At 12:26 PM 9/14/2012, Alan J Fletcher wrote:
Cold fusion: smoke and mirrors, or raising a head of steam?
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-09/14/cold-fusion
With friends like this, who needs enemies?
The article does, at least, pay some attention to developments, but:
1. NiH reactions are not scientifically
established. The article does distinguish between
Rossi et al and other "more scientific groups,"
but then essentially makes them seem similar.
Celani is reported, but ... Celani has not been confirmed.
2. "unlike Rossi, Celani has plenty of
theoretical physics to support it." Uh, Celani
may propose a different theoretical explanation,
but the author is presenting an opinion without
sourcing it. This field is still almost entirely
experimental, no theories, yet, have been shown
to be adequate for predicting results,
quantitatively, which is the crux of the matter.
3. "Toyota funded cold fusion research in the 90s
to the tune of £12 million, but was discouraged
by negative results." The immediate impression
created? Even spending $12 million, we might
think, researchers for Toyota were unable to
confirm the effect. Is that true? Toyota funded
Pons and Fleischmann's work in France, and that
work showed plenty of confirmation. However, the
results were likely disappointing to a commercial
funder, who would be interested, quite likely, in
practical application. The Wired article does not
distinguish between the science (real,
established) and commercial practicality, plus
the huge flap over Rossi et al (news,
controversial, not scientifically established.)
4. "Perhaps Brillouin's biggest claim is that
their results are consistently repeatable --
something of a Holy Grail in a field where
results notoriously fail to get replicated." And
then they drive another nail in the coffin of the
truth. The big myth about cold fusion is that it
was impossible to reproduce. That's based on the
fact that the original reaction, set up using
electrolysis of heavy water with a palladium
cathode, is chaotic, primarily due to the
shifting nanostructure of the palladium, but also
from sensitivity to other conditions. *The same
cathode* would produce no significant heat at one
time, then, under what appeared to be the same
conditions, nothing changed except the history of
the cathode is now different, measured in the
same way, significant heat would be evolved, way
above noise. However, ultimately, a single
reproducible experiment was developed, but simply
not called that. Run a series of cells to set up
the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect. Measure heat
and helium, to determine the heat/helium ratio.
It has been measured as within experimental error
of 23.8 MeV/He-4, all results so far are
consistent with this, and this result is
confirmed, and recognized as such. There is no
contrary research. No heat, no helium.
Wired is correct that the field is notorious for
unconfirmed results, but the basic work by Pons
and Fleischmann has been heavily confirmed. There
is anomalous heat generated from PdD under some
conditions. By stating the Brillouin claim --
just a claim! -- as they did, they have created
confirmation of a major error, often repeated in
the media, that cold fusion results were irreproducible.
5. On the NASA/Boeing report: "The report
concludes that LENR lacks verification, but
expresses this in terms of feasibility rather
than assuming it's impossible." What is "LENR"?
The report mixes PdD -- which it doesn't mention,
but there is reference to "high temperature
pitting" which has, I think, only been reported
with PdD -- with NiH. NiH lacks verification. PdD
reactions have been heavily confirmed and verified.
The fact is that "LENR" is verified. We don't
know whether NiH results are actually LENR,
because we don't know what the ash is and
therefore we don't know what the reaction is, and
we also don't know what levels of heat are being
obtained, we only have unconfirmed reports of
*demonstrations*, no independent verifications by
experts. (Experts have observed demonstrations,
but ... it's easy to overlook something under
live conditions like that, where the expert
cannot control what is being done. Kullander and
Essen used a relative humidity meter in an
attempt to determine steam quality, which can't
be done with such a tool. And steam quality was
crucial, as well as the possibility of overflow, unboiled water.)
This article adds to the confusion, it does not
clear it up. Pseudoskeptics will use the article
to shore up their "not reproduced" arguments.
The NASA/Boeing report actually tells us
practically nothing about LENR. I.e, if LENR is
real, the report tells us, here is a plan to
utilize it. It's essentially pie in the sky,
because planning how to use LENR when *we don't
know what is happening in detail," is radically premature.
What's needed is basic research to determine the
physics of LENR, and to provide data for the development of verified theory.
