At 06:10 PM 11/18/2010, you wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
However, that comment from the review is actually conservative.
Storms does not state that biological transmutation is real, but is
noting a rather obvious fact: we reject the concept of biological
transmutation because we reject the concept of nuclear reactions at
low temperatures. . .
It is conservative. Some people have difficulty understanding that
in science it is sometimes conservative to make a radical assertion,
or to reach an astounding, seemingly untenable conclusion. For a
person committed to following the rules, you have to follow them all
the way, regardless of where they take you. That's why Martin
Fleischmann says: "we are painfully conventional people." He means it.
"Painfully." That means even when it hurts.
The comment from that Physics Forum "expert" was outrageous, and that
this seems to be supported by forum management is outrageous upon
outrageous. But that's what happens. It is a politically effective
comment to make, because of the knee-jerk reaction to biological
transmutation. I winced when I read Storms' comments on this, but
only because of the politics. I've noted Vyosotskii myself, and,
damn!, this is something that deserves replication attempts, but I
know of nobody who has attempted it.
The pseudoskeptics don't realize that their knee-jerk reactions waste
a huge amount of time and do damage to the reputation of science,
because those papers sit there and gather a certain level of positive
opinion, coupled with a sense of suppression of truth.
Even if they are right on the particular issue.
In the case of cold fusion, there was another letter in Physics today
that was truly remarkable. Pseudoskeptics won't notice it, but this
would be perfect as trolling from a cold fusion supporter. I wrote,
about it, to the CMNS list:
http://link.aip.org/getpdf/servlet/GetPDFServlet?filetype=pdf&id=PHTOAD000063000011000011000001&bypassSSO=1
And then there was the beautiful little letter from Fred McGalliard.
It's truly ironic. He claims that cold fusion *was* reproduced, but
only "if the experiment was flawed in the same way as the original."
Okay. Great! *What is the flaw*? Has anyone identified it and
published it? Has anyone demonstrated that this is a flaw, as, for
example, the findings of N-rays and polywater were shown to be
spurious, artifact?
And then, if there is an "experimental flaw" that produces helium,
correlated with this allegedly spurious heat, how is that trick pulled off?
But these pseudoskeptics don't know about heat/helium, except maybe
one, Shanahan, who tries to wave it away with the magic wand of
claiming that a correlation between bogosities is meaningless. The
only effort I've seen is a claim that heat is driving off helium
from the cathode, and, of course, he claims that the heat is of
chemical origin, from unexpected recombination.
Problem is, the hypothesis he presents is totally inconsistent with
the data. Still, surely this could be confirmed or shown to be
incorrect. I believe that the cold fusion researchers have already
done that very well.
These are armchair criticisms, and there is no end to the hypotheses
that can be made up, with increasing complexity, up to and including
complete incompetence and/or fraud.
Which is it, reproduced or not reproduced? The polywater experiments
were reproduced, and then good analysis showed that the qualities of
polywater were due to impurities, particularly human sweat. At least
that's what was published! And polywater slowly disappeared from
journals, but far more rapidly than cold fusion. With N-rays, an
experimental trick showed that they were artifacts of observer
imagination, always a problem when human eyewitness observations at
the limit of visiblity are involved, it was like that with Martian
canals, another alleged pathological science example.
As has been pointed out by experts, none of the common pathological
science examples were actually "pathological," unless any error is a
pathology. The implication with "pathological science" is that there
is something fundamentally wrong with scientists who report what they
observe, if they make a mistake. Yes, every care should be taken by a
mature scientist to try to identify errors and elimiminate bias. But
.... the first time an error is encountered, it can be very
difficult. It was not obvious that human sweat would be behind
polywater, they'd cleaned their glassware, probably quite thoroughly.
If avoiding pathological science of this kind is to be successful, we
should train scientists in hindsight/foresight conversion.
Hindsight 101, to be required for graduation in any scientific field.
Unfortunately, it involves psi powers, and psi is another
"pathological science." Or pseudoscience. Whatever....
Seriously, in hindsight the rigid skeptical position on cold fusion
was phenomenally stupid. It depended upon a blatantly flawed
foundation. Why couldn't they see this? Pathological science. In
fact. A failure to understand the scientific method, which requires
being skeptical about one's own opinions, as well as the reports and
opinions of others.
That opinion was an understandable error, until it went beyond
certain limits, which it rapidly did for many.
1. D-d fusion is a well-understood reaction, accurately predicted
from theory. Under most conditions. Not necessarily all, but that
detail was overlooked. In particular, it is well-understood under
plasma conditions, and muon-catalyzed fusion appears to function
quite the same, the only difference being that the deuteron energy
can be (must be?) quote low. The branching ratio is the same, or at
least close.
2. So when "cold fusion" was proposed, based primarily on excess
heat, it was easily and understandably expected to generate a neutron
in half the reactions, and tritium in the other half. Both easily
detected. But that P and F were not dead was strong evidence against
neutrons, and, while tritium was indeed reported by some (but not by
the negative replicators who got no excess heat -- surprise! Not!),
it was at levels way too low. What was the ash? He-3 and tritium were
expected, in large quantities. Missing.
3. So ... in hindsight, it's obvious. Whatever was happening in a P-F
experiment, it was not d-d fusion! Or, alternatively, it was d-d
fusion behaving in a completely unexpected way, so a double -- or
triple -- miracle. Easily rejected.
4. Here was the error: instead of concluding that d-d fusion wasn't
the "unknown nuclear reaction" that Pons and Fleischmann actually
claimed in their first published paper, it was assumed that it *must
be d-d fusion,* but this assumption wasn't clearly stated, it was
implicit in the arguments.
5. When helium was found to be the ash, with quite good evidence from
Miles, noticed by Huizenga practically with exclamation marks -- why
have the other skeptics mostly avoided this? -- Huizenga wrote that,
of course, this is unlikely to be confirmed, because *there are no
gamma rays.* There is the assumption, that an unknown reaction that
produces helium must produce gamma rays, whereas the production of
gamma rays is only necessary from plasma conditions d-d fusion, or
muon-catalyzed fusion, and, quite possibly, from any straight, simple
d-d reactions.
6. So, without ever explicitly stating it, "unknown nuclear reaction"
was rejected because it wasn't d-d fusion.
7. In reality, P&F were only justified in claiming "nuclear" from
their calorimetry, and they thought they had confirmation from modest
levels of neutrons, tritium, and helium. They may have been right
about the tritium and the helium, it's unclear, their work there was
criticized along with their neutron findings. The neutron findings
were an error, all the more ironic because it would have been a
stronger claim without their neutron artifact. The reaction produces
such low levels of neutrons that it's ridiculous.
8. But is is fusion.
9. Fusion through an unknown mechanism. Get over it. Heat/helium is
extremely solid evidence that fusion is taking place. Producing
helium from deuterium, with no gamma ray. Now, physicists, it's your
job to explain it, if you care. You don't have to. But if you don't,
the materials scientists and chemists who are working intensively on
this, now, are going to eat your lunch. And there are physicists who
do care. For starters:
10. Fusion has been predicted from quantum field theory calculation,
in a series of publications by Takahahsi, a hot fusion physicist, who
developed a theory of multibody fusion from experiments showing very
enhanced rates of multibody fusion (more than two deuterons involved)
in palladium deuteride under deuteron bombardment. That is, there is
a physical state in which deuterium in palladium deuteride, if this
state can form, will collapse to a Bose-Einstein condensate and fuse
within a femtosecond. So that state need only form rarely and
transiently, to explain observed fusion rates. This is not a
developed or complete theory, because the formation rate of the
physical configuration has not been elucidated, and the post-fusion
process remains quite speculative, we do not know how such fusion,
taking place within a BEC, would behave.
But it cannot be said that existing theory will be overturned if cold
fusion is real, as is commonly asserted. In fact, Takahashi's theory
uses existing theory. It is only that the possibilities to be
analyzed by existing theory were impoverished.
The rejection of cold fusion was based, not solidly in existing
theory as pretended, but on a failure of imagination in the
application of existing theory. The math was, and is, horrific.
It was, in short, stupidity.
This is the story that future generations will know, because the
truth is out now, and it will be impossible to suppress.
Mike McKubre has remarked that the skeptics attacks against cold
fusion are notable mainly because they are so weak. In debates such
as Morrison versus Fleischmann
(http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf) Morrison's
arguments are not clever, subtle, or close to the truth. Nor are
they deceptive or unfair. They are ludicrous. McKubre says: "I could
do a much better job demolishing many of the claims than skeptics
do." I am sure he could, and so could I. I do not know if I could
write a burlesque version of the skeptic's presentation, but I have
written real critiques of actual papers that point out more errors
than the typical skeptic is aware of.
Yes. I've seen the same. The problem is an entrenched belief that
one's own position enjoys total scientific consensus, and therefore
one need not bother with careful and detailed critique, which is,
after all, work. It's arrogance, really, smug arrogance.
That's not even considering the countless ad hominem attacks by
skeptics. I know more about the peculiarities of many researchers
than the skeptics do. I could probably do a better job on the ad
hominem front as well. I refrain from that because ad hominem
arguments are logical fallacies; the personal behavior and beliefs
of researchers are no one's business but their own; it turns out
that most people everywhere are as peculiar as the cold fusion
researchers (although perhaps more inclined to hide their oddness);
and finally, because gossip bores me.
Yup.
Cold fusion is mired in academic politics. Probably no subject in
the history of physics has been so mired in politics and emotion.
Perhaps. It is very, very strong. I've seen otherwise apparently
rational people go completely off the deep end when it comes to cold
fusion. They assert A, B, and C against it. And when it's shown that
these arguments don't even have a basis in fact, they rant and rave
and then assert A, B, and C as if nothing had been said. It's
paranoid thinking, self-confirming, and it's embarassing to see it
among scientists.
Of course it's human nature; but, suppposedly, scientists are trained
to move beyond that. Obviously, the education has failed.
Pseudoskepticism may actually be "right" most of the time. I.e.,
debunkers may be debunking something that is error or even,
sometimes, fraudulent. But ... the process damages science and
damages society, because people who believe in pseudoscience can see
the ludicrous entrenched pseudoreligious fanaticism of the debunkers,
they know that it's unfair, and they don't trust it.
Whereas a genuine skeptic who receives a fantastic report, and who
actually investigates it *neutrally*, can end up showing people the
truth behind the reports. Debunking damages public trust in scientific process.
Often there may be some real process, real in perhaps some
psychological sense, real in inner life, so to speak, that is
misunderstood, perhaps, by those who believe in it. The debunker is
denying, in effect, what some people know from personal experience,
and I know that this can carry with it a general distrust in science
and the scientific method. Genuine science would not do this. It does
not make positive assertions about the unknown.
[...]
Anyway, one of unfortunate side-effect of the politics is that
skeptics have seldom read the literature and tried to write a
credible technical critique of the research. The ones who made an
honest effort, Morrison and Hoffman, were both nitwits in my
opinion, and their papers and books are ludicrous, as I said. (Lomax
thinks that Hoffman has merit, but McKubre and others at SRI, and I, disagree.)
Perhaps we should go over Hoffman publicly, we've only discussed this
privately, as far as I recall. Hoffman was a true skeptic, not a
pseudoskeptic, and this is obvious from his book, Dialog on cold
fusion. So perhaps he was wrong on something, so he made an assertion
that was not ultimately supportable. Jed hammers on this.
The fact is that my approach to understanding cold fusion was
enhanced by Hoffman, not hindered. I read him before I read any of
the other books.
Hoffman presents cold fusion as an enigma, as an unsolved problem. He
skewers the knee-jerk pseudoskepticism. He points out evidence for
cold fusion, in some cases, and he points out possible flaws in some
-- not all -- of the evidence. In particular, he points out a
possibility of tritium contamination in CANDU heavy water. Jed thinks
that ridiculous. Maybe. Maybe not. The necessary tritium
contamination would be very, very low, because very low levels of
tritium were being found in CF experiments. Heavy water is expensive.
If I could get cheap tritium-contaminated heavy water, as long as the
tritium levels were well below any hazardous level, I'd be thrilled!
Hoffman died some years back, and I think he deserves better, in
memory, than Jed's rants about him. By all means, correct his errors,
and, Jed, I hope that those who come after me and you correct our
errors and look kindly at what we tried to do.
What is worse is that people knowledgeable about the subject who
could write more critical reviews sometimes pull their punches. I
know that I have done that, and I know several others who have.
This is not because they want to "protect" people in the field.
There is little or no collegiate admiration among cold fusion researchers.
In some ways and at some times, the field sucks. On the other hand,
to survive the firestorm of criticism and ridicule, cold fusion
researchers had to be independent types, and that is associated with
being cantakerous. So we need to cut each other some slack.
And we also need, now, with the shift and increasing publication in
mainstream journals and by academic sources, to start to write and
publish serious criticism. Time is being wasted by a lack of this; as
an example, serious effort was put into replicating Oriani's most
recent claims. While Oriani is doing some interesting work, his
published paper, that Kowalski et al, attempted to replicate, was
inadequately reported and analyzed, and what Kowalski was trying to
replicate was quite undefined, such that Kowalski concluded that he
did not succeed in replicating, when, in fact, Kowalski's results
were not all that different from Oriani's.
Better analysis and criticism of Oriani might have channeled that
labor into something more fruitful, such as replication of the SPAWAR
neutron results, still not done -- that's what I'm working on.
And if there had been better and deeper criticism of the earlier
SPAWAR CR-39 findings, the Galileo project might have been more
focused and more productive. As it is, I do consider Galileo to be
successful replication, but the significance of it is obscure.
So there is real damage to the field because of the lack of strong
criticism. We need to get over walking on eggshells.
At this point, any serious paper on cold fusion will very likely
assume that CF is real, i.e., that, under some conditions, there are
nuclear reactions in palladium deuteride that produce helium and
energy and -- only sometimes -- a little measurable radiation or
tritium. But that does not mean that any particular experimenter
actually observed these effects.
Serious and true skepticism is essential. I'm aware, as an example,
of a prominent researcher who attempted codeposition, he told me, and
who did not get the reported results of SPAWAR. He has not published
this. Why not? Replication failure is replication failure, and it is
all of interest, because it can lead to better understanding of the
necessary conditions for a phenomenon. "Publication" does not
necessarily mean that it's published in a journal, but at least it
should be presented at conferences or reported on-line. Otherwise, a
great deal of effort is wasted.
We do not mute criticism or pull our punches to protect others but
because we know that any report of weakness will be blown out of
proportion and used by skeptics to denounce the field in ways that
are a damn nuisance.
Get over it. Stop reacting to the skeptics. Start working more
directly to build the field. Indeed, one of the strongest present
skeptical arguments is that cold fusion researchers supposedly don't
criticize each other! A vigorous published critical literature will
help the field, not hurt it, and the strongest experiments and
conclusions will then shine out, above the noise.
I understand why the CMNS discussion group is members-only and you
have to promise not to talk about it outside the group. I myself do
not want to participate with those restrictions, but I can well
understand what motivates them to set those rules. It is to avoid
the kind of distortions the skeptics will make of an honest critique.
I've only reported, here, one bit of business from the CMNS list, and
there was no flak over it, and that was the Nanospire affair, where
the writer explicitly gave permission.
Most reporters do allow privileged access, i.e., they will engage in
confidentiality agreements, so that they can have better background.
There is no absolute guarantee of confidentiality, though, if one
wants complete confidentiality, don't disclose to a mailing list with
many subscribers, it can be a leaky sieve, and someone with harmful
intent could gain access, it would not be difficult.
I don't see, on the CMNS list, much, if any, lack of collegiality,
there is apparent respect among researchers as to what they write
there. There may be "pulling punches," in some cases. Perhaps these
researchers, who are far more knowledgeable than I, are kind to me. I
wish they wouldn't be, if that means not telling me where I have my
head wedged. Criticism from experts is the fastest way to learn.
If someone actually wants to learn, instead of merely to look good.
