Slashdot Mirror


Cold Fusion Back From The Dead

misterfusion writes "Looks like the IEEE is warming up to cold fusion with the latest story "Cold Fusion Back from the Dead". This has been a good year for this field with several leading science journals (Physics Today, MIT Technology Review, etc) contributing stories. Things are warming up and if science Research & Development funding can be stimulated with a positive DoE report (due soon), it might be an interesting rebirth."

45 of 635 comments (clear)

  1. Almost had a heart attack! by skrysakj · · Score: 5, Funny

    I thought the article was referring to Macromedia Coldfusion!
    Phew!

  2. Come on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    You guys could've fit at least ONE MORE "warming up" pun in the summary. It's like you weren't even trying!

  3. Article Summary for lazy people by PatrickThomson · · Score: 5, Informative

    Waffle waffle

    Cold fusion regarded as a joke for ages

    waffle waffle

    "THE FIRST HINT that the tide may be changing came in February 2002, when the U.S. Navy revealed that its researchers had been studying cold fusion on the quiet more or less continuously since the debacle began. "

    waffle waffle

    "At San Diego and other research centers, scientists built up an impressive body of evidence that something strange happened when a current passed through palladium electrodes placed in heavy water. "

    waffle waffle

    "Other researchers are finally beginning to explain why the Pons-Fleischmann effect has been difficult to reproduce. Mike McKubre from SRI International, in Menlo Park, Calif., a respected researcher who is influential among those pursuing cold fusion, says that the effect can be reliably seen only once the palladium electrodes are packed with deuterium at ratios of 100 percent--one deuterium atom for every palladium atom. His work shows that if the ratio drops by as little as 10 points, to 90 percent, only 2 experimental runs in 12 produce excess heat, while all runs at a ratio of 100 percent produce excess heat. "

    Summary: Cold fusion wasn't reproducible because not all factors were accounted for, and millitary scientists think they nailed it.

    --
    I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
    1. Re:Article Summary for lazy people by TrentL · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Other researchers are finally beginning to explain why the Pons-Fleischmann effect has been difficult to reproduce. Mike McKubre from SRI International, in Menlo Park, Calif., a respected researcher who is influential among those pursuing cold fusion, says that the effect can be reliably seen only once the palladium electrodes are packed with deuterium at ratios of 100 percent--one deuterium atom for every palladium atom. His work shows that if the ratio drops by as little as 10 points, to 90 percent, only 2 experimental runs in 12 produce excess heat, while all runs at a ratio of 100 percent produce excess heat. "

      Does this mean Pons-Fleschmann used the 100 percent ratio? Why in the world didn't the other scientists use this exact same setup when trying to reproduce the results? If you're trying to repeat a result, don't you make sure all variables are the same?

    2. Re:Article Summary for lazy people by Mr_Dyqik · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, maybe you decide you understand what's going on, and therefore that particular variable can't possibly be important, or you overlook it, or the variable isn't reported correctly etc.

      Scientific papers and experiments are just as susceptible to bugs as software. Generally peer review and repetition and further work on the subject of the papers catches these eventually, but it can take time. The claims of cold-fusion were so startling (and hyped), there wasn't an awful lot of attempts to sort mistakes and understanding out before it was declared unscientific.

      Best analogy I can think of is a software project that launches, claiming it will revolutionise user interface or something, but that only works on the developers own system, as they've hacked up much of their OS and hardware. It could be years before the software would work on a general computer, but if nothing works to start with, then most people won't be interested in developing and improving it.

      Look how long it took to get the linux kernel reasonably mainstream supporting common hardware, and compare to Hurd...

    3. Re:Article Summary for lazy people by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I suspect that, if this was the case, it was accidental. That is, P&F didn't set out to saturate their electrodes with D, but it just so happened that they were. So they were unaware that they had achieved a special case condition prerequisite for cold fusion.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    4. Re:Article Summary for lazy people by Minwee · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You can't make sure all the variables are the same if you don't know what all the variables are.

      If you believe that you are studying the effects of an electrical current on two metal electrodes submersed in water then you would make note of the current strength, the composition and dimensions of the electrodes, the temperature of the water and that kind of thing. You don't often record what kind of shoes you are wearing when you set up the equipment, what you ate for lunch or how long the fluorescent lights in the room had been on before you started taking measurements. Why not? Because it never occurs to you that it would be important.

      Good experimental procedure is to document everything as well as you can, but if you are investigating something entirely new you can't always know what matters.

      Sometimes even very smart people overlook small things that turn out to be important. Ask Gus Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chaffee about that if you see them.

  4. Re:What if Slashdot was right... by garcia · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Too bad Elizabeth Shue isn't spearheading the research. At least she's something to see.

  5. Perpetual motion ... by Dark$ide · · Score: 5, Funny

    In the next Slashdot story perpetual motion is shown to be possible.

    --

    Sigs. We don't need no steenking sigs.

  6. Let science work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is good to finally see a fair balance in the study of this idea. It may not generate anything usable, but then agin, it might. I think that is the key... to get real science studying the situation, not having the ideas tested and approved through the media.

    With ITER in a political freeze, there is ample time to study cold fusion concepts further. I don't see how one can create fusion conditions at room temperature. But if we understand how to control the collisions of the atoms better, then we may lower ignition temperatures. If the temperatures required were only several tens of thousands of degrees, then we do away with the complex containment systems and have a very viable energy source without multi billion dollar energy stations.

    Bottom line: Let real science work. The worst case scenario is that we have a better understanding of the atomic interactions that will be used in whatever fusion reaction processes that we eventually use.

  7. How do they know it's fusion? by dspacemonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From the article it seems like Fleischmann saw more energy coming out than he put in (up to 250% apparently) and thought to himself:

    "Aha! This must be cold fusion."

    Is it just me, or does that seem to be a bit of a leap of faith? After all, if one sets light to petrol one gets more energy out than a match puts in. Surely there are other possibilities.

    Occam's razor anyone?

    I'm not sure about "strong evidence" from a single research laboratory either...

    1. Re:How do they know it's fusion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You are very correct. This is why we publish results, and have peer review. We are in the infancy of this branch of science. Worst cast scenario: it doesn't work period. We have at least investigated another possiblity. We learn and apply to other endevours into fusion power.

      Will anything major pop out of this research? Maybe, maybe not. But we are learning. At the very least, this should train another generation of people to not buy into hype one way or another. First it was "COLD FUSION IS HERE!" then it was "COLD FUSION IS A TOTAL SCAM!". Neither is correct. But with the attention span of the media this is all you will get.

      Be patient. Let science work.

    2. Re:How do they know it's fusion? by radtea · · Score: 5, Interesting


      The thing that we know with certainty is that whatever is going on, it is not a nuclear effect.

      It goes like this: in any nuclear effect, you wind up with lots of energy being dumped into a single nucleus. That energy can come out in only a small number of ways, because no matter what process produced the energy, all energy is created equal. And the nucleus is a well understood system.

      So either you get gamma rays, neutrons, or nuclear recoil. The suggestion that you get lattice recoil, as occurs in the Mossbauer effect, does not hold water as it would require the lattice to behave in ways that are contrary to known physics, and again: all energy is created equal. Simply because an exotic process produces the energy does not allow us to suspend the rest of the laws of physics once that energy has been created.

      If you have gamma rays or neurtrons, particularly in the quantities implied by the rate of energy creation, they are easily detectable. If you have nuclear recoil, you also, necessarily have neutron creation, because given the energies involved you'll knock nuetrons off the recoiling nucleus or the lattice nuclei. Again, it does not matter what exotic unknown process makes the nucleus move: once it is in motion in the lattice we can predict quite accurately how many neutrons will be produced.

      Nothing like the expected numbers of neutrons or gamma rays are produced. Ergo, whatever is happening is not a nuclear process.

      For what it's worth, IAANP, I have heard Fleishmann speak, and was peripherally involved in some early experiments to (in)validate the 1989 results. I've not thought much about the subject in the past decade, and hope not to do so for another decade. There's too much real science to think about instead.

      --Tom

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    3. Re:How do they know it's fusion? by radtea · · Score: 4, Informative


      You've missed my point entirely.

      I am focussed completely on the question of "How does the energy wind up as heat?"

      I will grant you any number and type of exotic processes to create the energy in the first place.

      But I will not grant you any new physics with regard to converting that energy into heat, because all of the scenarios posited ultimately involve either excited nuclei, or nuclei moving in the lattice, and we know with as much certainty as we know anything what happens when we have excited nuclei or nuclei moving in the lattice.

      So you have two completely unrelated problems: one is that there is no known mechanism that can produce the energy in the first place. The second is that once the energy is created, there is no known mechanism that can convert it into heat without a clear-cut radiation signature. That is, even if you have pure d+d->4He fusion, you will always still get both nuetrons and x-rays (and gamma rays, in some cases) due to standard slowing down processes or de-excitation.

      No matter what process produces 4He plus a few MeV, the same physics governs the thermalization process, and you have to invoke entirely new physics to govern this process in this case, as well as entirely new physics to govern the generation of the energy in the first place.

      So it isn't the lack of explanation of the generated energy that is the big concern for most nuclear physicists. It is the fact that once the energy has been generated, the reaction products have to behave in ways that are completely contrary to a huge body of existing knowledge, both theory and observation.

      --Tom

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
  8. Should be looked at regardless by nizo · · Score: 5, Informative
    Thus spake the article:

    Over the years, a number of groups around the world have reproduced the original Pons-Fleischmann excess heat effect, yielding sometimes as much as 250 percent of the energy put in.

    (snip)

    Other researchers are finally beginning to explain why the Pons-Fleischmann effect has been difficult to reproduce. Mike McKubre from SRI International, in Menlo Park, Calif., a respected researcher who is influential among those pursuing cold fusion, says that the effect can be reliably seen only once the palladium electrodes are packed with deuterium at ratios of 100 percent--one deuterium atom for every palladium atom. His work shows that if the ratio drops by as little as 10 points, to 90 percent, only 2 experimental runs in 12 produce excess heat, while all runs at a ratio of 100 percent produce excess heat.

    Something is going on here that we don't understand, and it looks like it can be reproduced. Yeah I would say it would be worth looking into further. The 250% heat output sounds like a good thing (especially if no toxic by-products are produced) so how does that compare to other types of heat generation I wonder?

    1. Re:Should be looked at regardless by NichG · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Since when is deuterium toxic?

  9. Re:Would that rebirth include... by pete-classic · · Score: 5, Informative

    I haven't made any great study of what happened, but I'm not sure any apology is in order.

    As I understand it, they made an astonishing scientific claim. That claim, while it might be absolutely true, was not substantiated by the experiment they describe.

    There is more to good science than turning out to be right.

    -Peter

  10. Re:Easy to see why this has had so much resistance by meringuoid · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The fission power business depends on massive subsidy, at least in .uk. As for fossil-fuel energy, that may have the clout to squash new technologies in .uk and .us, but I suspect that in .jp, where they're wholly dependent on imported power, any alternative would be welcomed.

    Cold fusion was dropped because it could never be replicated, and perhaps because of Pons and Flesichmann's attitude. Science is not done by press conference, and you don't call an anomalous heat effect 'cold fusion' and cause a global hoo-hah without some damn good evidence.

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  11. Re:Back from the dead? by chill · · Score: 4, Funny

    Heh... Cold Fusion Back From The Dead is almost as good as Stealing Fire from the Gods

    For the last time we did not steal it, we borrowed it. We fully intend to give it back one of these days.

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  12. Re:Aaargh, not again! by meringuoid · · Score: 4, Insightful
    There isn't some clever get-out clause that allows you to jump it without paying the full fare!

    Yeah. Physically impossible. It would be cool if you could just, oh, 'tunnel' through the barrier or something, but that would be absurd...

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  13. Bob Park by paugq · · Score: 4, Informative

    Oh, shit! This again and again.

    Cold fusion is impossible and Physics have long demostrated it.

    Robert L. Park, the President of the American Physical Society, wrote a book that deals with this and explains it clearly: Voodoo Science. He will probably treat this "rebirth" of the hype on his What's new science column.

    How long until the USA Government understands they cannot beat the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

    1. Re:Bob Park by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I guess I need to bow down to Robert L. Park as God. If he says that "cold fusion" is impossible, then it must be. Physics, of course, knows all -- there's no more problems to solve, and the theories explain everything. If there's an effect observed in some experiment which seems to violate all the theories (that cannot be explained in any way), then the effect DOES NOT EXIST and those who observe it must be executed at dawn for their apostasy and unorthodoxy. Of course, no one will be allowed to reproduce the experiment, and those who attempt to do so will also stand against the wall.

      All hail Robert L. Park, the keeper of scientific orthodoxy!

      I think the article sums it up -- there is clearly *something* going on to produce the excess heat. Apparently the researchers have now figured out how to get more reproduceable results, so others may now verify the effect and thereby focus on studying the effect itself rather than just trying to reproduce it.

      Now what that *something* is, is another matter. Maybe it is a chemical reaction of some sort, or maybe some other energy-release mechanism based on the thermophysical or thermochemical properties of the palladium substrate. Or maybe it is some unusual type of catalyzed nuclear reaction ("cold fusion".) Or maybe it is something else heretofore unknown. Now that the effect appears to be more reliably reproducible, it will now be possible to study the effect itself and solve the mystery. Although I am skeptical it is "cold fusion", it nevertheless appears to be interesting enough to study it in earnest.

      Regarding "the Second Law" as Mr. paugq mentions, I suggest he brush up on his thermodynamics since I assume he is uttering it with respect to energy conservation, which comes under the First Law.

    2. Re:Bob Park by Havokmon · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Cold fusion is impossible and Physics have long demostrated it.

      Nothing is impossible. If you think the limit of our knowledge is already in textbooks, you have quite a rude awakening coming.

      --
      "I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
    3. Re:Bob Park by Proteus · · Score: 5, Funny

      Nothing is impossible.

      Oh yeah!?! What about Cold Fusion! Hah!

      --
      We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
    4. Re:Bob Park by Mr_Dyqik · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What, "entropy tends to increase in a closed system"? I think you mean first law of thermodynamics. "When _all_ energy forms are taken into account, energy is neither created or destroyed in a closed system".

      This isn't about creating energy from nothing, it's about finding a suitable high entropy form of energy to convert to lower entropy kinds, thus allowing physical processes to occur. Physics cannot prove anything impossible by the way, but it can measure how unlikely something is.

  14. Pseudoscience Warning Signs by Critter92 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    1) The research will only go forward with more funding 2) SRI International is involved ("No, really, Uri Geller *is* a psychic!") 3) "Mike McKubre from SRI International, in Menlo Park, Calif., a respected researcher who is influential among those pursuing cold fusion" is not the same as "Mike McKubre, a respected researched who is also working on cold fusion" 4) It's an election year and DOE, hardly a bastion of good science under Bush, is about to announce Cold Fusion is workable at a time of record world oil prices?

  15. Utah Connection by Mateito · · Score: 4, Funny

    Pons and Fleischmann, the original perpertrators of Cold Fusion, were from the University of Utah.

    What's the bet that this "re-birth" of Cold Fusion has something to do with SCO?

    Judge: Mr McBride, do you have anything to say before the jury adjourn to find you guilty and sentence you to death by stoning?

    Darl: Look! Excess neutrons!

    Jugde: Where? [Looks away]

    Darl: [Exit, stage left]

  16. Re:Would that rebirth include... by Shadowlion · · Score: 4, Informative

    As I understand it, they made an astonishing scientific claim. That claim, while it might be absolutely true, was not substantiated by the experiment they describe.

    If you read the article (I know, this is Slashdot...), you'd note that some of the problems in reproducing the effect have been discovered. One problem turned out to be the "density" of deuterium atoms in the palladium electrodes. Above a certain threshold, you'd see the excess heat every time. Below that, even by only 10%, you'd only see excess heat in one out of every six trials.

    From this, it seems like the problem wasn't that the experiment was made up, but that the problem was the researchers had no precise concept of what steps and requirements were necessary to repeat it accurately.

  17. Re:Would that rebirth include... by sphealey · · Score: 4, Interesting
    As I understand it, they made an astonishing scientific claim. That claim, while it might be absolutely true, was not substantiated by the experiment they describe.
    Understood and mostly agreed. But it is instructive to read Enrico Fermi's account of how he and his team missed out on a second Nobel prize because they couldn't reproduced the results of one experiment. Turned out that the original experiment was done on a lab table made of wood and the attempts to reproduce were done on a lab table made of granite. The wood had a much higer index of neutron moderation, but they didn't know that and never thought that such a factor might affect the experiment.

    sPh

  18. Re:Probably not fusion . . . by Montreal+Geek · · Score: 4, Informative
    If you had, in fact, RTFA you would have seen that there is some evidence of helium generation during the reaction.

    While apparently hard (but not impossible) to reproduce, and not well understood, there is now credible evidence that something happens that generates heat and helium out of hydrogen.

    If the phenomenon is real, and we manage to reproduce it reliably, it probably is fusion, albeit only a couple of atoms at a time (which has the side effects of (1) no harder-to-control chain reaction over vast amounts of fissible material and (2) trivial to contain generation).

    Might not be too easy to use, though. I could see how the heat could be made to give energy to a conventional steam turbine though.

    At any rate, your quip about dead from radiation poisoning is a strawman. Even if all is as the researchers hope, we are observing the fission of minuscule amounts of atoms at a time (hence the manageable heat) and what little radiation escapes from the reaction medium unabsorbed and unconverted into heat is most likely unmeasurably small and completely drowned out by the background radiation we live in.

    -- MG

  19. Science working again? by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 5, Informative
    Here's an interesting article, written about 10 years ago, by David Goodstein of Caltech, pointing out that the scientific process was not working correctly with cold fusion. (Basically, almost all CF was junk, but there were a couple of results by careful and competent experimenters, that should have been examined more deeply, but were dismissed as part of the "it's all junk" reaction).

    The article is a good look at the whole CF phenomenon as of 1993.

  20. Re:Back from the dead? by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Funny

    Fire isn't physical property, it's knowing how to make fire that's valuable, and that's intellectual property. In other words, we're all engaged in acts of pyrotechnic piracy. Sooner or later the DFA (Deistic Fire Alliance) will come down on us...

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  21. Re:Better title... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Imagine sticking it to oil companies with nuclear cars and planes.

    Oil companies would be richer than ever if this pans out. The oil won't stop being needed, it'll just stop being burned. And quite a few "oil companies" have figured out that they are in the energy business, not the oil business. And would probably be in the forefront of providing high-grade deuterium for your cold fusion units.

    "Mr. Fusion", anyone?

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  22. Conspiracy theories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I love this notion that "the POWERS THAT BE suppressed the IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE for their own evil ends!" It's such a charming fantasy.

    The Evil Vested Interests of the world are regularly blindsided by new technology. The usual pattern (*cough*RIAA*cough*) is that they ignore it until it really starts to hurt them, and then they try to make it go away through legal action. Those folks do not have a magic ability to predict the future. In fact, they demonstrably suck at it.

    When "cold fusion" was announced, the people who discredited it were academics who tried like hell to reproduce the effect, and found it to be irreproducible based on the information they had at the time. This is called "peer review". Scientists are supposed to be profoundly skeptical. In that respect, they differ from conspiracy theorists.

    If you RTFA, you'll notice that no extravagant claims are being made. If it turns out that there's something there which really is both reproducible and interesting, we'll hear more about it.

  23. Re:Would that rebirth include... by LauraScudder · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They didn't fabricate results, their results just became public too quickly, and so when there was trouble duplicating the results, there was serious backlash against them.

  24. Re:Easy to see why this has had so much resistance by mcbevin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, just like every other new technology around the world which makes old technologies redundant gets given the cold shoulder. Thats why we're still cooking over fire stoves (after the wood industry prevented any electrical ovens ever being developed), still riding horses (after the horse industry quashed those people trying to invent the automobile), using Windows (after Microsoft quashed Linux and the Mac OS) etc .... although hold on, that one might turn out to be true ....

    Anyway, lets just judge the science on its merits, not on conspiracy theories. If it has merit, you can be pretty sure theres lots of investors are going to start seeing the potential for a lot of zeroes after those $$$ signs and jump on it, and that probably the first companies to jump on the bandwagen will be the energy companies you claim are holding it up.

  25. Re:Easy to see why this has had so much resistance by gilroy · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Blockquoth the poster:

    I take exception: Cold fusion has always and
    obviously been a real nuclear effect, in my mind,

    Well, that's the rub, isn't it? It doesn't matter if it's a nuclear effect "in your mind". Your mind doesn't enter into it. Neither does Pons or Fleischmann's minds. What matters is whether nuclear fusion is actually occurring, and that is to be settled by experiment.

    Pons and Fleischmann might have seen a real effect. Certainly, carefully-constructed experiments have consistently given hints of excess heat. But that doesn't make them "right". Lucretius wrote about "atoms" centuries before Dalton. That doesn't mean the ancient Greeks invented modern chemistry.

    Pons and Fleischmann violated just about every tenet of the open, peer-reviewed scientific process. In so doing they abandoned any claim to legitimacy. If this effect turns out to be real, they didn't "get it right". They just got lucky. And if this effect turns out to be real, it will be the paintstaking, not-by-press-conference slow work of real researchers who understand how science works, that will ironically provide actual justification.
  26. Re:Easy to see why this has had so much resistance by afabbro · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Bwaaaahahahaha! The reason cold fusion got the "cold shoulder" is that it has no reproducible results and is very bad science. If you can't reproduce results and publish your work in a peer-reviewed journal, you are not doing science.

    The only people who claim there is a conspiracy to shush up cold fusion are crackpots.

    The physics community would have carried Pons and Fleischmann on sedan chairs to Sweden if they'd really discovered cold fusion. But they didn't, and they ignored all scientific process. They refused to share details of their experiment and refused to acknowledge errors in their experiments.

    Read Taubes' _Cold Fusion_ or Huizenga's book for a clear understanding.

    --
    Advice: on VPS providers
  27. Wikipedia by Efreet · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'd highly recomend the wikipedia article on cold fusion, here.

    --
    This sig wasn't worth reading, was it.
  28. Re:Would that rebirth include... by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you can't describe the environment in which an experiment can be reproduced reliably, you don't understand the phenominon properly enough to be calling press conferences.

    --
    "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
    --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
  29. Have ANY of you naysayers... by absurdist · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...ever bothered to pick up a copy of Infinite Energy magazine?

    If you had, you might have noticed that there have been papers posted from labs around the world with consistent, reproducible results, for the past 10 years. I realize it's fashionable in some circles to read Skeptical Inquirer and be devotees of The Annoying Randi, but an open mind and a real scientific inquiry is actually sometimes needed. Rejecting something out of hand because you don't understand what's occurring doesn't qualify as objective scientific inquiry, no matter what experts are doing the rejection. (And yes, that's exactly what the reaction was of many of the experts in both the fusion and fission communities... "I don't understand what's happening here and it contradicts all my pet theories, and, more importantly, may affect my sources of funding and research grants... so it MUST be a lot of crap. Even though I've never investigated it, I just know it.")

    BTW, for the tinfoil hat crowd, shortly after the DoE announced that they going to reinvestigate the published research, the founder and editor of Infinite Energy magazine, Dr. Eugene Mallove, was found murdered in his home. Make of it what you will.

  30. Re:Would that rebirth include... by srleffler · · Score: 4, Insightful
    From this, it seems like the problem wasn't that the experiment was made up, but that the problem was the researchers had no precise concept of what steps and requirements were necessary to repeat it accurately.

    Unfortunately, that is precisely the hallmark of junk science: experiments that appear to show amazing results that cannot be explained by conventional theory and as a result the exact requirements to duplicate the experiment are unclear. The crackpots are then free to argue that negative results by other researchers are due to a problem with their experiment. Scientists have good reason to be skeptical of discoveries with these characteristics.

    Now, Pons and Fleischman may have just been unlucky in having discovered a real effect that happened to have these characteristics. On the bright side, if they turn out to have been right their place in history is secure.

  31. Re:Better title... by Martin+Blank · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Though it appears that he may be right in the end -- cold fusion does exist -- that is how science works. It was extremely difficult for people to reproduce it and since the success rate was on par with anomolous behavior, it was regarded as a fluke.

    The same thing happened to Henry Bessemer when he produced high-quality steel by blowing air through it. When others couldn't reproduce it on a regular basis, he had to go back and review what he had done. It nearly broke him, but in the end he found that by pure chance, he had used low-phosphorus steel in his experiments. Once this was shown, uptake was initially slow, but as soon as it was proven to be reproduceable, it caught on and allowed the widespread use of modern steel -- and allowed Bessemer to become very wealthy.

    --
    You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
  32. Phew... by PhotoBoy · · Score: 4, Funny

    I thought they meant Macromedia Cold Fusion was back from the dead.

  33. Re:What if Slashdot was right... by Jason+Ford · · Score: 5, Informative

    Insightful? Would wondering if Val Kilmer might steal her research from her get me a '+1, Informative' moderation?

    --
    I did not become a vegetarian for my health, I did it for the health of the chickens. --Isaac Bashevis Singer