At 03:59 PM 4/22/2007, Tony Lee wrote:
>James Annan wrote: > > James Annan wrote: > > > > > Peer review is definitely flawed and IMO best viewed as, like democracy, > > > merely the least bad of the alternatives. > > > > "Flawed" may sound stronger than I meant (which is merely that it > > doesn't always get things right). I don't offer any solutions, although > > the EGU system is an interesting one. > > > > James > >Yes, I also had memories of some incidents in mind -- cold fusion, the >S Korean human cloning debacle, Soon & Balliunas -- but forged ahead >with that statement. The consensus of the scientific community on cold fusion seems to be that it was all a big mistake - the result of error and incompetence if not out-right fraud. I am totally convinced that this consensus is quite incorrect. This is an example of where science gets it wrong because they refuse to examine the data. This is relevant to the global warming discussions in two ways. First, there will come a time when the scientific community has to admit that they were just plain wrong to ridicule cold fusion. I don't know when this will occur, but it might be relatively soon. When this happens, the global warming skeptics/deniers/delusionists will love it. People will be asking, "If the scientists were so dreadfully wrong about cold fusion, why should we believe their "consensus" about global warming?" Few members of the general public will understand that global warming is a subject where science has thoroughly examined the data but cold fusion is a subject where the data had been ignored and denied. The second relevance to global warming is of course that cold fusion has the potential to provide a new source of energy. Of course, I don't know when or if this might occur. When subjects such as cold fusion (and certain others) are mentioned, the typical response of members of the scientific community is to refuse to take it seriously. When evidence is pointed out to them, they refuse to "waste" their time by looking at it because they "know" that it is nonsense. In case anyone reading this is inclined to be a bit more open-minded, the following provides some pointers to information on the subject. Better terms for the "cold fusion" phenomenon would be Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) or Chemically Assisted Nuclear Reactions (CANR). A good place to start on learning more about the subject is the LENR-CANR website: http://www.lenr-canr.org/ This website includes a library containing a large number of technical papers on the subject. The "News" page contains a summary of news items: http://www.lenr-canr.org/News.htm The most recent entry concerns the presentation of cold fusion papers at the American Physical Society conference and the American Chemical Society conference last month. This also includes links to videos of some of these presentations. An article on the Chemistry World website discusses the invited symposium at the ACS conference: Cold fusion back on the menu http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2007/March/22030701.asp There are a number of books on the subject. Two that I have read and would recommend are Nuclear Transmutation: The Reality of Cold Fusion by Tadahiko Mizuno and Excess Heat: Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed by Charles G. Beaudette. Nuclear Transmutation is more technically-oriented and Excess Heat is a mostly non-technical book that includes more discussion of the history and politics of the subject. Selected pages from both of these books are available on the LENR-CANR website. Another book is Cold Fusion and the Future by Jed Rothwell. This is available as an e-book PDF file on the LENR-CANR website. I haven't read this yet, but it appears to discuss implications of cold fusion. I see that a new book by Edmund Storms will be published in the next few months. The title is The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction: A Comprehensive Compilation of Evidence and Explanation about Cold Fusion. I expect that this is certain to be a good book. Storms is one of the well-known and credible researchers in the field. Here is a brief description of his background from his website: ------------ http://home.netcom.com/~storms2/index.html Edmund Storms obtained a Ph.D. in radiochemistry from Washington University (St. Louis) and is retired from the Los Alamos National Laboratory after thirty-four years of service. His work there involved basic research in the field of high temperature chemistry as applied to materials used in nuclear power and propulsion reactors, including studies of the "cold fusion" effect. Over seventy reviewed publications and monographs resulted from this work as well as several books, all describing an assortment of material properties. He presently lives in Santa Fe where he is investigating the "cold fusion" effect in his own laboratory. These studies have resulted in sixteen presentations to various conferences including the ACS and APS. In addition, twenty-one papers have been published including three complete scientific reviews of the field, one published in 1991, another in 1996 and the latest one in 1998. A critical evaluation of the Pons-Fleichmann Effect was published in 2000. In May 1993, he was invited to testify before a congressional committee about the "cold fusion" effect In 1998, Wired magazine honored him as one of 25 people who are making significant contributions to new ideas. ----------- Storms is the author of "A Student's Guide to Cold Fusion:" http://www.lenr-canr.org/StudentsGuide.htm The following 1998 article is a good non-technical discussion of the subject: What If Cold Fusion is Real? http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.11/coldfusion.html A 38-minute version of the 1999 video "Cold Fusion: Fire From Water" is available on Google video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6426393169641611451&q=COLD+FUSION&hl=en Jim --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change. Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
