Replies

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.

A replication cannot be a valid attempt if the workers do not start by immersing themselves in the context in which the original protocol is established. This just did not occur with CF.

Valid criticisms of Fleischmann and Pons early work existed because they were not ready for prime time. They did not have pre-prints available at the time of the announcement, which was a real violation of scientific ediquette. Initially, there was a lot of optimism from some well known scientific figures. 4/10/89 issue J. of Electrolytic Chemistry carried their first published article, which contained a number of errors. The pre-print of that probably had even more errors. Add a lot of noise from re-faxing, and you had a document that was a formula for frustration. The corrections published in a subsequent issue of the same journal only partially quelled the anger that boiled over at a press conference where it was apparent that many of the critics had not read the corrections. F & P made the mistake of making the experiment seem easy, but to them, immersed in the relevant techniques for so much of their careers, it was not that hard of an experiment.

It is understandable that in the furor over the many immediate failed replication attempts, that the work would be rejected in toto, particularly because of the lack of neutrons. However, an assessment of how the politics and publicity played into the events of 1989 gives pause to consider that such rejection might have been premature, as two Physics Nobelists, Schwinger and DoE Energy Research Advisory Board cochairman Norman Ramsey expressed. Ramsey actually threatened to resign from the board if their condemning conclusions against CF were not softened.

Quoting Mallove, "If scientists increasingly feel threatened by accusations of fraud, when they may have only committed honest error, all science suffers," then Mallove quoting Petsko, "What is needed is a decriminalization of error. Science often advances on the strength of theories that turn out to be incorrect, for a wrong hypothesis can produce many excellent experiments."

In this instance, it is prejudice to fail to reconsider, given what we now know about events of 1989 and the growth of supporting data.

Oppenheimer, Fermi and Feynman gained perhaps the majority of their renown because of the success of the Manhattan project. The comparison to the Manhattan Project is to counter the slander that there exists some tribe of ignorati who haven't gotten it yet that CF is dead. These researchers are highly qualified people making serious sacrifices in their career progress to pursue CF. They are many, and there are many who are sincerely interested, but remain anonymous.

The double helix had plenty of prior genetic underpinning. It fit very well into the existing paradigm. CF seems to shake the foundations of much received wisdom. The QM revolution followed on the heals of general relativity. The dominant physical paradigm had not had time to ankylose.

Look at what Wegener went through with his continental drift theory. Remember Lord Kelvin's opinion that heavier than air flight is impossible? Consider the fate of Semmelweis, correctly identifying surgeons hands as route of spread of puerperal infection. Yet, he could not influence his peers to examine the evidence. They continued to spread disease and death, eventually driving Semmelweis insane, because he knew he was right.

Debunking is a poor substitute for scientific arguments. Science is not defended with ignorance and unwanted knowledge is still knowledge.

So maybe physics is not ready for CF. Too bad. It's too imporant to leave to the physicists.

I respect your opinion, and regret that I cannot provide all the answers desired, but that is why the inquiry is so important.