Table Top Fusion Courtesy of Tiny Bubbles

Erik Baard writes: "The peer-reviewed journal Science is carrying a cover story about the possibility of table top fusion. Not cold fusion, mind you, but the apparatus might look that way to some. Oak Ridge and other labs say they have gotten the fingerprints of fusion (neutron production) from collapsing bubbles in liquid, a process that heats a local area to temperatures as hot as the surface of the sun, and releases photons. The disputes are already here -- notably from Dr. Robert Park of the American Physical Society and from critical reviewers who say they haven't repeated the neutron production. But the authors say the critics didn't calibrate their equipment correctly. Articles regarding the discovery can be found on Eureka Alert " CD: Looks legit, but Pons and Fleishman (and the University of Utah for that matter) talked a good game. I suppose I'll belive in tabletop fusion when a generator comes atached to my next laptop. The author of this post also has a longer article up at the Village Voice

Comments

Cold fusion was BS

[Jesse Duke]

When The University of Utah came out with the cold fusion story, it was at best bad science, at worst a scam comparable to the memory of water, to get funds or to serve some industry's interests.

I believe that anything related to tabletop fusion coming from Pons and Fleischmann should be treated with the highest circumspection, bearing in mind that those two might have an agenda. I doubt very much top-class scientists around the world would have been trying to build Tokamaks at the cost of billions of dollars, and been through so much frustration with them, if it was even remotely possible to do fusion with a pyrex full of deuterium and a paladium electrode in a second grade lab in Utah.

So, even though there is an infinitesimal chance that P. and F. have stumbled on something legit and promising, there a much greater chance that they're crooked scientists, and an even greater chance that they're just plain crackpots.

Re:Cold fusion was BS

[quantaman]

Don't be so quick to quickly discount cold fusion. When they first published they didn't release all of the details of their experiment, coupled with the fact that they were a couple of chemists taking one of the physics holy grails they were met with much animosity. Big energy companies also felt understandably threatened by the possibility of cold fusion and were very influential is "debunking" it. I've heard of various reputable scientists who have claimed to have achieved some extraneous heat production. I've also heard of one instance where scientists supposed to research it for the US government at one university (I don't know where) supposedly adjusted the baseline of their experiment to account for some extraneous heat production. Does this mean I believe in cold fusion? No, yet I do believe it is something that deserves some unbiased research, to allow political interests to dictate wether a phenomenon is idiocy and when contrasted to the potential benefits (or risks) is unthinkable.

Re:Cold fusion was BS

[Phoenix Rising]

Some interesting facts about the new study in relation to Cold Fusion

• Some of the current authors were on the skeptical side of CF.
  
• Their apparatus is a modification of work done by some CF proponents.
  
• The critics of the current study point out the exact same weaknesses of CF - non-reproduction and insufficient Neutron production.
  
• CF advocates have put forth several theories after the main debunking regarding Neutron energy levels; they would explain the difference in energy in this experiment.
  

In other words, these folks have just reproduced results in a different medium for CF (no, it isn't cold, even in the original P&F studies - cold is a relative term). And they've corroborated results put forth by more reliable CF studies done after the original failures. Lastly, the same critics so quick to dismiss CF are using the same arguments with the same amount of diligence as last time (hint - if you can't get it to work, see the original authors to work out problems)

In all likelihood, P&F were on to something - they just failed to do the appropriate research before announcing their discovery. They failed to do several control tests, mostly involving differing control materials; they also failed to ensure reproducibility.
And, for their efforts, the establishment scientific community ridiculed them rather than actually visiting to see what they had found. Better to keep their own jobs.

--

What's different this time

[Lumpish Scholar]

We hear a lot of wild claims from people calling themselves scientists. Unlike most of those, this is:

• a peer-reviewed article appearing in a major (if not the major) scientific journal,
• reporting an experimental result (not a business plan),
• that we're hearing about because the article is going to press (not because it was planned or submitted; admittedly, we're hearing it a little early because of advance reports).

These are all good signs of good science. The better sign will be attempts to reproduce the experiment, with both successes and failures published in the same professional manner.

It's an extraordinary claim, and will require extraordinary evidence. Yes, this is just a first step; but at least it's in the right direction.

Re:Not likely

[Roland Walter Dutton]

In the interests of some context, here's a skeptical review of Dr. Park - and here's another. The former is by Brian Josephson - discount his interest in parapsychology against his Nobel Prize and his Cambridge professorship at whatever rate your preconceptions dictate. The latter is by a Wired hack.

I'm no scientist, and I've never researched the issues involved, so I'm certainly not proposing to pass judgement on whether this (extraordinary) claim has any likelihood of being justified, or whether Dr. Park's quoted reasoning is sound. But I will say that Dr. Park's eagerness not only to reject the possibility as quickly as possible but to quickly silence those who entertain the possibility through mockery as fast as possible cannot inspire confidence about his judgement.

Dr. Park and his ilk work to make a pariah of any scientist who gives any credence to an extraordinary claim which is subsequently proven false (or is considered to have been proven false, or in fact why bother waiting for proof at all?) The resulting social impulses to avoid exclusion and join in pelting the menacing sinner are what make this a powerful means of winning arguments. "Hark: A COLLECTIVE GROAN CAN BE HEARD . Better join in the groans fast before anyone starts looking your way!"

But for Heaven's sake, if we accept that the normal process of review will be able to effectively determine whether these results are sound or not, then the absolute worst that can happen is that some time and money will be spent in finding that the results are not sound, and that some people will thus be proven wrong. In science people are proven wrong, through the expenditure of some time and expense, all the damn time! Being willing to consider new ideas necessarily entails the risk that you will consider, or take seriously, ideas that turn out to be false. If you're terrified of ever believing something that turns out to be wrong, don't do scientific research. The exact same standard should hold for extraordinary claims as for more mundane ones: if they have some prima face credibility, let them join the rough-and-tumble of review. Extraordinary claims do merit searching, skeptical examination: those who make or consider them surely don't deserve any more or less odium than scientists who turn out to have been fraudulent, or foolish, or just mistaken in regard to more mundane ones.

Oh, and for all you freshly minted M.Sc.s and docs out there who are saddling up to join the posse and defend the faith in this forum: consider first that in all academic fields it tends to be the young postgrads who are loudest and most confident in defending the current thinking. Older academics are (on average, of course) a little less sure of themselves: could it possibly be that they have learned something?

Re:Not likely

[Stalyn]

The main problem is that many scientists are more interested in their ego then science. I'm not sure if Dr. Park has replicated the experiment and if he has maybe he made a mistake. The whole function of published journals is for MANY scientists to try to replicate an experiment MANY times. Then share results to start a debate over the said experiment. Jumping the gun and declaring an experiment to be false without a deep investigation of it, is rather unscientific.

Some physics comments on the manuscript

[NanoProf]

Just finished reading the pdf of the manuscript. My biggest concern is the magnitude of the observed effect- a few standard deviations above background. The data acquisition runs lasted 7 or 12 hrs (or for several iterated 300s runs with another detector). The question raised here is, if you've got marginal statistics (particularly for an exceptional effect, if truly observed), then why not run the experiment longer, like a month? That should yield a strong enough signal that statistics are no longer an issue. With a small set of runs, there lies a risk of subconsicously self-selecting a fraction of the runs as the 'good' ones. I'm not saying that's what happened, but it can't be ruled out based on the data at hand.

Second concern is the accuracy of the shock hydrodynamic simulations, both the assumption of perfect spherical symmetry (which is crucial to a high concentration of energy at the very center) and the treatment of the complex interactions in the plasma during compression (Born-Mayer potentials, as used here, are outside their realm of validity when the substance ionizes, I suspect).

I'm not prepared to say "obviously wrong," (open mind = good) but there are red flags...

Re:Not likely

[aminorex]

> BTW, I wouldn't consider him a professional
> nay-sayer, but rather skeptical, analytical (both
> good qualities in a scientist) and out spoken
> (which can be good or bad)

Skepticism can easily exceed the bounds of
intellectual honesty. When such an excess
becomes ingrained and habitual, self-justifying
delusion sets in.

Analysis of the unknown is folly. That's why
the scientific method consists of the creative
generation of hypothesis, which is then confirmed
or disconfirmed by experimentation.

The bottom line in science is not analysis,
or orthodox dogma, or arguments from authority,
but the cold, hard facts of experimental evidence,
and the delusive skepticism of ideologues such as
Park pollute the public mind, as witness the
ignorant comments in this slashdot article, or
worse yet create in credulous factions of the
public a reactionary embrace of the entire range
of heterodox opinion, rather than just those
elements contrary to orthodoxy which are
well-attested by observation.

Re:Not likely

[Lictor]

>I'm no scientist

I'm not sure what a 'scientist' really is anymore... but I think I play one on weekdays (and particularly productive weekends).

>Dr. Park and his ilk work to make a pariah of any scientist who gives any credence

This is the nature of scientific research. The more outlandish your claim, the greater the feeding frenzy will be if/when you are proven wrong. Of course, if your results hold up... you might get a Nobel Prize (or even a Fields Medal!).

This isn't necessarily a bad thing. In fact, a good scientist is always skeptical... they want to know *all* the details and be thoroughly convinced before accepting a new result. This is healthy and, in my opinion, good for science.

On the other hand, if skepticism is taken too far, it becomes dogma. Dogmatic faith is the antithesis of good science.

Now, I'm in absolutely no position to pass judgement on Dr. Park (I believe I fall into your "young postgrads" category) but personally I could never see myself interjecting a personal opinion of this sort in a scientific context.

If one has an issue with the facts presented in a paper, one takes up those issues explicitly. Innuendo about 'groaning', etc. seems unprofessional and out of place to me. To Dr. Park's credit he *does* make some very good points; most specifically that other respected scientists in the field have been unable to duplicate the results. This is very significant and valid criticism.

In the end, I think the situation is summed up very well by a quote I heard on a TV show once (I think it was 'Law & Order'):

"Scientists have a star system that make Hollywood look like a socialist love-in".

The comment offended me at the time.. but objectively speaking, there is a lot of truth in it.

Re:Not likely

[counterfeitfake]

the absolute worst that can happen is that some time and money will be spent in finding that the results are not sound

Not so. The worst that can happen is that a lot of time and money will be spent in finding that the results are not sound. Meanwhile people less familiar with the scientific process will see the special on Dateline saying the energy revolution is here, and believe it.

I don't feel qualified to say much about the merits of this particular experiment, but I did just get finished reading Park's Voodo Science (and so, you know, I'm an expert). In it he discusses many ways that the label "science" had been attached to products and experiments that end up tricking people. One example he uses in his book is the fear people have had that power lines cause cancer. After around 20 years of research, no statistically relevant connection has been found. Hundreds of millions of dollars and huge amounts of time and energy spent by people, activists in an uproar, etc.

Park might have a bit of a tendency to be condescending or quick to jump to conclusions, but he seems to have a lot of experience and maybe he sounds jaded for a reason. I'm convinced his basic point is sound: the scientific community and it's accepted methods are effective and exist for a reason. Bad things can happen when the accepted procedures of peer review aren't adhered to.

Re:Not likely

[Goldsmith]

You missed the point that Dr. Park made.

It was submitted for review to Science. Science is, after all, a scientific journal. It was submitted by Science for review to a number of scientests. They looked at the results and recommended against publishing it.

Let's go over that again. Paper submitted for review. Paper reviewed. Paper rejected.

Now, move foward to the present, and the paper not only is getting published, it is going on the front page of the magazine.

It would be one thing to just present theoretical data that might need work, this IS done all the time. But they are presenting experimental data which absolutely should be reproducable. There is no way around it. Thier data FAILED initial review. It will get many more chances to be reviewed, and perhaps they will get together and calibrate the instruments properly and get this all sorted out.

Right now it is not fit for publication, except as a theory.

Park was more critical of Science in his little blurb than the actual study, and rightly so.

Is it background or is it real?

[jmichaelg]

The NY Times has this article that describes why there's a controversy over Science magazine publishing the article. As the original post alludes, there's quite a bit of skepticism because the referees were unable to duplicate the results. Interesting bit is that they're detecting some tritium which a referee attributes to "all kinds of crazy chemistry."

At the close of 1939, a woman sat on a snow covered log in a Swedish forest and re-read a letter from a chemist in Germany. The chemist had detected barium where he hadn't expected to find any. He wrote her because he couldn't figure out where the barium was coming from. The woman, Liese Mietner, figured out that the chemist, Otto Hahn, had split Uranium. Without Mietner's insight into the underlying physics, Hahn's observation might have been dismissed. So there might indeed be "some crazy chemistry..." taking place.

On the other hand, as soon as Mietner's nephew got back to England from his Christmas break, the British were reproducing Hahn's experiment. Without reproducible results, the results could just be background noise.

I hope they succeed and prove idiots like you

[Anonymous Coward]

wrong.

I've seen so many people including fellow physicist bash something they know little about. Do they have a proof that cold fusion is impossible? No. But they just bash to pile on the bandwagon of skeptics who are too cocksure and full of themselves.