At 09:08 AM 8/23/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Craig Brown wrote:
First of all, I would be ecstatic if Rossi's eCat was proven, but
the constant regurgitative reportage of "Rossi Says this, Rossi
says that" being pumped out by certain reporters has me reaching
for the vomit bag on an almost daily basis.
Yup, it is silly. But why get upset about it? Just ignore it.
Well, people *do* get upset about it. Jed can ignore it because it
doesn't occur to him as something to get upset about. It occurs that
way to others.
I'll point out that there have been newsworthy events with the real
science, totally ignored. Each event by itself may be unspectacular.
Naturwissenschaften appoints a LENR editor.
If a reporter really knew the history of cold fusion, they know what
a monumental shift that represents. If they knew the full details,
the publication of Storms' review, in Naturwissenschaften, "Status of
cold fusion (2010)," would be seen as a major event.
For a reporter to understand this, they will need to be actually
informed, and, my guess, to be fully informed would take months of
research, if, indeed, it can be done in that time. However, there are
clues all over the place. The result of Robert Duncan's investigation
of cold fusion, on behalf of CBS' Sixty Minutes, is a major one.
However, the pseudoskeptics had twenty years to develop a whole
series of "impregnable arguments." It starts with a misrepresentation
that is repeated, over and over again, in supposedly reliable
publications. "The findings of Pons and Fleischmann were never reproduced."
You can interpret that in such a way as to make it true, and that
interpretation ignores the forest by focusing on one tree. Pons and
Fleischmann made a mistake. They reported neutrons that weren't
there, it was the kind of instrumental error that someone not
familiar with neutrons measurements could make. The physicists jumped
all over it, ignoring the *fundamental finding" of Pons and
Fleischmann: anomalous heat from highly loaded palladium deuteride.
And that fundamental finding has not only been reproduced thousands
of times, by hundreds of research groups, it's been confirmed by
correlation with the nuclear ash, helium.
There have been published, in peer-reviewed journals, over the last
seven or eight years or so, sixteen reviews of cold fusion in
peer-reviewed journals. The Naturwissenschaften review was merely the
latest and most comprehensive. There are no reviews over that time
which don't accept the reality of the effect discovered by Pons and
Fleischmann.
Is the effect nuclear? The helium evidence is quite strong evidence
-- I'd say conclusive -- that, yet, it's nuclear, because it is
producing a nuclear product. But we still don't know what it is, as
to mechanism. The fuel and ash, for the FPHE, are almost certainly
deuterium and helium. The experimental work from which we can
conclude that has not been seriously challenged, there is no
substantial contrary experimental evidence, only a few quibbles about
the exact value of the correlation. The preponderance of the evidence
at this time is definitely that the reaction is *some kind of
fusion,* i.e., a process which converts dueterium to helium.
But here is the problem. People in the field know that low-energy
nuclear reactions are possible. That is not really in serious
controversy any more, from those familiar with the research, the
skepticism that remains is almost entirely from those who are
ignorant of it. There may be a handful of exceptions from people who
made a major commitment, years ago, to "there must be something wrong
here." "There must be some error in the calorimetry." But I've never
seen these people address the heat/helium correlation, which blows
that argument out of the water. They maintain their skeptical
position by focusing on the original reasons for rejection and
excluding contrary evidence. People do this all the time. It's normal
human behavior. But it is definitely not "scientific."
In any case, some of us are so accustomed to ignorant objection that
we tend to defend LENR claims, knee-jerk. When Rossi news became
widely known last year, I warned cold fusion researchers against
appearing to confirm his work until and unless there was independent
confirmation.
Rossi ran some demonstrations that *appeared* convincing, they
convinced people who we might think of as experts, who observed the
demonstrations. Later discussion showed that these "experts," who
*were* experts in certain fields, had overlooked some problems and
possibilities that, within reasonable possibility, could explain most
or all of the apparent excess heat. It really became obvious, I'm not
going to repeat all the evidence for this, Steve Krivit has done
that. The point is not that it has been proven that the heat wasn't
real, but that the demonstrations did not establish that.
Given that Rossi could easily address all these issues, *we cannot
trust his claims unless they are independently confirmed.* It's
simply a consequence of his behavior. There are possible reasons for
his behavior, these have been elaborated over and over, but none of
them actually prove any case. It's that he *might* have this reason,
or he *might* have that reason, but the end of all of it is: we don't
know, unless we do. If we have witnessed an independent
demonstration, under the control over experts in calorimetry, or so
overwhelmingly successful as to heat level that "calorimetry" truly
becomes irrelevant, then we know *something*.
However, this is the big problem. LENR is real. We are not surprised
that someone might find a way to scale the effect up. We are more
surprised, but aren't astonished, that someone might find a way to
make it reliable.
A scaled up effect will sometimes produce a spectacular
demonstration. But will it produce reliable power, sustained for the
time needed for commercial application? Even witnessing a single
*independent* demonstration, if time-limited, is not enough to show
what most of the world really wants to know: are we about to see
commercially available LENR, at affordable prices?
The fact is that if the Rossi effect is real, a commercial device
could easily have been made available last year. That commercial
device actually need not be reliable, it would only need to function
some reasonable percentage of the time. It would be sold for
investigational purpose, it would be sold under strict licensing,
though not NDA, but *it would be sold and readily available*. It
would not need to be expensive. It need not be "public usage safe."
People buying it would sign strict assumption of full liability
agreements. Only fraud in the sales would be a legal hazard to Rossi or others.
My own conclusion is that Rossi may or may not have real power
production. If he is a total con artist, he might have nothing. But
it is, from his history, more likely that he has *something,* just my
sense and personal judgment. But what he actually has might be
commercially useless. It might not be reliable.
Lack of reliability could well explain all his delays and many of the
other very suspicious characteristics of Rossi's behavior. He's
"working on it, he'll have it knocked any day now."
I might even be right. Or wrong. *And we don't know.* Most observers
of the scene fall into skeptical or believing camps, and say, as if
it were fact, what they want to believe.
There really is a need for deep and sober reporting of the
Rossi/DGT/Brillouin phenomenon and news. But there are few reporters
and news organizations willing to take on the task. Mats Lewan of NY
Teknik tried, but it's clear that major leads were never followed,
for reasons I don't understand. Kullander and Essen made some obvious
errors in analysis, and that has never really been confronted, except
on non-media or specialized web sites. It's pretty simple, they were
easy errors to make, and all it means is that K&E were outside their
specific expertise.
People who *are* experts on calorimetry have been excluded.... and
all this means is that Rossi doesn't want the truth to be clearly
known. What *that* means is unclear. Jed has pointed out that he's
encountered this before. Confusion can be a part of a business plan.
Whether that actually works or not is another story, but some
entrepreneurs obviously have thought it can.
Rossi's statements about his business have often been unreliable. He
claimed he cut a deal with a giant company that turned out to be
Ampenergo. He claimed he sold and would soon ship the 1 MW monster
reactor. It is still sitting there. His technical claims have a
better track record. But who knows what to make of this latest one,
about a 1,200 deg C reactor? We will find out . . . or we won't find out.
Don't fret about it. The fate of cold fusion does not rest in
Rossi's hands. I think Celani and others have replicated high power
density Ni-H. Celani is a little sloppy at times but his overall
credibility is orders of magnitude above Rossi's. He is a sane,
cooperative person at a National Laboratory. Defkalion may also have
a high power Ni-H reactor. I do not know. They have not revealed any
details about calorimetry. People who have seen it are under strict
NDA. Despite this, some details have been leaked. They are unimpressive.
It is difficult to assess, for me, the overall effect of Rossi's
claims. On the one hand, they have brought massive attention,
compared to what existed before them. But on the other, his obvious
"con-artist" demeanor and behavior has created a general bogosity
field that can repel real news.
I'm not ready to call Celani's work "replication." The techniques are
all over the map. Ash has not been confirmed, a huge issue. Celani's
work is of high interest, but his results have *not* been nailed down.
Look, LENR could deserve billions of dollars in investment.
Fleischmann said that it would take a Manhattan-scale project to
develop it. The Manhattan project was based on accepted science, the
mechanism for fission was known, it was reasonably well understood.
We still do not know the mechanism for cold fusion, there are only
what Storms calls "plausible theories," and I must gloss this as "not
so ridiculous that not all knowledgeable people fall down laughing."
Some of these theories are at least partially verifiable.
Investigating the mechanism for a known but mysterious effect is
basic scientific research, and it does not take billions in
investment. Millions could do nicely, thank you.
Investment by entrepreneurs might not advance the science, unless the
entrepreneur has very deep pockets and a great deal of patience.
Venture capital typically needs a fairly rapid return on investment,
and cold fusion could require, then, that Manhattan-scale project. If
you have to ask, it's too expensive. The numbers might be in the billions.
None of this means that an entrepreneur can't get lucky. People who
have invested in research, I wish them well, and they have the right
to keep their findings confidential.
But I see the situation as one calling for publicly-funded research,
so that results are promptly shared, even in-process. Not a huge
boondoggle, aimed at commercialization (by 2050?), as with hot
fusion, but basic science, as recommended by both United States
Department of Energy reviews, in 1989 and 2004. What those reviews
recommended *against* was that Manhattan-scale project, a massive
crash program, and the reasons are obvious: the effect wasn't -- and
probably isn't -- understood. That recommendation was translated by
pseudoskeptics as "cold fusion is bogus, see, the expert panels
agree." No, they *didn't* agree. 1989 clearly recognized cold fusion
as not necessarily impossible, and 2004 had a divided expert panel,
and it's worth looking at the opinions, and at errors made in that
review, but one fact is clear: the recommendation for further
research was *unanimous* and it was *sincere* and not coerced.
In 1989, that same recommendation was made because Norman Ramsey, the
Nobel-Prize winning physicist on the panel, threatened to noisily
resign if certain general scientific principles, and that
recommendation, were not included in the rerpot. He was probably in a
minority of about 2/15 at that point.
Basically, contrary to common claim that the two reviews "came to
about the same result," the difference was enormous, when we look
more carefully.
And we need reporters who will look more carefully. Any volunteers?
The difference between Celani's 21 W and Rossi's 16 kW is
unimportant, in my opinion. They are equally close to
commercialization. The 16 kW looks more impressive to people who do
not understand the technical issues. The megawatt reactor looks
impressive to such people as well. To me, it looks like a gigantic
white elephant. It is a distraction, and an absurd waste of time and
effort. A dangerous piece of junk. No one in his right mind would
buy it. I might buy one of those boxes inside it, but I would no
more crank up the whole thing than I would try to fly the Caproni
Ca-60 Transaereo 'Capronismo' -- a similar product of grandiose
Italian engineering.
Yes. As Jed said.
