On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> I will say, however, that his views seem to boil down to an assertion that conventional instruments and techniques do not work. Wrong. I have never asserted that, and I do not believe it. I will assert that tools do not make a carpenter, and that my views boil down to an assertion that cold fusion researchers are bad carpenters. > Calorimetry and x-ray film do not work. Wrong. They work just fine if you know how to use them. > Replications by hundreds of researchers mean nothing. Wrong. Replications mean a lot. But what passes for replication in cold fusion is considered failure to replicate in other fields. > The experimental method itself does not work. Wrong. This is so profoundly wrong, I can't believe you keep saying it. Cold fusion is one field among many. And progress in science has kept pace by scientists who reject cold fusion, and no progress to speak of has been made by scientists who embrace cold fusion. So, I'm gonna say that the scientists who reject it are using a better method. You know of course that N-rays and polywater represent precedents for experts widely applying what they considered to be the scientific method, using the tools of science, but in the end, being completely wrong. I know you see these as very different, but in fact, the parallel is pretty good. There were 200 publications on N-rays, and 450 or so on polywater (over about 12 years). Cold fusion is bigger than either, with a little more than twice the publications than there were on polywater, but then it's a more subtle measurement -- more difficult to disprove, and the implications of the phenomenon are far greater, therefore attracting more attention. The polywater people could have said it's not like N-rays because there are twice as many papers, and twice as many scientists, but in fact it was like N-rays. And if you can get 450 papers, with more than 100 in one year, with the authors all wrong, every single one of them, it's not a stretch to imagine twice (or even 10 times) that if an unequivocal debunking doesn't come along. This sort of delusional science happens a lot, and the bigger the potential rewards, and the longer you spend chasing them, the harder it is to give up. >His attitude reminds me of the global warming deniers'. Well, then we're even, because the attitude of cold fusion advocates reminds me of global warming deniers. And I think the comparison favors me, because in both fields, a small fringe group of self-interested people is making claims completely contrary to the nearly unanimous viewpoint of the scientific establishment. And I'm on the same side on both issues. > Those deniers are more on solid ground that Cude is, because climate simulation on computers is inherently more nebulous and open to question than, say, measuring 100 W of heat output with no input, in a heat after death boil-off. As a matter of fact, I agree that climate simulation is more difficult than demonstrating 100W out with zero in. That's why I remain skeptical of the CF claims. 100W out with zero in should be as obvious as a burning match, but where is the demonstration of it? If you've got 100W coming from an electrode, put it in an isolated beaker and show that it stays hotter than its surroundings. Get it to boil water in an isolated beaker, and bring that sucker to the DOE, and if they don't fund you to the hilt, then I'll agree science is fucked up. But that's not happening is it? You know it's not happening. That's why you wrote, in this forum: "With a small (half liter) insulated cell, the surface area should be small enough that the heat from the outer wall will be palpable (that is, sensible). ... It is utterly impossible to fake palpable heat.... I do not think any scientist will dispute this. ...An object that remains palpably warmer than the surroundings is as convincing as anything can be..." That's why you wrote on April 26: "Gene Mallove and I used to say that if we only had a demonstration kit we could persuade the world that cold fusion is real." If 100W out with zero in does not represent a demonstration kit, then you're doing something wrong. Very wrong. > […] But those climate researchers cannot do a simple, 19th century test-tube experiments to prove they are right, whereas cold fusion researchers can. But they haven't. > A climate researcher cannot take put an entire planet into a test tube and subject it to several centuries of increased CO2 concentration to see what happens. So their results will never be as compelling as Fleischmann's were in 1992. And yet compelling enough to produce almost complete unanimity among climate scientists, whereas P&F's results have convinced virtually no nuclear scientists at all.
