Thanks for the response, Ransom. I agree, interacting with Cude is
not useful. If you have any questions, I would be glad to respond.
Ed Storms
On May 7, 2013, at 9:34 AM, Randy wuller wrote:
Cude would argue that there isn't a newly discovered (new is of
course relative) phenomenon and that everyone investigating it is
deluded, incompetent or both. What he can't explain is why anyone
would run around the internet trying to stop people from
investigating a phenomenon. It makes no sense and is probably a
symptom of the very negative period (I would describe it as the age
of pessimism) we find ourselves living through. When the pendulum
shifts and we enter an optimistic age, everything will seem possible
and as such being for something will be much more productive (it
always is) than being against something. You will find a lot less
Cude's running around, thank goodness.
Personally, while he is obviously bright, Cude's position is just
about the dumbest fool thing I have ever read.
Anyway, if you push him he will morph the argument to government
support (no one can really argue against private investigation of
Cold Fusion) for investigation of Cold Fusion and act like a citizen
advocate against wasted government spending as though we don't waste
enough on other energy investigations like ITER.
In answer to your question, of course we should investigate a
phenomenon of the significance of Cold Fusion even if the chance of
it being real is miniscule. I also think it is absurd to believe we
have an adequate understanding of physics today to rule it out.
Ransom
But you waste your time on Cude, he is a rock head.
----- Original Message -----
From: Edmund Storms
To: [email protected]
Cc: Edmund Storms
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 9:48 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
Joshua, cold fusion is either a real phenomenon in Nature or it is
not. You argue that it is not real, but simply the result of many
mistakes made repeatedly by many well trained scientists.
Regardless of what is suggested as evidence, you will find a way to
reject it. While this approach is useful up to a point, you
frequently go beyond this point into arbitrary and irrational
argument done apparently simply to saying something. In the process
you confuse people who are new to the subject and are trying to wade
through the complexity that is cold fusion.
My following comment is only for readers who are still following
this exchange. I do not have the time to refute all of what Cude
says, which would only lead to an growing collection of comment and
rebuttal without end. For your benefit, I need to emphasis that I
and most other believers are just as skeptical of what we observe as
is Cude. We question and repeat until we are sure the results are
real, which we now accept as reveling a new phenomenon. However, no
data is perfect. The goal after any new phenomenon is discovered is
to keep looking until it is understood. Cude would stop that
process. You, as a new evaluator of the claims, need to decide
whether the investigation process needs to be stopped or expanded.
That is the only question of importance. I would be very interested
in your answer.
If I get no response to this request, I will make no further
response to Cude.
Ed Storms
On May 7, 2013, at 4:10 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Edmund Storms
<[email protected]> wrote:
Nevertheless, when many people report seeing the same behavior, the
reality of this behavior grows. You take the approach that none of
the claimed behavior has been observed, consisting instead of bad
interpretation of random events, unrecognized error, and wishful
thinking. This opinion is applied to all the trained scientists who
have been well accepted when they did studies in other subjects.
This argument is a favorite among believers, and has been addressed
many times in these discussions. Here are 4 parts of a 5 part
response I wrote for another forum:
1) Pathological Science
The phenomenon of many scientists subject to bad interpretations of
random events, unrecognized errors, and wishful thinking is
sufficiently common that it has been given a name: pathological
science. It happened to a lesser extent with N-rays and polywater,
and to a greater extent (though perhaps at a lesser level) in
homeopathy and perpetual motion machines.
It isn't as if 100 scientists (or however many) were chosen at
random to do cold fusion experiments and they all claimed positive
results. The people claiming positive results are the remainder
after considerable filtration. In fact in the 2 cases when panels
of experts were enlisted to examine the evidence, their judgements
were that cold fusion had not been proven.
After P&F, cold fusion experiments were done all over the world --
by probably tens of thousands of scientists. A few of the negative
results were famously presented, but most researchers simply went
back to their previous interests when their experiments showed
nothing, and after they had examined the positive claims in more
detail, and satisfied themselves that evidence for cold fusion was
absent.
But calorimetry experiments are famously prone to artifact, and so
it's not unlikely that a few might have stumbled on the same
systematic errors or artifacts that others were fooled by. Most of
the errors were probably discovered and corrected, and then the
researchers went back to their previous interests.
But in a few of the cases where anomalous heat was indicated, the
experimenters (in most cases, people with little or no training in
nuclear physics) might have fallen prey to cognitive bias and
confirmation bias, and once they were hooked on believing the
effect was real, could not let it go. This was greatly facilitated
by the potential fame and glory that unequivocal evidence for cold
fusion would undoubtedly bring. So, they haven't given up, and
every so often, they stumble across another artifact, which is
suggestive, but never unequivocal, and they play it up for all it's
worth, while ignoring all the failures in between. And so it will
appear as if the evidence is building. But the absence of one solid
result that can be reproduced quantitatively by other labs (even if
only sometimes) after so many years and so many attempts suggests
weaker evidence of a real effect to skeptics.
2) Diminishing returns
It is a characteristic of artifacts and pathological science that
the observed effect becomes less prominent over time as the
experiment improves. And it is characteristic of real effects that
they become more prominent over time, whether the theory is
understood or not. That's certainly true of things like high
temperature superconductivity, or (to go back a century or more)
discrete atomic spectra, the photoelectric effect, and Compton
scattering.
But in the case of cold fusion, the claimed energy is, if anything,
decreasing over time. In the 90s there were several claims of
excess power in the range of tens, hundreds, and even thousands of
watts, and several claims of heat after death (infinite COP). But
since 2000, most claims have been in the range of a watt or less,
particularly in refereed literature. Even within a group, the
claims seem to drop off. Dardik claimed 20W in 2004, but has not
been able to match that since. The exceptions to 1 W claim limit
tend to use spot temperature calorimetry, and are usually
accompanied by investment opportunities from people who have a
background in fraud, but not in physics.
3) Bigfoot photographs, or many bad results do not a good result make
Like positive cold fusion claims, there are thousands of
photographs that are claimed to be of Bigfoot or other monsters,
and hundreds of thousands of claimed alien sitings. Admittedly,
they are not often published in scientific journals, but I think
the phenomenon is the same; the difference is that cold fusion is
more obscure or sophisticated and therefore not as easy to dismiss
by scientists -- except in the major nuclear physics journals,
which do not publish cold fusion results.
The idea that many marginal results is somehow stronger evidence
than a few marginal results is typical of pathological science, and
is expressed frequently by advocates like Rothwell or Krivit. It
just doesn't seem likely to advocates that so many scientists could
be wrong. But when the results are as weak as cold fusion results,
in fact it is likely. What is not likely is that so many
photographs, from so many angles, with so many different cameras,
could all be blurry. The only reasonable explanation is that when
the pictures are clear, it becomes obvious that the image is
something other than a monster. Of course the clear photos don't
dissuade the believers; they just mean the monster ducked under
water at the right moment, and those photos are not shown.
4) argument from authority
The argument that there are a great many claims of cold fusion by
scientists is really an argument from authority, which is fine,
except that it ignores most of the authority. People find it hard
to believe that so many scientists can be wrong, but the
alternative is that a great many more scientists (i.e. mainstream
science) are wrong. In fact, isn't the bread and butter of the
advocates' argument for cold fusion that a large number of
scientists can be wrong, and have been wrong in the past? Why
should cold fusion scientists be immune?
It's true that most scientists are not even aware of research in
cold fusion after the early 90s, but everyone was aware of it back
in the day, and for recent work, we have valid samples. First, the
two DOE panels were nearly unanimous in judging that nuclear
effects were not proven. Second, the failure of cold fusion
researchers to get published in major journals means that referees
are rejecting the work. Similarly, most funding agencies that use
peer review do not fund cold fusion research. So, most scientists
who look at the work, do not agree that cold fusion is real.
Of course, the argument against the mainstream's rejection of cold
fusion is that it's a big conspiracy, that they are suppressing
cold fusion to preserve the status quo or their grant funding or
their peace of mind. Leaving aside the absence of a plausible
motivation for this, and the fact that this would almost certainly
be impossible if the effect were real, the advocates can't have it
both ways. If they are going to distrust the authorities because
they are selfish, then why should we trust the cold fusion
authorities? They may be selfish too, hoping to secure their own
funding, fame, glory or what have you. (In fact, some are suspected
of this, but it is not regarded as a field-wide conspiracy.)
Yes, CF is hard to accept and to understand. So what? So is quantum
mechanics and the big bang theory, but these concepts are accepted
because they are presently popular and supported by extensive
studies, not all of which are correct.
No. They are popular because they are supported by copious,
extensive, robust, highly reproducible studies. Anyone can do
spectroscopy with hydrogen and see that the results are coincident
with the Bohr model (or formal QM). Every fucking time. Anyone can
observe electron diffraction or the photoelectric effect. The
situations are not even close.
Nevertheless, although an active debate exists in the literature,
these subjects are not denied the money required to resolve the
debate, as is the case with CF.
Whatever active debate exists, it is not about the existence or
utility of the phenomena or models. The controversy about cold
fusion is whether it's real, and most scientists think the chances
are vanishingly small. It's completely different.
Why do you thin cold fusion is treated differently? Do you think
people hate clean and abundant energy? We know from 1989 that
that's not the case; the world is hungry for it. CF is simply not
taken seriously because the evidence for it sucks. And support is
not simply given to every conceivable claim someone makes.
Judgement must take account of what has already been learned.
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2241 / Virus Database: 3162/5803 - Release Date:
05/06/13
