On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Joshua Cude <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I disagree. Terrible idea, terrible article. Estimates are that $200 M has > been spent on cold fusion research in 22 years. If that's not enough to > generate unequivocal evidence of *heat* from nuclear reactions in a > small-scale, table-top experiment at ordinary conditions, then the public > should not commit funds to the idea as a generic possibility. If > researchers have focused ideas about metal hydrides, there are funding > programs they can apply to. But to simply allocate a fixed amount of money > to a field most scientists think has no merit would bring all the kooks out > of the woodwork. > I didn't see any numbers in the article so I have no idea how much money would be involved -- certainly a whole lot less than hundreds of millions of dollars. I didn't suggest support for a massive R&D effort to find new proposals for cold fusion. Indeed that would bring out all the fruits and nuts from Sterling Allan's neighborhood. What I would suggest is the documentation of a methodology and objective criteria for rapidly and cleanly evaluating the sort of claims made by Rossi and Defkalion. I would suggest standardization of calorimetry including for the smaller heat flows the liberal application of gradient layer/Seebeck effect calorimeters and for robust claims the use of simple liquid coolant systems with guidelines for such error-prone activities as thermocouple placements, blanks, controls, and calibrations. People may be interested in theory and of course they can pursue appropriate grants. What I'd like to see is proper methods developed for evaluation of claims such that the controversy of whether any given claim to having made cold fusion or LENR energy can be settled easily without all the weird, overly complicated, and potentially misleading publications I've been unfortunate enough to have to work through whenever I try to educate myself about what the field is doing.
