THE SEVEN WARNING SIGNS OF VOODOO SCIENCE
Robert L. Park
Department of Physics
University of Maryland
The most notorious example in recent years was the discovery of “cold fusion” by two University of Utah chemists, Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann. They claimed to have developed a simple electrolytic process to induce fusion between deuterium nuclei in a solution of heavy water, creating helium and liberating substantial amounts of heat. The scientific community did not learn of the claim until it was announced by the University of Utah at a press conference in Salt Lake City. Moreover, the announcement dealt largely with the economic potential of the discovery, and was devoid of the sort of details that might enable other scientists to judge the strength of the claim or repeat the experiment. Even after the press conference, details that might have enabled other scientists to repeat the experiment were not freely available.
Ordinarily, scientists who believe they have made a significant discovery consult first with colleagues in their own institution, and go public with their findings only after the work has been fully vetted by whatever segment of the scientific community is best qualified to judge its value. Attempts to bypass rigorous scientific evaluation by going directly to the media, suggest a desire to turn a quick profit on the work before its flaws can be exposed. Nevertheless, within a few weeks, other scientists felt they had assembled enough details from media accounts to repeat the Pons and Fleischmann experiment. They found no evidence that fusion was taking place.
http://www.physics.utah.edu/~detar/phys4910/readings/misconduct/Park_SevenSigns.htm
Dr. Park was handed a paper refuting his assertions. He refused to even hold it in his hand. That’s some “scientist” you’re relying on.
The leading opponents, such as Robert Park, are not experts in relevant fields such as nuclear energy, electrochemistry or calorimetry....
see below
https://mail.google.com/mail/?tab=wm#search/robert+park/13fe1f66f40b4670
With the palladium deuterium system there is good evidence that cold fusion is, in fact, fusion. It produces helium in the same ratio to the heat as plasma fusion does.
No one has looked for nuclear products in the nickel systems yet. (This is a very expensive and difficult experiment.)
There is no doubt that cold fusion is a nuclear effect. In addition to helium, it produces tritium, neutrons and x-rays. A chemical effect is ruled out because: there is no chemical fuel in the cell; no chemical changes are observed; and with many cells, a device weighing a few grams has produced as much energy as thousands of grams of the most potent chemical fuel. Researchers at Amoco concluded:
“The calorimetry conclusively shows excess energy was produced within the electrolytic cell over the period of the experiment. This amount, 50 kilojoules, is such that any chemical reaction would have had to been in near molar amounts to have produced the energy. Chemical analysis shows clearly that no such chemical reactions occurred. The tritium results show that some form of nuclear reactions occurred during the experiment. . . .”
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Lautzenhiscoldfusion.pdf
I disagree with David Goodstein. Most researchers in this field have been mainstream academic scientists. Many of them have been distinguished leaders such as the late P. K. Iyengar, chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission, and Martin Fleischmann, Fellow of the Royal Society. The leading opponents, such as Robert Park, are not experts in relevant fields such as nuclear energy, electrochemistry or calorimetry.
Dr. Robert Park is a quack who refuses to educate himself on the developments in this field.