Posted on 04/13/2002 4:02:13 PM PDT by Diogenesis
That's the official story, anyway.
I can barely read tensor notation so don't ask me anything more.
Is that so? I haven't seen ,uch if any documentation on that, my previous remark was mostly off the cuff.
PLease post any documentation or links to same on this thread.
Vol.8, Nos 1-2 (2000)
Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance.
ISSN-0898-9621 Gordon and Breach Science
Adil E. Shamoo (Dept of Biological Chemistry, Univ. of Maryland)
Editorial: The Ethical Import of the Cold Fusion Controversy"
Scott Chubb -- Naval research Lab
Introduction to the Special Series of Papers in Accountability in
Research Dealing with "Cold Fusion"
Martin Fleischmann, FRAS
Reflections on the Sociology of Science and Social Responsibility
F. Scaramuzzi, ENEA (Italy)
Ten Years of Cold Fusion: An Eyewitness Account
J. Bockris (Texas A&M)
Accountability and Academic Freedom: The Battle Concerning
Research on Cold Fusion at Texas A&M University
George Miley (Univ. of Illinois)
Some Personal Reflections on Scientific Ethics and Cold Fusion
David J. Nagel (George Washington Univ.)
Fusion Physics and Philosophy
Regardless of preliminary qualifications and implicit due diligence for proper research, a paper is being tendered as a deliverable for said study which doesn't really address anything of quantifiable, identifiable, measurable, or repetitively describable format. Persons paid to perform scientific research like to get their money for nothing and their chicks for free, also. And BTW, ongoing state and local politics sometimes address broadbased topics which happen to touch upon one of the same physical terms seen in this study, namely 'energy'.
IMHO, the study isn't worth the paper its printed on. Worse, it took funding which is difficult to obtain to actually study said reported phenomenon and fails to render scientific professional due diligence in its deliverables.
These people are hot fusion people, semiconductor physicists, and reputable scientists.
You have typical pathological skepticism in that you talk and condemn,
but neither read nor have serious knowledge.
You obviously have your reasons.
Was that altitude measured above sea level or ground level?....sarcastic inquiring minds need to know..../sarcasm off.
Too bad the forward isn't as simply directed and focused in its measurable metrics as the above quote.
I've found the topic of 'Cold Fusion' to offer good opportunity in the identification problem, history of science, and philosophy of science. Many of the topics implied by the study require an intuition of the founding arguments used in science for basic terminology. The actual meanings, scope, and limitations of terms between different branches of science as well as identifying the mathematical methods used to describe phenomena from different scientific points of view.
Simple terms such as each term in Maxwell's Eqns (quantum, QED), terms from electrochemistry, terms from solid-state physics, derived terms and terms used as identifiable measurables all have some basic implied meanings constraining their range and domains of valid use.
The Cold Fusion problem exemplifies a problem where the quantification of some of these measurables might exceed the functional domains of other functions. Using a handful of measurables might lead to actual circular reasoning and measurements which imply false meanings without indications of the problem to junior postdoctorate level researchers.
I found study of the topic to mandate a review of the researcher's academic background to more fully appreciate their point of view and implied understandings of basic scientific terms. My viewpoint is more from rigorous Material Science ( Mechanical, Electronic, and Chemical), applied mathematics, and common engineering. Too many researchers in this field are either PhDs in Physics, with less than a 3rd year college experience in scientific study of Chemistry, or Physical Chemists, with less than 5 yrs of collegiant study in applied mathematics, or engineers / applied mathematicians with only one or two years of study in chemistry and physics.
I've found that a good 3 yrs of study of both Chemistry and Physics at the undergraduate level is required to even identify the semantical and meaningful conflicts between the sciences. Another 2-3 years of study in each discipline is then required, devoted to simply studying the etymology of the eqns and basic scientific terms. Essentially, this further study amounts to forming a history of science intuition. Then for a particular problem, such as 'Cold Fusion' a quick study and reformulation of scientific reports in an applied mathematics format allows the problem to take shape meaningfully.
Until this is done, too many sparsely described phenomenon are discussed using less than 5 variables when perhaps 10 are involved amongst peers who are only intuitive with discussing 1-3 variable problems.
These scientists published serious data, and analysis.
In constrast, your comments are not serious, but typical of the pathologic skeptic.
IMHO, this is about the most meaningful statement of the entire quoted forward. Not much is expressed, but some value exists in showing a correlation.
I studied the topic a bit around 1988-91 on the side. The assertions made and basis for assertions were a bit tenuous from a rigorous scientific viewpoint.
BTW you make my point. Some of these folk have backgrounds in Solid state physics, hot fusion. Now review the chemistry assertions based upon priniples from electrochemistry in aqueous solutions, then QED. The assertions being made regarding Cold Fusion touch upon measurables in different domains which don't necessarily mean the conclusions being drawn in one branch of science are as well identified in another branch.
We're dabbling with solid state, transitory states, liquid and gaseous and maybe even some plasma states. Additionally, we grate upon measurable which have meaning in one system of state variables, are shown to translate by braoder principles to other states based upon Invariants or dimensionless expressions, but the 'Cold Fusion' assertions go to the core of these foundations. They assert excess energy exists, when the measurable identity or function or process might be better isolated. The induced consequence that excess energy is being generated due to fusion might be very premature. I haven't seen a rigorous discussion of it and that includes reviewing every technical paper I could lay my hands on at Oak Ridge, Rice, Univ of Chicago, CIT, Berkeley, and that junior university out in Palo Alto (hehehehe, I really kill me sometimes ;^)... granted I wasn't tooled up to find all papers on the topic nor am I in 'that community'.
Dio,...baby...I enjoy few things more than some rigorous scientific review and study. The comments made in the forward were much more arrogant than anything I mentioned and they were being paid to make professional statements.
For example, commenting that the researchers didn't know when to differentiate when they should integrate,..."etc." is synonomous to saying they don't know when to add when they subtract. If somebody is guilty of ad hominem attack, I'd say the author fits the bill fairly well.
As for my pathology, the pathology of science usually is sceptical for error, and yes, I admit, I haven't presented a postdoc paper here in a five minute review, but I expect a research study forward to nicely concentrate it's findings in concise language displaying the fuits of its labor. The fruits I observe are from somebody tooled up to review experimental design, some backgound in applied mathematics and Solid State, but not much in science. A complete system isn't formulated. Nor are the criticisms in the forward well isolated and premises discerned to allow others to satisfy completeness. IMHO, It's premature and hasty,...As I grant is mine, but I only took 5-30 minutes to review, while they obviously have been charged and expected to present a synopsis for the profession. Especially when the topic is supposedly a revolution in science.
OOOOHHHH.....EXCELLENT POINT !!!!
In retrospect, F&P should have kept quiet on the patent and asked for peer review of the anomoly.
Now THAT is a nice forward which describes the paper! ;^)
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.