At 02:44 PM 10/17/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Some people have disagreed with me saying we cannot expect to see
the best power density ever achieved in experiments, because it only
happens in one out of a thousand attempts. I do not buy that. In the
book I wrote:
"Cold fusion is difficult to replicate, and the reaction is often
unstable. The heat flares up and gutters out, like burning wet green
firewood. Poorly understood physical reactions in potentially
groundbreaking experiments are often like this. From 1948 to 1952,
transistors existed only as rare, delicate, expensive laboratory
devices that were difficult to replicate. One scientist recalled
that, 'in the very early days the performance of a transistor was
apt to change if someone slammed a door.' By 1955, millions of
transistors were in use, and any of these later mass produced
devices was far more reliable than the best laboratory prototype of 1952."
While I agree there is reason to hope that, once the effect is
understood, we may be able to find ways to make it reliable even at
high power density,it is also possible that the effect is chaotic,
that it essentially poisons itself, that serious practical
applications may never be possible. We just don't know. I agree we
should find out, it's well worth the investigational effort.
Premature promotion of the energy generation possibilities of cold
fusion may play into the skeptical position. After all, there have
been efforts for twenty years to find a way to make the reaction
usable for practical purpose, to what result? And, yes, I'm fully
aware that the question is unfair.
However, it's also true that we can get ahead of ourselves. What's
needed is careful work to understand the reaction itself, how does
this thing happen? We've moved beyond needing to prove that it
happens, that's clear. But we still do not know what it is, and
trying to predict practical applications for something we don't
understand can't seem, yet, to reliably trigger and sustain, except
with minor energy density, is pie in the sky. We need research into
the science, and the drive for practical applications has been a huge
red herring, premature, likely to waste huge amounts of money. That
kind of investment in engineering should be saved for when we do
understand the science, and it will be far more efficient and effective then.
We should be encouraging basic scientific studies in the field. There
is work being done, and we should applaud it.
Right now, the biggest elephant in the living room is biological
transmutation, the work of Vyosotskii. In theory, it should be easy
to replicate those studies. But I haven't seen any clue that anyone
has tried it. If LENR is real -- and it's real, all right -- then
that bacteria might be able to pull it off is just not that
surprising. It's not hot fusion, after all! It's just some particular
physical configuration of confining atoms, and that might take place
on a very small scale.
And then it might be possible to study how they do it, assuming the
work can be replicated. The structure of proteins can be determined
and manipulated. Etc. It's another approach where the process might
be more naked, so to speak. Awfully hard to figure out what's going
on with the palladium/complex NAE structures. I agree with Hagelstein
that we should be looking for evidence of D2 presence in the
palladium, and its association with NAE. It is not hard to think of
possible studies, but each one is difficult, each one time-consuming.
At least, now, it's increasingly likely that good work will be
published. And funding and access to resources, I expect, is easing up.
