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
I don’t think it’s unusual from a theory but, the one touted for several years here on FR can’t be replicated.
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
The third party is not identified. There is no link to the report. The inventor is not identified. His claims are not substantiated. No scientific or technical paper is referenced. Etc, etc, etc, etc.
Asked & Answered
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-
pathological skepticism is hardly what freepers here have on this subject.
we’d all love to see it work. we’d love for’it to be true.
however when you have the most recent guy pushjing it, that has a checkered past of running scams, it isn’t patholigical skepticism not to simply’take his word on it. the independent tests have never run the way they said they would, some have ended early, there’s always been external power supplies used instead of at somepoint allowing some of the power of the ‘reaction’ itself to be used to power any safeguards or elements of the experiment that need power.
people have a right to be skeptical of a guy who has been involved in prior scams. a person like this is not the best poster child for trusting a never-before-seen energy source that appears to be too good to be true.
we would love for it to be true.
Not really.
It used to be the only way to shut down debate when people had opinions that differed from yours was to call them "racist" and they were obligated to STFU.
Now we have another magic word to make people STFU... skeptopath!
however when you have the most recent guy pushjing it, that has a checkered past of running scams, it isn’t patholigical skepticism not to simply’take his word on it.
***First of all, where do you get the information that this most recent guy has been running scams? Yes, he’s had failed businesses, but scams? Where’s the evidence. He was prosecuted for defrauding his investors — but there was only ONE investor, himself. So he was prosecuted for defrauding himself.
Secondly, it is pathological skepticism to throw the baby out with the bath water. You don’t divest yourself of all energy stocks just because Enron was a scam.
http://moneymorning.com/2010/09/01/financial-scams-5/
I agree that Rossi has a checkered history and he’s not trustworthy, but that’s just Rossi. No reason to throw out all of the LENR research and 14,720 replications just because he joined in.
It seems that dozens of those skeptologists flock to these LENR threads.
the independent tests have never run the way they said they would,
***This happens often in science.
some have ended early,
***Data please.
there’s always been external power supplies used
***A big “so what” should apply here. The point of the independent test was that the output power had 50,000 times more energy density than gasoline.
instead of at somepoint allowing some of the power of the ‘reaction’ itself to be used to power any safeguards or elements of the experiment that need power.
***This happened in other tests, just not the independent ones.
This!
all i am saying is he shouldn’t be the guy to lead the cold fusion revolution if there’s going to be one. it casts doubt on the whole endeavor.
and unlike other things where’s the open investors, where’s someone explaining the actual science as to what is exactly occurring in the reactions and how that give the over-unity energy? 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.
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. 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.
do you know anyone who’s invested in this stuff? 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.
data please...? go google it. i’ve read the stories, they were even posted here.
i’m not your personal damn cerie.
Not me! To me, that's like saying I'd love witchcraft to be true, because this is just about as blatantly contrafactual ... you know ... ultimately.
i am for cheap clean energy and if this can work, i am for it. energy means freedom. individually and societally.
This talk was about the reason for the move. They want to use it to investigate the "g value" of the muon, which deviates from 2 by about one part in one thousand, and the exact deviation is understood and measured to within one part per billion. Well, they want to "nail down" this deviation to see if it deviates from the theory in the parts per trillion. This would be a crisis of understanding, you see.
Do you see what I'm getting at? Cold Fusion asks us to believe that our understanding of nuclear phenomena is uncertain not in the parts per billion, but rather off by FACTORS of hundreds or thousands. So you know, hole in the universe ... witchcraft.
There has been no "the one" touted. There are some skeptics who try to make that seem the case, but CF/LENR posting here has covered a broader area. Threads have been posted about many researchers and efforts.
How about accepting hard physical evidence instead of objecting on the basis of "we already know it all"?? You know, experiments get run, data collected and published...those kinds of things.
You "have" actually read research reports on CF???
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.