Replies

A lot of the work that followed the 1989 announcement was sloppy, no argument. However, you seem to have reached a common and simplistic conclusion about what has happened since. The way the announcement occurred was unfortunate, but forced by the U. of Utah administration, who feared being pre-empted by Steve Jones' rumored announcement of his muon catalyzed fusion. Fleischmann and Pons had not initially sought publicity at all. Fleischmann tried to get it classified, because of possible weapons implications. They worked from their own funds for a number of years (5?) before getting manipulated into going public. This the first time I have seen anyone label their work (as distinct from how it was revealed) as sloppy. Fleischmann in his prime was certainly among the world's most accomplished and prestigious electrochemists. Photos of their cells I have seen were beautifully constructed, using some some of Fleischmann's own innovations, and I have seen a lot of cells, and built a few. At the time of the 1989 press conference, there was no article in print, although one was planned for publication in Nature. That was canceled, and it took a long time for an article to finally appear, and it was scant on detail. No doubt, these mistakes contributed a lot to the firestorm of controversy. And most of the immediate attempts at replication showed no excess heat or neutrons (not surprising, most having used faxed transcripts of verbal descriptions or videotapes of news programs descriptions). Keep in mind that most of the attempting replicators were not electrochemists. A number of them, who then became spokesmen, because of their prestige, were physicists. Mallove has an audiotape of an interview conducted by some Boston newspaper reporters of some MIT hot fusion physicists. Their obvious ignorance of the experiments and experimenters in question (which did not inhibit attempted character assassination), and their prejudice were apparently propelled by fear of losing funding for their Tokomak research. They had never tried calorimetry, which is quite an undertaking in itself. Please note that I am not defending Mallove's magazine.

Perhaps the most ironic aspect of those first furtive months is that the experiments look so very simple, and there were many accounts circulating in various amateur media that claimed successes with absurd devices (still are). There was, I agree, plenty of reason to doubt seriously the claims. I was certainly convinced it was some kind of mistake, but I did read in 1989 an article about some theorist stating that a nuclear product of 4He was not outside the realm of possibility to explain the lack of neutrons. I stayed curious. Then I came upon an article written by Los Alamos National Lab's Edmund Storms in Technology Review with the same title as this string, and was introduced to what serious science was doing.

There was TX A&M Chemistry Chairman John O'M Bockris, another accomplished electrochemist. He soon confirmed Fleischmann's and Pons' claims of excess heat, and claimed to have found tritium, which created quite a stir. That attracted a character assassin Gary Taubes, who ginned up some story about how Bockris' assistant had spiked his cells with tritium to improve try and win his girlfriend back by becoming world famous. The story was utterly groundless, but received plenty of front-page newspaper treatment. The fact that the tritium was found in increasing concentration as one penetrated the cathode disproved any kind of spiking hypothesis, but the sophisticated media ignored that inconvenient fact. Taubes continues to be expert on virtually everything.

The point is that you recognize prejudice. We all recognize the potentially extreme value of real discovery, especially something like this. It is easy to see how a rush to judgment could have occurred in 1989. Indeed, the DoE can even see that in view of the accumulated evidence (3000+ peer reviewed papers published on cold fusion since 1989!), which has prompted their reevaluation. So, getting way back to my original point, don't you think that the scientists who are have invested a major portion of their elite careers investigating cold fusion against all kinds of intolerable conditions, and who constitute a number and quality that is said to be on par with the group who formed the core of the Manhattan Project, deserve consideration? Keep in mind that the academic and other political forces in place in 1989 are still active today. Cold fusioneers have some serious enemies. People have staked their serious reputations on their condemnation of cold fusion. You simply cannot go by professional opinions. You must examine the evidence.

The history of science does not tell us that the mainstream accepts radical findings, quite the contrary. Surely, if you are a professor, you are familiar with Kuhn's _The Structure of Scientific Revolutions_. The mainstream find acceptable what can be supported by accepted institutions. Drastic changes do not happen easily.

This the first time I have seen anyone label their work (as distinct from how it was revealed) as sloppy. Fleischmann in his prime was certainly among the world's most accomplished and prestigious electrochemists. Photos of their cells I have seen were beautifully constructed, using some some of Fleischmann's own innovations, and I have seen a lot of cells, and built a few. At the time of the 1989 press conference, there was no article in print, although one was planned for publication in Nature. That was canceled, and it took a long time for an article to finally appear, and it was scant on detail.

I find it hard to believe you haven't heard it described as sloppy before. Apart from the neutron measurements, which we've been through, the calorimetry was widely criticized.

There was a preprint of theirs, submitted to J. Electrochemistry or some such, available right away. It may have been the most faxed preprint in history; the one I got looked like it was on its third iteration.

The point is that you recognize prejudice. We all recognize the potentially extreme value of real discovery, especially something like this. It is easy to see how a rush to judgment could have occurred in 1989. Indeed, the DoE can even see that in view of the accumulated evidence (3000+ peer reviewed papers published on cold fusion since 1989!), which has prompted their reevaluation.

Is it prejudice, though, to reject work on account of sloppiness?

So, getting way back to my original point, don't you think that the scientists who are have invested a major portion of their elite careers investigating cold fusion against all kinds of intolerable conditions, and who constitute a number and quality that is said to be on par with the group who formed the core of the Manhattan Project, deserve consideration?

This is the kind of statement that makes it hard for me to take you seriously. We have a J. Robert Oppenheimer, an Enrico Fermi or a Richard Feynman working on CF? Please!

The history of science does not tell us that the mainstream accepts radical findings, quite the contrary. Surely, if you are a professor, you are familiar with Kuhn's _The Structure of Scientific Revolutions_. The mainstream find acceptable what can be supported by accepted institutions. Drastic changes do not happen easily.

I disagree with Kuhn. The revolution that was modern quantum mechanics took over the entire field in maybe two years. Einstein's work on relativity became widely accepted in five or ten years. The double helix was immediately and nearly universally accepted. Compare and contrast all of those with CF.

I don't have a dog in this hunt; though I do know a couple of very careful electrochemists who sneer at CF. This isn't a physics establishment vs. outsiders issue, though a lot of people want to pretend it is.