At 10:52 AM 2/21/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]> wrote:
This discussion has been about the Rossi work, which is based on a
secret process, and which is inadequately confirmed . . .
I think the confirmation is better than most claims, simply because
the power is so high, and the input to output ratio is so good. It
was a rather sloppy demonstration. You might say that the NRL tests
with Pd powder are the extreme opposite. They are as careful and
exacting as any test can be, and they have been repeated
automatically hundreds of times. Yet, because they produce only ~100
J per run, I find them less convincing than the Rossi demo.
Jed, a single demo has so many possibilities for problems that, quite
simply, it can't be considered conclusive. For the science, an
experiment repeated hundreds of times is more convincing, even if the
results are not so dramatic. However, the NRL report is just one
report! They might be seeing the result of some systematic error.
Rossi might be a skillful fraud or be resulting from unexpected
phenomenon. (I agree, unlikely. But Rossi is not a clear confirmation
of any prior work, since we don't know what's inside.
Obviously, Rossi is interesting. Were I a venture capitalist with
lots-o-money, I'd be looking at Rossi, through he doesn't seem to be
interested -- in which case I'd mostly disregard it. I *might*
deprecate other investments pending knowing more about Rossi, which
is how Rossi could be damaging the field of cold fusion, effectively
inhibiting research into other approaches.
I dislike the secrecy, for sure. It's Rossi's right to be secret.
It's partly a consequence of the horrible situation with patents.
That either is causing Rossi to be secretive, or is providing him
with cover, a plausible reason for secrecy. Either way, harm.
. . . there has merely been a somewhat convincing demonstration
that *something* is going on in that thing.
That is what Levi reportedly said recently, in conversation with
another researcher. "Something worth further investigation" is how I
think he put it.
Of course. But we have been given nothing to investigate further!
I am not arguing with that Cude should accept the Rossi demo
completely. I have some doubts about it myself. Any claim of this
nature calls for more tests, especially independent tests. However,
I do think that questioning the flow rate is ridiculous. I think
these demands about the pump and reservoir are mere excuses to evade
the issue. If there is a problem, it isn't in the flow rate. You
have to look elsewhere.
I've discussed Rossi with pseudoskeptics, a little. They certainly
aren't convinced! Nor would I expect them to be. It's a huge red herring.
Pseudoskeptics dismiss Rossi for the same reason that they dismiss
cold fusion: because it seems impossible. We know that this logic is
seriously flawed. Cold fusion, per se, is not impossible, which is
why there were Nobel prize-winners working on theory! It's merely unexpected.
So pseudoskeptics will confidently predict that Rossi is bogus. It's
just what can be expected from them. I do not predict, confidently,
that Rossi is bogus, because I see no theoretical impossibility.
There might be some reaction that does what he's claiming. It's not
impossible, on the face.
Unlikely. Sure. But so seemed a lot of things until our understanding
expanded. Because we know, as students of cold fusion, that what
seems impossible might not actually be impossible, we are vulnerable
to all kinds of claims that seem to contradict accepted wisdom.
That's the cost of being open-minded. We still choose where we put
our energy and our attention, and I'm not pouring my attention into
Rossi, because I'm interested in the science, and Rossi contributes
almost nothing to the science but some speculative, contingent possibility.
Cude has added that he is not "convinced that nuclear reactions in
cold fusion experiments have produced measurable heat." From my
point of view that puts him in the category of creationists who are
not convinced of the evidence that the world is more than 6,000
years old, or that people did not ride on dinosaurs. The evidence
for cold fusion heat far beyond the limits of chemistry
overwhelming. If you do not believe it, you are not a scientist. Period.
I've seen no claim from Cude that he's a scientist. Nor do I know the
nature of his rejection of excess heat results.
There are reasons for most people, including most "scientists," to be
skeptical, and it doesn't mean that he's like a creationist. It could
simply mean that he's unfamiliar with the evidence, and he's framed
it within a general mind-set that was effectively created by the
particle physicists in 1989-1990, that had nothing to do with real
science and normal scientific protocols.
He's bought the propaganda, which is very understandable. It was
designed, like most effective propaganda, to be purchased!
To me, he's not yet been tested, unless you know of conversations
elsewhere. If you do, you could point me to them.
With Barry Kort, I started with the assumption that he was merely
ignorant of the evidence, a condition which remains, now, even after
two months of intensive discussion. He's claiming today, for example,
on Wikiversity, that the "cigarette lighter effect" is a result of
the energy of self-recombination of deuterium evaporating from
palladium deuteride, repeating Morrison's embarrassing error. Barry
confidently asserts as fact what he does not know, and the reason is
obvious. He's reasoning from conclusions, not from primary evidence,
and, in spite of his claim to be interested in the "scientific
method," he doesn't follow it, at all. He's chided me with Feynman's
dictum, "Don't fool yourself," but ... Jed, I knew Feynman, and
Feynman would quietly chew up Barry and spit him out. Feynman was
thoughtful and not mean, mostly bemused by what people do. Barry
makes no effort to refute his own theories, which would be the core
of Feynman's advice. Instead, he searches for arguments to confirm
them, and ignores -- simply ignores! -- all contrary evidence. He
doesn't acknowledge weakness, as is commonly done by researchers
writing under peer review, i.e., where they present a speculative
explanation of their results and then note the problems with it.
Barry never notes the problems with his own theories. Now, what about
Cude? I have no idea, I have no prejudice. I'm exploring and asking.
The evidence for tritium and commensurate helium is not quite as
overwhelming but I have never seen any rational reason to doubt it.
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Cude to provide one.
Tritium is a totally different issue. Tritium is apparently not
reliably produced by the F-P effect, as is helium. To me, tritium
represents a side-reaction, and a red herring, because if there is a
main reaction that produces helium, then low levels of tritium become
relatively easy to explain, because the helium-producing reaction
will create the energy needed -- a lot more than needed! -- to cause
secondary reactions, or rare branches.
It's like the SPAWAR neutrons. The levels produced are so low that
they tell us almost nothing about the main reaction. With the old
theory of fusion impossibility, they tell us that *something nuclear*
is going on, that's all. There shouldn't be any neutrons other than
cosmic ray background. I like that SPAWAR work because, in theory, it
can be reproduced very cheaply, which is why I'm attempting
replication. I need "cheap," if I'm going to do it.
These are accessory evidences, let's list them: tritium, neutrons,
charged particle radiation, X-rays, transmutations. None of these
should be happening in CF cells, it should not be possible to do this
with what was known and understood. But because the levels are low,
compared to the main reaction, such evidence is not as conclusive as
grosser evidence. Jed, you are right about Rossi, but only if Rossi
is reproduced, and quantified. Without knowing what the reactants
are, we know almost nothing, other than this:
Rossi was able to create a demonstration of very substantial heat,
more than easily understood as possible given the size of the
reaction vessel, in a way that convinced some observers that the heat
must be genuine, not produced by either artifact or fraud.
There are so many ways this could go south that I'm betting nothing
on it. For starters, frauds are specialists at being convincing! That
fact does not prove, nor do I allege, that Rossi is a fraud.
