and being starved of research funds. [1]
“All a trick.” “A Mere Mountebank.” “Absolute swindler.” “Doesn’t know what he’s about.” “What’s the good of it?” “What useful purpose will it serve?” – Members of Britain’s Royal Society, 1926, after a demonstration of television.
“The probably better experimental work…has been carried out in Siena since the Early Nineties, by a group of physicists composed by Sergio Focardi (University of Bologna), Francesco Piantelli (University of Siena), Roberto Habel (University of Cagliari), but it did not lead to a system capable of generation useful amounts of excess energy for normal industrial or domestic applications. In Siena, in fact, the three scientists – using hydrogen and nickel as the only “ingredients” of the reaction, plus an appropriate amount of heat supplied to the system – manage to get out a double thermal energy than the electrical energy provided in input. Obviously, if there were no some “unknown” reactions to produce this little but detectable result, you would get a lower thermal energy, due to the significant losses that you always have turning a form of energy into another.” [3]
On April 30, 1989, cold fusion was declared dead by the New York Times. The Times of London called it a circus that same day, and the Boston Herald attacked cold fusion the day after. Douglas R. O. Morrison, a physicist representing CERN, was the first to call the Pons and Fleischmann episode an example of pathological science. Scientific papers concerning cold fusion were then turned down for publication in peer reviewed journals. [1] Even though almost everyone in America “knows” that cold fusion has been “debunked,” is a “hoax,” and is “pathological science,” those scientists in Italy were getting DOUBLE the energy return using this effect. One would think that such news would have changed minds in the scientific community, but it did not.
“The energy produced by the atom is a very poor kind of thing. Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine” – Ernst Rutherford, 1933
Fast forward to today. The International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, (ICCF) has just wrapped up at the University of Missouri. Scientists from around the world reported on their “cold fusion” progress (the exothermic reaction is called by various names). [4] It is no longer a valid scientific question if cold fusion is legitimate, but only what is the scientific theory behind the effect. [5] For some it is still hard to believe because science can’t yet explain how it works, even though mankind used fire for tens of thousands of years before being able to explain how it works. A third-party verification report was recently published of a product that will hit the market this year, showcasing a cold fusion cell that was hot enough to create dry steam (which is necessary to generate electricity). The results show that energy density (i.e. the amount of energy by weight) was 5 orders of magnitude (tens of thousands of times) over that of fossil fuel. [6] That inventor has said that the time for words is over, and the proof will be when a cold fusion product is introduced to the market. If that is the case, then we won’t have to wait long for proof.
To wrap up, the history of cold fusion is a checkered one. It is an unusual phenomenon, and as such is open season for skeptopathy. I have talked to many people about the subject, and while a few strongly suggest that cold fusion is pathological science (based upon Wikipedia entries or Pons and Fleischmann’s treatment in the media), the vast majority are simply convinced that it will never emerge because powerful fossil fuel interests will bury it before it reaches the market. In other words, most people exhibit skeptopathy of a different form: they have heard rumors of revolutionary energy technologies before, but haven’t seen them emerge onto the market, and therefore irrationally believe cold fusion will never reach the market. Unfortunately, skeptopathy has done a number on cold fusion research and development because unless investors believe their investment will pay off, they are very hesitant to fund it.
Ironically, for those who still exhibit (what I would define as) skeptopathy toward cold fusion, you can read this paper that I wrote on the subject: http://coldfusionnow.org/the-evidence-for-lenr/
Notes
“Cold Fusion,” Wikipedia. 2. Krivit, S. “The Mistakes of Pons and Fleischmann and Why Their Discovery Was Initially Thought to Be a Mistake” New Energy Times, March 23, 2007. 3. Menichella, M. “Secret of E-Cat” pages 13-14, Consulente Energia Publisher, 2011, Pdf format. 4. “ICCF – 18 Day 5: Presentations and Awards,” Ruby Carat, Cold Fusion Now!, July 25, 2013. 5. “NASA Confirms Conclusive Evidence for LENR,” Hot & Cold Fusion, March 31, 2013. 6. “Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device,” Cornell University Library, June 7, 2013. By Brad Arnold|Friday, September 6, 2013|Uncategorized|6 Comments
This mischaracterizes the opinions of those who question "cold fusion".
The problems, or potential problems, with this theory are that it does not conform to the standard model of nuclear interactions.
That, by itself, would be fine - science is all about overturning the standard model.
But when the standard model is robust, as the various nuclear energy models are, most of us require some sort of theoretical construct and a lot of good data to sign on to rejecting it.
None of this is present in "cold fusion".
Which "thought model" is not science. Science requires that, if experimental data is repeatable, the model is to be discarded, no matter how "robust". No additional "theoretical construct" necessary.
And please don't drag out the old "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" meme, as that isn't science either.
Correlation is not causation. In order to demonstrate causality (which is the issue here), there really does have to be some sort of framework for the data to make sense.
Nope. All science requires is replicable data. Period. "Making sense" is not part of the equation. Is having a theory ("making sense") a good thing.....yes. But it is NOT required for proof of scientific validity.
The microwave background of the universe made no sense whatsoever when it was originally discovered. But that didn't prevent the discoverers from receiving the Nobel Prize for the discovery, solely on the basis of the replicability of the data.
Physicists reject the replicable data on cold fusion because it doesn't fit their theories.
And yes, Virginia, there "is" replicable data sufficient to make the case.
Your assertion is that some experiments have ended early, and it is put forth in error. It’s up to you to back up your own assertion.
all i am saying is he shouldn’t be the guy to lead the cold fusion revolution if there’s going to be one.
***First of all, he isn’t the one leading the revolution. Secondly, why shouldn’t he? To the victor go the spoils. If Rossi is the one who generated the breakthrough to cheap energy, he’s the one to “lead the revolution”.
and unlike other things where’s the open investors,
***Let’s see, there’s Mitsubishi, Toyota, NASA, Navy Space Weapons lab SPAWAR, Luforsk in Sweden, STMicroelectronics, to name a few.
where’s someone explaining the actual science as to what is exactly occurring in the reactions and how that give the over-unity energy?
***Start here. Come up to speed.
http://lenr-canr.org/
i know rossi never explained the why as to why this works, it’s more of a we just know it works kind of thing.
***Right you are. Just like high temperature superconductivity has not been explained yet, but it works.
Asked & Answered
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-
and you keep glossing over the fact we would love for it to be true. one way we’d know would be an actualproduct i could buy, or that anyone could buy, that wasn’t a prototype but a real production run consumer product.
***Asked & Answered
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-
another would be any’list of real investors that are on record and have substantial money set aside for gearing up for production of a product.
***That is your requirement for legitimacy of a science? Why do you have such a requirement for LENR but not other sciences? Since when does money/production have any bearing on the scientific validity of something? Ever hear of muon-catalyzed fusion? Is it somehow illegitimate because there’s no money behind it? What a ridiculous notion.
do you know anyone who’s invested in this stuff?
***No, but I know of one freeper who contacted Rossi more than 10 years ago with a substantial sum of money to invest and Rossi turned him down.
i’d like to know who’s putting money’behind it to build commercially available products. that can be 100% independently tested as a working product.
***And people in hell would like Ice Water. Your requirement raises the bar for cold fusion while lowering it for hot fusion, which has poured $hundreds of billions down a rathole for nothing.
asked & answered
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-
The problems, or potential problems, with this theory
***With which theory? There are several theories currently being considered, just like there are several theories of gravity but not one universally held theory.
e that it does not conform to the standard model of nuclear interactions.
***Asked & Answered
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-
The Widom-Larson theory uses standard physics to explain LENR.
Seriously, all the posts about this - take the stick out of your ass, please. If you really think acting like this helps your position with me or anyone else, keep doing it. I’m a guy that would be more than happy if such a phenomena were able to be proven true, but so far it has not.
I am going to move on, I suggest you do so.
Thanks for bumping the thread T4BTT
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-
But it has, at least as far as what is needed for scientific legitimacy goes.
And there ARE private groups putting up money to develop commercial devices. Rossi/Defkalion are by no means the only players. There are about a half-dozen to a dozen others (depending on whether you want only USA players, or are interested in the global total), including some very big names (Mitsubishi and Toshiba).
And there ARE US goverment agency players, both NASA and the Navy publicly acknowledged (and probably others more hush-hush).
I disagree with Kevmo that the LENR-CANR.org bibliography/library of research papers is the best place to start.
I prefer George Beaudette's book "Excess Heat". It has the best summation of both the science and the early history of LENR, and shows how and why both the chemists AND the physicists who were involved early screwed up. Get it cheap (or free) via. interlibrary loan.
THEN tackle the LENR-CANR library.
I read what was purported to be the original Pons and Fleischman report, which looked like a xerox of some kind of draft. My thought then was that if this were a student project, I would have given it a D.
I’m not saying we know it all, but I am saying we know a lot. And within my understanding, CF is just not credible.
The ESP people make the same kind of challenge. They get all wrapped up in fancy statistics. I’ve taken the effort to look at some of these, and one in particular years ago that used ANOVA ( Analysis of Variance ) but its always GIGO. Some time after that the guy who did the study was on the cover of the NYT Sunday Magazine as a champion of parapsychology!
I know, “What’s that got to do with CF?” ... Well, I think it’s the same kind of stuff.
I have to give you credit for an honest response. The bottom line, though, is that you are totally uninformed on the current state of the subject.
"The ESP people make the same kind of challenge. They get all wrapped up in fancy statistics. I’ve taken the effort to look at some of these, and one in particular years ago that used ANOVA ( Analysis of Variance ) but its always GIGO. Some time after that the guy who did the study was on the cover of the NYT Sunday Magazine as a champion of parapsychology!
The two situations are not even remotely alike. With LENR you are talking about hard physical evidence garnered from standard types of chemical and physical measurements, by scientists with good credentials and standing at organizations with impeccable reputations.
"I know, “What’s that got to do with CF?” ... Well, I think it’s the same kind of stuff.
And loop to my first comment above. To put it bluntly, the situation is not even remotely what you think it is. Best place to start remedying your ignorance is Beaudette's book "Excess Heat" (post 32).
It's an ice cream flavor.
An interesting hint of a possible way to convert LENR energy directly to electricity, bypassing the Carnot Cycle:
Ecat World article with links:
http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/09/no-input-lenr-deuo-dynamics-paper/comment-page-1/#comment-164143
Their paper published at ICCF14:
http://www.deuodynamics.com/ICCF14-1.pdf
Company Website:
Certainly a “two-guys-in-a-garage” operation, but then, at one time, so were HP and Apple. Their test cells are certainly simple enough that replicating their work should not cost an arm and leg.
So it’s true what they say about you — you’d hit anything.
But when the standard model is robust,
***Robust?
vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg86213.html
Axil Axil wrote
“
Reference: http://pirsa.org/displayFlash.php?id=13080001
Perimeter Institute and the crisis in modern physics also see
http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/09/05/perimeter-institute-and-the-crisis-in-modern-physics/
Theoretical physics is at a crossroads right now…In a sense we’ve entered a
very deep crisis. You may have heard of some of these models…There’ve been
grand unified
models, there’ve been super-symmetric models, super-string models, loop
quantum gravity models… Well, nature turns out to be simpler than all of
these models. (..insert typical boilerplate bullshit from the PI-hubristic
here..)
LENR is coming along at just the right time to take Physics to the next
level.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.