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.

Comments

Re:"Still gets the cold shoulder"

[naasking]

The whole situation was handled poorly by all parties involved. The politics doesn't mean there wasn't a phenomenon worthy of investigation.

Let us dream

[ihatewinXP]

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.

Re:Let us dream

[timeOday]

Personally, I am very skeptical that the perfect power source can ever be discovered.

We already have plain old fission nuclear power, and the only think really wrong with it is that it works TOO well. Any relatively small package capable of releasing tremendous energy will be usable as a weapon, and that is exactly what's keeping nuclear power down.

I realize there are environmental concerns too, but I think fear over the devastating potential of nuclear weapons is the root problem. Without that, pollution can be managed and contained.

Embarassed

[Herkum01]

This is a pride issue. The cold-fusion scientists are trying to get recognition from their detractors but they don't want to have anything to do with it. There are two reasons,

1. They got burned the first time because the conclusion, it was a hoax. Nothing makes a scientist burn up more than to have been tricked by some psuedo science experiment.
2. They really would hate to admit that they are wrong a second time. If they look and find that they are wrong and it was not a hoax it looks bad for them. Worse, they back it up and they find out that it was still considered a hoax, they fell like fools for a second time.

No win situation for their critics really. They are going to have a tough time getting any support.

Re:"Still gets the cold shoulder"

[d'fim]

Whatever "it" is, it is NOT fusion.

So call it something else already, and maybe those who study whatever "it" is may have a shot at being taken seriously.

Re: "Still gets the cold shoulder"

[Black Parrot]

> It was investigated by all the best labs in the world. Result: they have no theory; they have no data.

Never stopped other varieties of kook from sticking to their story.

Re:"Still gets the cold shoulder"

[d'fim]

.....adding to my own post:

They have been studying "it" for 14 years now, and they are STILL at the "we suspect that something is there, but we don't really have a clue as to what it might be, nor do we even have any real evidence that anything is really there at all" stage.

Nonetheless, cold fusion conspiracy theorists like to point out that a "major Japanese corporation" has a working model that is due to be demonstrated Real Soon Now.....

and has been so due for 14 years so far.

Two independent issues.

[xplenumx]

Simply because the cold fusion hypothesis is not dead does not make Dr. Pons and Dr. Fleischmann any more correct in their findings. The scientists weren't ostracized because they claimed to have experimental evidence to support cold fusion - had the evidence proved true, the world would have been ecstatic. The problem was in how the scientists presented their results.

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.

Cold fusion and muon catalysis

[rjh]

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. :)

This is the way it's always been...

[DesScorp]

" 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.