On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 7:06 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Score (member number, Y, N or U - undecided): > There was no simple vote, so this is an interpretation of what they wrote, based on a question you don't mention. The only simple question that all the members answered was: "Should a special funding program be established for cold fusion?", and all 18 voted "No" on that question. The interpreted votes below could be regarded as consistent with the question: "Is there compelling evidence for excess heat?" However, if the question were: "Is the evidence for nuclear reactions conclusive?", only one could be taken as "yes". > > 1 N > 2 N > 3 U > N If evidence for nuclear reactions were considered conclusive, they would not be undecided, so this is a "No" to the second question. > 4 Y > N "This set of articles make a significant case for phenomena in the deuterium/palladium system that is (I) markedly different from that of the hydrogen/palladium system, (ii) supportive of the claim that excess energy is generated in the deuterium/palladium system, and (iii) without a coherent theoretical explanation." So, "Yes" on excess heat, but "No" on conclusive about nuclear origin. He goes on to express this unconvinced position: "The significant increase in excess energy near the boiling temperature of D2O compared to some 50 oC lower is hard to reconcile with a variation in nuclear process rate or any phonon assisted process, a la P. Hagelstein. If this temperature variation is important then experiments to go beyond the boiling temperature of D2O would seem a logical step as mentioned (for different reasons) but apparently not accomplished by M. Fleischmann. Some repetition of the direct nuclear process measurements would seem to be in order, combined with isotopic assessment of the cathode material before and after an experiment that produced excess energy. " 5 N > 6 N > 7 N > 8 Y > N "If the bottom line is that experiments in which x > 0.95 in PdDx (at room temperature) give anomalous effects reliably (even if achieving that high x is very difficult and very dependent on the materials science of the Pd), while heat balance is attained for x < 0.9 in PdDx (or when using PdHx at all x), we've got the start of science. " That's a conditional statement clearly indicating the absence of conclusive evidence at this time. So "No" The rest of the report is very vague and non-committal, exemplified by this last paragraph: "...but with all the above said... these experiments are frustrating and difficult, and require expertise that cross-cuts physics, materials science, electrochemistry, as well as analytical chemistry of breathtaking difficulty. The two most difficult things any scientist can be asked to do are trace analysis/mass balance and calorimetry. Most scientists simply aren't good enough to do extremely demanding experiments in every aspect of the research -- and highly deuterided palladium seems unwilling to cut us a break at any stage. " That can hardly be taken as admitting conclusive proof. > 9 Y > N This is probably the second most positive: "Evidence for excess heat in LENR experiments is compelling and well established.... One of the more compelling examples is a quantitative correlation between excess heat and helium.... Some of these experiments [on nuclear emissions] appear compelling and are worthy of thorough review... The implications of this work, if correct, could be profound." But if he found the evidence conclusive, he would not have written that last conditional sentence. > 10 Y > N "At this stage, I think the evidence suggests the possibility of such events [nuclear], b[ut] cannot be considered conclusive beyond a reasonable doubt, for reasons alluded to above. " 11 Y > N "The body of evidence does not rise to the level of being conclusive at this time. " 12 N > 13 Y > This is the only reviewer who said the evidence for nuclear reactions was conclusive. (My guess is they put a token advocate on the panel.) > 14 N > 15 N > 16 U > N If evidence for nuclear reactions were considered conclusive, they would not be undecided, so this is a "No" to the second question. > 17 N > 18 N > > I admit my interpretations of these reviews as "negative" may be considered a little pessimistic, but keep in mind the following: (1) They were unanimous in recommending *against* a special program to fund cold fusion. If any of them thought there was a realistic chance that the field had merit (let alone were convinced that it did), this would be unconscionable, given the implications of it, if correct. It suggests that they couched their negative votes on a funding program in polite, but vague language. Even the one person who said conclusive evidence for a nuclear effect was established voted agains special funding. How is that possible? (2) They were unanimous in recommending that "funding agencies should entertain individual, well-designed proposals for experiments that address specific scientific issues relevant to the question ..." . This means that they were of the reasonable opinion that the scale and complexity of the experiments are small enough that real proof-of-principle (if it exists) could be found under normal scientific programs. Given that, the expression of 17 members that it was not yet established after 15 years of experiments with upwards of $200M funding is, to my mind, negative in the extreme. After another 7 years, proof-of-principle is still absent. The best proof, according to Rothwell, is Rossi, and that is quite obviously no proof at all. Rossi's claims are sufficiently bold that, if valid, we should expect some kind of definitive proof before too long, and failing this in a year or two should establish to reasonable certainty that they are not valid. Accepting Rothwell's suggestion that Rossi's evidence for cold fusion is the best, that should be rather negative for the whole field. (Of course, it won't be seen that way by the believers.) (3) Try to imagine a legitimate field, in which the experiments are on the same scale, and the measurements are of ordinary phenomena like heat, radiation, and isotope patterns, that after 15 or 22 years could not establish proof-of-principle to *everyone* on a similar panel. High temperature superconductivity was discovered about the same time as cold fusion, and still does not have a detailed theoretical description, and yet no member on any panel on the planet would have any doubt that the phenomenon is real. So, even a majority of clearly negative opinions about cold fusion is damning to the field. That 17 of 18 were unable to come out and say the phenomenon is conclusively proved is a devastating indictment.
