Joshua, cold fusion is either a real phenomenon in Nature or it is
not. You argue that it is not real, but simply the result of many
mistakes made repeatedly by many well trained scientists. Regardless
of what is suggested as evidence, you will find a way to reject it.
While this approach is useful up to a point, you frequently go beyond
this point into arbitrary and irrational argument done apparently
simply to saying something. In the process you confuse people who are
new to the subject and are trying to wade through the complexity that
is cold fusion.
My following comment is only for readers who are still following this
exchange. I do not have the time to refute all of what Cude says,
which would only lead to an growing collection of comment and rebuttal
without end. For your benefit, I need to emphasis that I and most
other believers are just as skeptical of what we observe as is Cude.
We question and repeat until we are sure the results are real, which
we now accept as reveling a new phenomenon. However, no data is
perfect. The goal after any new phenomenon is discovered is to keep
looking until it is understood. Cude would stop that process. You, as
a new evaluator of the claims, need to decide whether the
investigation process needs to be stopped or expanded. That is the
only question of importance. I would be very interested in your answer.
If I get no response to this request, I will make no further response
to Cude.
Ed Storms
On May 7, 2013, at 4:10 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Edmund Storms
<stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Nevertheless, when many people report seeing the same behavior, the
reality of this behavior grows. You take the approach that none of
the claimed behavior has been observed, consisting instead of bad
interpretation of random events, unrecognized error, and wishful
thinking. This opinion is applied to all the trained scientists who
have been well accepted when they did studies in other subjects.
This argument is a favorite among believers, and has been addressed
many times in these discussions. Here are 4 parts of a 5 part
response I wrote for another forum:
1) Pathological Science
The phenomenon of many scientists subject to bad interpretations of
random events, unrecognized errors, and wishful thinking is
sufficiently common that it has been given a name: pathological
science. It happened to a lesser extent with N-rays and polywater,
and to a greater extent (though perhaps at a lesser level) in
homeopathy and perpetual motion machines.
It isn't as if 100 scientists (or however many) were chosen at
random to do cold fusion experiments and they all claimed positive
results. The people claiming positive results are the remainder
after considerable filtration. In fact in the 2 cases when panels of
experts were enlisted to examine the evidence, their judgements were
that cold fusion had not been proven.
After P&F, cold fusion experiments were done all over the world --
by probably tens of thousands of scientists. A few of the negative
results were famously presented, but most researchers simply went
back to their previous interests when their experiments showed
nothing, and after they had examined the positive claims in more
detail, and satisfied themselves that evidence for cold fusion was
absent.
But calorimetry experiments are famously prone to artifact, and so
it's not unlikely that a few might have stumbled on the same
systematic errors or artifacts that others were fooled by. Most of
the errors were probably discovered and corrected, and then the
researchers went back to their previous interests.
But in a few of the cases where anomalous heat was indicated, the
experimenters (in most cases, people with little or no training in
nuclear physics) might have fallen prey to cognitive bias and
confirmation bias, and once they were hooked on believing the effect
was real, could not let it go. This was greatly facilitated by the
potential fame and glory that unequivocal evidence for cold fusion
would undoubtedly bring. So, they haven't given up, and every so
often, they stumble across another artifact, which is suggestive,
but never unequivocal, and they play it up for all it's worth, while
ignoring all the failures in between. And so it will appear as if
the evidence is building. But the absence of one solid result that
can be reproduced quantitatively by other labs (even if only
sometimes) after so many years and so many attempts suggests weaker
evidence of a real effect to skeptics.
2) Diminishing returns
It is a characteristic of artifacts and pathological science that
the observed effect becomes less prominent over time as the
experiment improves. And it is characteristic of real effects that
they become more prominent over time, whether the theory is
understood or not. That's certainly true of things like high
temperature superconductivity, or (to go back a century or more)
discrete atomic spectra, the photoelectric effect, and Compton
scattering.
But in the case of cold fusion, the claimed energy is, if anything,
decreasing over time. In the 90s there were several claims of excess
power in the range of tens, hundreds, and even thousands of watts,
and several claims of heat after death (infinite COP). But since
2000, most claims have been in the range of a watt or less,
particularly in refereed literature. Even within a group, the claims
seem to drop off. Dardik claimed 20W in 2004, but has not been able
to match that since. The exceptions to 1 W claim limit tend to use
spot temperature calorimetry, and are usually accompanied by
investment opportunities from people who have a background in fraud,
but not in physics.
3) Bigfoot photographs, or many bad results do not a good result make
Like positive cold fusion claims, there are thousands of photographs
that are claimed to be of Bigfoot or other monsters, and hundreds of
thousands of claimed alien sitings. Admittedly, they are not often
published in scientific journals, but I think the phenomenon is the
same; the difference is that cold fusion is more obscure or
sophisticated and therefore not as easy to dismiss by scientists --
except in the major nuclear physics journals, which do not publish
cold fusion results.
The idea that many marginal results is somehow stronger evidence
than a few marginal results is typical of pathological science, and
is expressed frequently by advocates like Rothwell or Krivit. It
just doesn't seem likely to advocates that so many scientists could
be wrong. But when the results are as weak as cold fusion results,
in fact it is likely. What is not likely is that so many
photographs, from so many angles, with so many different cameras,
could all be blurry. The only reasonable explanation is that when
the pictures are clear, it becomes obvious that the image is
something other than a monster. Of course the clear photos don't
dissuade the believers; they just mean the monster ducked under
water at the right moment, and those photos are not shown.
4) argument from authority
The argument that there are a great many claims of cold fusion by
scientists is really an argument from authority, which is fine,
except that it ignores most of the authority. People find it hard to
believe that so many scientists can be wrong, but the alternative is
that a great many more scientists (i.e. mainstream science) are
wrong. In fact, isn't the bread and butter of the advocates'
argument for cold fusion that a large number of scientists can be
wrong, and have been wrong in the past? Why should cold fusion
scientists be immune?
It's true that most scientists are not even aware of research in
cold fusion after the early 90s, but everyone was aware of it back
in the day, and for recent work, we have valid samples. First, the
two DOE panels were nearly unanimous in judging that nuclear effects
were not proven. Second, the failure of cold fusion researchers to
get published in major journals means that referees are rejecting
the work. Similarly, most funding agencies that use peer review do
not fund cold fusion research. So, most scientists who look at the
work, do not agree that cold fusion is real.
Of course, the argument against the mainstream's rejection of cold
fusion is that it's a big conspiracy, that they are suppressing cold
fusion to preserve the status quo or their grant funding or their
peace of mind. Leaving aside the absence of a plausible motivation
for this, and the fact that this would almost certainly be
impossible if the effect were real, the advocates can't have it both
ways. If they are going to distrust the authorities because they are
selfish, then why should we trust the cold fusion authorities? They
may be selfish too, hoping to secure their own funding, fame, glory
or what have you. (In fact, some are suspected of this, but it is
not regarded as a field-wide conspiracy.)
Yes, CF is hard to accept and to understand. So what? So is quantum
mechanics and the big bang theory, but these concepts are accepted
because they are presently popular and supported by extensive
studies, not all of which are correct.
No. They are popular because they are supported by copious,
extensive, robust, highly reproducible studies. Anyone can do
spectroscopy with hydrogen and see that the results are coincident
with the Bohr model (or formal QM). Every fucking time. Anyone can
observe electron diffraction or the photoelectric effect. The
situations are not even close.
Nevertheless, although an active debate exists in the literature,
these subjects are not denied the money required to resolve the
debate, as is the case with CF.
Whatever active debate exists, it is not about the existence or
utility of the phenomena or models. The controversy about cold
fusion is whether it's real, and most scientists think the chances
are vanishingly small. It's completely different.
Why do you thin cold fusion is treated differently? Do you think
people hate clean and abundant energy? We know from 1989 that that's
not the case; the world is hungry for it. CF is simply not taken
seriously because the evidence for it sucks. And support is not
simply given to every conceivable claim someone makes. Judgement
must take account of what has already been learned.
