Slashdot Mirror
14 Years Later, Cold Fusion Still Gets The Cold Shoulder
segment writes "It has been 14 years since two little-known electrochemists announced what sounded like the biggest physics breakthrough since Enrico Fermi produced a nuclear chain reaction on a squash court in Chicago. Using a tabletop setup, Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, of the University of Utah, said they had induced deuterium nuclei to fuse inside metal electrodes, producing measurable quantities of heat. That was the opening bell for one of the craziest periods in science. Cold fusion, if real, promised to solve the world's energy problems forever. Scientists around the world dropped what they were doing to try to replicate the astounding claim."
The linked AP story (carried on SFGate.com) is about the
Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion, which took place in the last week of August.
Maybe it still gets the cold shoulder because there didn't turn out to be anything to it? Nah, stilly me, must be some kind of conspiracy.
I know the popular thing to do is bash psuedo-sciences, and cold fusion because of its shaky introduction into popular thought quickly falls into this quagmire. But, let the human race dream before summarily dismissing the entire concept. I for one dont believe that all I have to look forward to as i grow older is a greater dependence on big oil, old money, and the like. Many groups (and by that I mean countries, companies, and current presidents) would love to convince us that there is no better way to live than under our present conditions. Not giving cold fusion and other radical departures from our current system an honest chance is not far from why were are stuck with Windows as the dominant platform in computers and oil as the backbone of our way of life.
Im not saying that cold fusion itself is the future, but what we are presently using is certainly not the platform for all future generations. Hell, if Bush gets his way there might not even be enough sun left for solar energy so there has to be soemthing to fill the void.
---- The real Slashdot is still here. You just have to browse at -1 to read the comments.
No win situation for their critics really. They are going to have a tough time getting any support.
I'm always up for a good conspiracy theory, but the more realistic outcome would be along the lines of forcing whoever patents it to give RAND (reasonable and non-discriminatory) terms to all the existing power companies so they can upgrade their netowrks on the cheap.
At least someone took the time to prove alchemy wrong. It's a travesty for a scientist to say cold fusion is wrong because of his faith. Be a scientist and use that damn method you've heard about since childhood. Since when does peer review mean you only test things that fit into your view of the universe?
Say what you want, alchemists were very smart for their time. They made that one thing that produced energy around 2000 years ago, and it has held the human mind captive ever since. What did they call that damn thing???
Oh yea... the arc of the covenant (aka the worlds first battery). Put the top on and close the circuit.... bam... sparks and heat everywhere. Give me some medicine, a flashlight, and a way to go back 2000 years, and I'll be your messiah. Jebus ain't got nuttin on me.
Well I remember the time when high temperature superconductivity was announced (little pill of material magnetically levitated in a cooled environment). Scientists started spouting on about lossless power lines using superconductors. Engineers skeptically thought that the energy required for the refridgeration was way more than the losses with conventional wiring. High temperature superconductors have very few realworld applications beyond generating Nobel prizes.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Theyre not rolling out cold fusion powered vehicles.Also fuel cell stacks are being used to generate intermittent power in more than a few cities.
The thing that got me about the coldfusion people was when they started doing the calorimetry to prove it worked.
The surest way you can spot bullshit power generation claims, is when their proponents pull out the calorimeter. Anything thats going to be a real power generation technology isn't going to need a calorimeter to prove it will work. The amount of heat that a calorimeters is orders of magnitude less than generating systems normally waste.
Anyone who presents their data to the popular press prior to being peer reviewed should be heavily criticized. Even the most senior and brightest scientist make mistakes, become too enthusiastic, or may fail to run the proper controls. Furthermore, given that their data changed over time (from one Watt in, four out to one Watt in, ten out) with no reasoning, backing or explanation, one has to question the accuracy of their data.
Great scientists sometimes make big mistakes, such as with Dr. Atassi and his experiment with pepzymes. Unlike the cold fusion scientists, Dr. Atassi went through the peer review process and later didn't play the ego game. Personally, I think Dr. Pons and Dr. Fleischmann were greatly mislead by their enthusiasm (I wouldn't go nearly so far as to call them frauds). Just as the mistakes of these two scientists don't invalidate the field of cold fusion, the successes of the field don't make their claims any more accurate.
Yes, the unexplained anomalies they report sound interesting, but then again, there are millions of unexplained phenomena waiting for study, and a much smaller number of employed physicists. Without convincing evidence that there is indeed new physics to be explored, you'll have a hard time convincing a publish-or-perish-mode academic to gamble his reputation on this sort of still-born turd.
You'd even have trouble bothering one to look at it. Physics faculty and graduate students get bombarded with crackpot claims, frequently in mispelled pidgin English. They need a mail filter that would block emails with "wherin the boson-fermion are united to GONG PARTICLE" and "Dear Sir: Attached is summary of Megaphysics." Granted, I RTFA, and it sounds almost incomparably better. But parts like
"I, for one, would love to hear smart physicists explain why the excess heat from the deuterium-filled palladium reflects not nuclear fusion but the release of mechanical energy"
"I'd love to see a smart critique of a 2002 paper by Japanese scientists, published in a Japanese physics journal that few American scientists saw, describing (shades of medieval alchemists) the transmutation of elements through cold fusion"
smell a little. Some of the most pitiable crackpot theories come in the form,
"I know this must be wrong, because it contradicts [insert some venerated physical principle here] but I've spent years trying, and I can't understand why. I've even talked to a few experts, and they can't find anything wrong with it."
People of this sort journey for hundreds of miles, appearing unexpectedly at some unfortunate professor's door, and plead for a hearing. There is usually some "groundbreaking" document involved. The first paragraph or so of this document makes it obvious the author has no idea what in the hell he's talking about. At this point, the professor can a) spend a few weeks bringing the poor guy up to speed with a line-by-line explanation of the million things he got wrong, or b) tell him, "Huh... I don't know" and politely kick him out. In the real world, option b) is the only choice.
The way to get a physicist's attention is to get the damn thing working themselves and shove the trillion-dollar patent check in our faces. If they are capable of doing the correct experimental bookkeeping (as the article claims) they are capable of continuing their experiment on their own. They don't need any help.
well now, there's a scientific aphorism! Hell who needs experiments, critical scrutiny, the scientific method. We can just evaluate all theories with this aphorism!
You must feel particularly good to have such bountiful wisdom. Did your dad teach you that saying? Well done.
Not true--cold fusion is possible, just not like Pons and Fleischmann described. (Nothing like it, in fact.) The quantum mechanical description of the energy states of a hydrogen atom are identical whether you use electrons or muons; use either, the hydrogen atom doesn't care. (Now, when you ask the very important question "yeah, genius, now how do you create quintillions of muon-replaced hydrogen atoms?", I'll resort to the classic physicist's dodge: "that's an engineering issue; go ask an engineer.")
:)
QMech says that if you've got hydrogens with muon shells instead of electron shells, you'll see spontaneous fusion reactions at very low temperatures. The reasons why are hard to explain without going into a lot of math, but it's quite possible according to the Standard Model.
Of course, there's a world of difference between possible and feasible. But physicists are only concerned with the possible. Feasible is for engineers.
" It's a travesty for a scientist to say cold fusion is wrong because of his faith... Since when does peer review mean you only test things that fit into your view of the universe? "
It's always been this way. Theres a big difference between the scientific method, and Science, Inc. And while you're at it, realize that Science Inc is as much a religion as any other faiths. It has its orthodoxies just like anything else. The Atkins Diet has always had its detractors. It took them, what, over two decades to admit that you can lose weight with it? And even now some doctors refuse to acknowledge that it can work. It violated the dogma of low fat/high carbs. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, science has its dogmas. Stephen Hawking is considered a genius now, but back when he was starting his career, the Steady State theory was the reigning dogma of physics. Some scientists simply refused to acknowledge any other possibilities.
Revolutionary ideas in science are often met with skepticism at first.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Cold fusion is the poster boy for what is wrong with modern science practice.
... call it what you will) can't serve a purpose in science.
Facts don't decide how to investigate ... people have to sift facts and decide how to pursue things.
That decision process is biased.
... as one other poster pointed out, doing "science by press release" is an extraordinarily bad practice.
It oozes political need while letting sharp investgation fall by the wayside.
... since once again, agenda oozed into the picture and certain scientists could milk grants on the basis of uncertainty and greed.
... on non-disclosure terms alone.
We should be relegating CF to the same graveyard of fraud.
Like the cart pulling the horse, agenda is leading all aspects of investigation. The end result doesn't function.
Now, I'm not densedly supposing that agenda (bias, philosophy
But
In addition, I often wonder if the majority of scientists today are simply too badly trained to even begin to address their serious lack of objectivity. As their mentors become progressively more whores for government and industry grants, that agenda-rich attitude can only pervade their students. The developing product is what we clearly see today: cold fusion is still an "I don't know" topic when all they had to do was run some arguably cheap and computationally simple experiments. Forgetting to take into account mass and heat loss from evaporation? These people aren't scientists.
Let's not forget the brouhaha over Pons's and Fle.'s legendary reluctance to be forthcoming about methods in order to have their experiment duplicated. That alone should have had the claim laughed off the press (non full disclosure is a hallmark of a hoax). But it wasn't
Cold fusion is right freakin' up there with perpetual motion. PM claims are easy to debunk
[You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
Other countries are still working on it, as the article states about Japan. What is the chance that it is just ostrasized in the US, or maybe even "blacklisted" media-wise? It's alot like the stem-cell debate in a way.
We are just ignoring something that might be possible "out of hand". The MIT prof said several times "I wish some physicist would prove us wrong now", but they don't. It's just completly ignored, even though there is some current evidence. But other countries continue work.
There is a vested intrest against cold-fushion and pro hot-fushion in the US. Hot fushion is a hard thing to do, therefor it's not really profitable as an energy source for the public. Plus, the US already is against nuclear plants after three-mile island and such. So, we stay dependent on...coal. Oil for the initial energy source.
Other countries don't need to be tied to oil like the US is, and are moving on. Just as our prohibition on stem-cell research is mostly religious based. Someone else will figure it out, and we will have some problems dealing with someone else with the upper technological hand for once...especially if they don't like us.
Maybe we DID take the blue pill. You wouldn't remember anyway.
Cold fusion does not mean the electrodes or the .
,
water will be cold , in fact , they are
looking for excess heat from which to generate
electricity or other forms of energy trough diferent
means . http://jnaudin.free.fr/ some great info
on alternative research and other weird things
and for the love of god , keep your mind open
its because of closed minds that we live in this
crazy/stupid/disfunctional/inefecient world.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Papers, or in the case of the cold fusion scientists - press conferences, that go against conventional thought must provide additional evidence, additional controls, and extremely meticulous record keeping. Simply because you are a fan of cold fusion, does not make Dr. Pons' and Dr. Fleischmann's experiments quality experiments. Cold fusion could be shown to be a reality tomorrow, and Dr. Pons' and Dr. Fleischmann's experiments still wouldn't be considered good science (nor would they win the Nobel prize). Likewise, just because some individuals made a mistake regarding cold fusion, doesn't mean that the field should be disregarded entirely.
You'll find that scientists in general are very open minded about accepting unconventional ideas, provided there is strong evidence to support those ideas. In fact, I know that both my peers and I would absolutely love to have papers which show some well accepted dogma to be incorrect. Similarly, you'll also find that after reading story after story of "Scientist finds amazing cure for cancer!!", scientists tend to give the mass media very little, if any, attention regarding scientific issues. We know the media doesn't know the first thing about science (though we'd like them to, and we work hard to educate them), and that our results are unfortunately often grossly over exaggerated and only half the story told (sometimes in our favor, sometimes painting us as unethical, evil beings).
You're absolutely correct - there are many stories where (now) heroes like Galileo, Tesla and Darwin who were outcast and discredited for their revolutionary ideas. However, simply being shunned and discredited for one's ideas doesn't make them a hero - Water memory, Vitamin O, polywater, and (dare I say) timecube. Should the people who came up with these ideas be regarded as heroes? For every hero, there are plenty of individuals who were forgotten, disregarded and even labeled as frauds - and rightfully so.
Scientists who disregard cold fusion do so, not because of Dr. Pons and Dr. Fleischmann, but for other reasons all together. As far as I can tell, the only people that are angry with the two scientists are those working in the field of cold fusion, who believe that it may be possible, and now have to work under a legacy of some poor experimental work. If cold fusion is shown to be true, it'll be despite of Dr. Pons and Dr. Fleischmann's work, not because of it.
-There is something strange & new going on in these experiments
I've no doubt this is quite possibly true. Regardless of what "it" turns out to be (or whether we'll ever know) I think it makes an excellent case study of why the system of peer review and formal publication exists, and the costs of electing to circumvent channels, whether out of over-enthusiasm or naked self-promotion.
By making a big public furor over experiments that hadn't been reproduced and obviously were not properly understood (since we're still trying to figure them out over a decade later), Pons & Fleischmann attached an onus to the whole business that it has yet to shake.
If they had gone a more cautious and traditional route, publishing their findings without radical claims about its meanings in appropriate general science and electrochemistry journals, the tag of "cold fusion," which is now essentially just an albatross to any legitimate researcher, could have been avoided, interest and research would have developed more sustainably (instead of the bandwagon rush to prove or disprove, followed by an equally frenetic rush to gain distance from a discredited claim surrounded by shadows of impropriety) and the fascinating anomaly Pons & Fleischmann discovered in their lab might have created a whole lot more progress, albeit a lot more quietly.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries