On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> Mary Yugo wrote: > > If so, the entire scientific community must be incredibly obstinate or >> the proof for cold fusion isn't very good or some combination of both. >> > > It is entirely the first. That is true of all other examples in which the > scientific establishment rejected claims for years or decades. There are very few phenomena identified in small-scale (bench top) experiments at ordinary conditions (like cold fusion) in which the fundamental principle was rejected by the scientific community for decades, and was eventually vindicated. All the examples you repeatedly trot out don't fit this at all. > You can find hundreds of examples; this sort of thing happens all the > time. And yet, Edmund Storms has said that the treatment of cold fusion (assuming it is real) is unprecedented in the history of science. It doesn't happen all the time. People were skeptical of the Wrights and of the practicality of flight, but the scientific community was not skeptical of the principle. People were skeptical of the practicality of light bulbs, but not the principle. People were skeptical of the principle of the laser, but only a few, and only for a short time. The quality of the proof is never an issue. It is always an issue. Of course there is a certain inertia, but the better the proof, the more quickly it is accepted. Look at high temperature superconductivity. It was not understood theoretically, but accepted instantly, because the Meissner effect is pretty good evidence. > The proof of cold fusion is better than the proof of countless other > claims that were instantly accepted. That's just wrong. The proof of cold fusion is absent. And it is not a subtle thing to prove heat at the claimed levels, and yet in 22 years, no one has been able to do it. > As I said, the only metric that counts is money. Academic funding: money > and power. Not true. In spite of the opposition to cold fusion, it has had about 200 M in funding. For an experiment that simple, proof-of-principle should not require 1% of that. P&F first claim was done on a shoe-string, probably less than 100k. After 1989, they were given tens of millions, and their own institute. But the evidence did not get any better. People oppose cold fusion because their salaries depend upon opposing it. If this were true at all, it would be true of a tiny number of people, and not true of the most famous opposers of cold fusion like Nathan Lewis, Steven Koonin, Seaborg, Park, the entire DOE panels, etc. And even for those who are working on hot fusion, it's not like the academics would lose their jobs if cold fusion were right. Academics can simply switch to a new field. It seems like cold fusion could use some good people. But the vast majority of physicists, even nuclear physicists, do not have salaries that depend on cold fusion failing. They would be more than delighted to be part of a revolution in physics, which would not only benefit everyone on the planet, but also could win them a Nobel prize, and the respect and adoration of all humankind. Next to that, a bit of obstinacy would not stand a chance. > > Or maybe cold fusion has yet to be properly demonstrated and the sincere >> researchers are looking at errors and noise. >> > > You can only believe that if you refuse to look at the data, or if you do > not understand the concepts of errors and noise. You have convince yourself > that experts cannot measure 20 W output with no input. That's a lot like > saying a doctor cannot be sure if a decapitated a patient is alive or dead. The thing about a decapitated patient is that anyone can tell that he's dead without reading literature or looking at a lot of data. No need for a doctor, no need for an EKG, or a brain scan. (A better analogy this time, by the way.) Same thing for 20 W of power. If a cold fusion device can produce it without input, and if it keeps going for a time consistent with billions of joules per gram of material, then you can show it to anyone. And they will accept it without having to read 1000 papers. That's the problem with cold fusion. If the claims had merit, an unequivocal demonstration would be easy, but there just isn't one. > > Experts such as Heinz Gerischer who looked that the results in 1990 were > instantly convinced. They did not have the slightest doubt the results are > real. Experts such as Koonin and Lewis and the DOE panels who looked at the results in 1989 and 2004 judged that there was no conclusive evidence for cold fusion. > Every expert who has looked at these results carefully says it is real, > except Britz. Only by your own definition of "carefully", which is "if they agree with me". > Some of the 2004 DoE panel members who spent a few hours looking at it in > parlor game style review were not convinced, but the reasons they gave for > doubting it were ludicrous. Oh, so experts who look at the results unanimously say it's real, except the ones who don't. The DOE panel was given a month to review submissions from cold fusion researchers, and they spent a day interviewing them. Call it what you want to help you sleep at night, but if that's not enough to prove energy densities of GJ/g and output power of 20 W or 100W or whatever, then it is almost certainly not real.
