At 12:23 PM 8/26/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:
See:
<http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528797.100-can-cold-fusion-research-survive-pioneers-death.html>http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528797.100-can-cold-fusion-research-survive-pioneers-death.html
I cannot get the full article, because I am not a subscriber.
Mike is wrong about the Planck quote. That's not what Max meant.
Well, I can't see the full article either. But from what I see, I
don't think McKubre is wrong. I think that one might misunderstand
what he's saying.
In any case, cold fusion stopped depending on Martin years ago. There
isn't any doubt now that cold fusion will survive. The deaths that
might advance cold fusion are of those who so strongly and
pseudoskeptically opposed real science, i.e., the explanation,
through controlled experiment (or other similar analysis where
controlled experiment is not possible), of observed phenomena.
But, really, the only "death" that is helpful is the disappearance of
that pseudoskeptical view from the journals. The media will
eventually follow. At some point, a major organization will be
sufficiently embarrassed by publishing, once again, "Nobody was able
to reproduce it." That may nor may not take a real commercial device.
I have been suggesting that we not depend on proof-by-overwhelm,
since cold fusion was, from the beginning, an "unreliable"
phenomenon, as many real phenomena are, outside the artificially
simplified realm of plasma physics.
It might never be "reliable." Yet, until real science is known and
accepted, or that cold fusion samovar or home hot water heater is
available, we can't really be sure either way.
Cold fusion engineering will get a lot easier when the phenomenon is
understood. It isn't yet. *All* the theories are, so far,
speculative. Plausible at best. Not shown to be accurate for prediction.
