Add a Comment
Email This
Statistics
You wrote:
"> You and this author have no clue what the mainstream science community thinks about cold fusion.
To which, I must disagree. My first real encounter with cold fusion occurred at the APS Centennial meeting . . ."
I do not think you can measure the views of the mainstream science based on this one observation, at one meeting. It would be like trying to judge support for cold fusion by attending the APS cold fusion sessions. (The ~50 to 100 people who show up are mostly supporters.) You need a larger sample of people, and a questionnaire of some sort.
Actually, I think it would be good to limit respondents to people who have read 5 or more papers. You would not ask an electrochemist about plasma fusion or AIDS treatment, so you should not ask random people from other disciplines about cold fusion.
". . . I was handed a copy of Infinite Energy. At the time it read as if it was science by press release. Upon recent reflection, it seems more like a fringe community (deservedly, or not) that was desperately trying to gain recognition in the community at large . . ."
I think it would be more accurate to say they were desperately trying to get people to realize they had already gained recognition. I think it is foolish to try to convince people at the APS, which is the locus of opposition to cold fusion. The Science Policy Administrator there has said that cold fusion scientists are "a cult of fervent half-wits" The ACS and other organizations are more open to the idea.
"Simply put, if I were to ask my adviser, or any other member of my department tomorrow, I am fairly sure they would express deep skepticism about cold fusion."
Perhaps. Try it! But you should ask a larger sample of several hundred scientists before drawing a conclusion, and as I said it might be a good idea to ask them to read papers first, or to limit them to people with relevant qualifications.
"My training suggests that the Fleischmann-Pons effect should not occur, except under high pressure/temperature conditions where the wavefunction overlap is sufficient for tunneling to occur."
I do NOT understand why people even bring this up!! Yes, of course, the results are unexpected and they appear to violate theory. This was obvious to Fleischmann, Pons and every other researcher. Did you suppose they are unaware of this fact? They didn't notice? Every review of cold fusion begins by pointing out that the ratio of helium to heat is the same as plasma fusion, but the tritium and neutrons are usually 10 million times lower than plasma fusion. That is the unexplained mystery at the heart of the problem. Because they have observed the effect in hundreds of experiments, researchers assume the theory needs revision, or reinterpretation.
". . . I will eventually read the papers on LENR-CANR."
Good! That's the thing to do.
- Jed Rothwell
Librarian, LENR-CANR.org
RSS
RE: Response to the Cold Fusion Community
There have been several posts from the Cold Fusion Community (1, 2, and 3) that I'd like to address.
First of all, thank you for participating at Omninerd, we appreciate all such participation, and we hope you'll stick around. I wish it could have been under less acrimonious circumstances, though.
I believe my statement that caused the uproar was
The experiment must be able to stand on its own merit, and should not have to be propped up by the personalities of the experimenters. (Cold fusion comes to mind.)
As pointed out, the reference to cold fusion research being propped up by the personalities of the experimenters was an opinion, and an unverified one at that. For that, I must apologize. It is inexcusable for a scientist, or a human being for that matter, to spout off opinions without the proper backing. I had not performed the necessary due diligence, and I am sorry.
However, comment 2 made the statement:
You and this author have no clue what the mainstream science community thinks about cold fusion.
To which, I must disagree. My first real encounter with cold fusion occurred at the APS Centennial meeting where I was handed a copy of Infinite Energy. At the time it read as if it was science by press release. Upon recent reflection, it seems more like a fringe community (deservedly, or not) that was desperately trying to gain recognition in the community at large, in a similar vane to missionaries handing out pamphlets to passerby. And, the cold fusion community still seems to be operating in this mode as indicated by the speed and vituperative nature of the response I have gotten. Simply put, if I were to ask my adviser, or any other member of my department tomorrow, I am fairly sure they would express deep skepticism about cold fusion.
My initial comment of cold fusion being propped up by the personalities of the experimenters is still somewhat true, but in a much different context than I first understood it. In the 2001 April meeting (I think), Scott Chubb talked about the debacle involving the handling of cold fusion within the community at large and within the cold fusion community. In a summary of his talk, he said
Chubb goes on to say that most scientists are unaware of the advances that have been made to satisfy the early critics. Clearly, rational scientific discourse has, at least in the recent past, taken a back seat to other less refined forms of communication. So, in a sense, the personalities of those involved have influenced how this topic has been approached, but clearly not in the sense I originally intended.
As to not acting as a physicist, I am able to offer as my only defense that I am human and I am a product of my training, as much as anyone. My training suggests that the Fleischmann-Pons effect should not occur, except under high pressure/temperature conditions where the wavefunction overlap is sufficient for tunneling to occur. And, having not read the literature, I have fallen into the trap that most would have fallen into: I was relying on the opinions of others whom I trusted. With the APS publishing hundreds of articles a month, it is very easy to fall into that trap, and I will be more careful and less flippant in the future.
As to not having a backbone, I will eventually read the papers on LENR-CANR. But, it will not be within the next six to twelve months, so I will happily flop around in grad school until that point.
View Full Discussion