Slashdot Mirror
DOE Report on Cold Fusion
thhamm writes "The DOE Report on Cold Fusion (mentioned here too) is out. Take a look at it on the DOE Website. Well, looks like there is nothing really new since Pons & Fleischmann in 1989, because "While significant progress has been made in the sophistication of calorimeters since the review of this subject in 1989, the conclusions reached by the reviewers today are similar to those found in the 1989 review.""
I think it is commendable that so much effort is being put into a field of research that there has been little result in in the past 20 years. The results simply are not important, as we have seen in the race to defeat The NP Problem, it is the struggle to further the scientific knowledge. Even bearded terminal hackers should bow to the (surely bearded) physics hackers who thanklessly work on this day and night
We salute you!
Lots of people felt the same way about nuclear energy in the 40s (both for war and peacetime use). Just because we can't make it work now doesn't mean that will be the case in the future. Nor does it mean we should abandon all avenues of research pertaining to it.
You want real progress? An X-Prive for cold fusion or something. Offer a million bucks and suddenly everyone's falling over themselves to spend 2 million in order to win.
Against stupidity the Gods themselves contend in vain.
What about all those environmentalists who respond with "What about Chernobyl?" every time someone mentions nuclear fission?
While the theory of fusion seems great, fission is possible now and should be explored further. If we are ever to move to a hydrogen economy, we'll have to start soon and we can't wait for fusion.
The reviewers have a heavy investment in their own careers, especially as it relates to hot fusion an accepted theories. When Congress was holding hearings on cold fusion back in 1989, some of these hot-fusion types were telling Congress it was baloney and worthless while at the same time requesting funding for cold fusion research from the NSF.
Wait another 40 or 50 years, and see what happens once the hot-fusion crowd isn't calling the shots anymore.
Not only am I a scientist, I play one on TV
After all the years and all the hundreds of millions spent you have to wonder if fusion is a practical answer. It appears that a commercial reactor is fifty to a hundred years off. By all accounts we have maybe fifty years before our energy needs hit a critical point with things starting to go down hill in another twenty. No one has yet proven that a reactor can function at better than break even. Should the efforts be redirected at existing technologies? Solar, wind and methane solutions exist now. Isn't it better to solve our short term problems before counting on long term solutions that can't be implemented in time to avoid disaster. Won't this force us to resort to coal and nuclear when oil runs out or is that the plan?
Maybe one day this cold fusion nonsense would lead to progress in something - maybe calorimeters... I'm an optimist - so shoot me :)
maybe you didn't realize that oak ridge is part of the DOE program? of course they know about it. also, it has been published in major physics journals, whereas most "cold fusion" papers are rejected.
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/15/4/8
i think that chemists have faced this kind of issue more than physicists have, since the entire history of chemistry shows a familiar story: something is thought impossible because of some previously unknown physical process. i am not saying that this means that cold fusion is real, but that we should be just as willing to accept as to reject.
without healthy skepticism we are not true scientists, merely "believers".
APS is the American Physical Society. They had a short session on cold fusion, and Chubb was the session chair. The skepticism surrounding this research is so great; my impression was that these people are driving themselves half mad with their efforts to get anyone to take them seriously. But addressing the data presented at that session alone, I would agree with the DOE's findings. I think it is good for the DOE to recommend funding for peer reviewed research. But, I cant imagine what clear eyed researcher with a sufficiently broad perspective would be tempted to invest their time and reputation in this research, given the attitude of the scientific community in general. Too risky.
From this page-
Sound barrier:
"The term sound barrier is often associated with supersonic flight. In particular, "breaking the sound barrier" is the process of accelerating through Mach 1 and going from subsonic to supersonic speeds. The term originated in the 1940s when researchers discovered a large increase in drag that seemed to indicate that an infinite amount of thrust would be needed to fly at the speed of sound. In other words, some believed that a physical barrier existed that would prevent an aircraft from ever being able to travel at supersonic speeds. Since there obviously is no such barrier, the term sound barrier is outdated and really should not be used any more. Nevertheless, it has become a popular part of the human language, and continues in use."
Obviously the people who believed this were using flawed methods of reasoning. However, claiming there were none who thought this way is simply denying history. The Wikipedia article has a good synopsis. Yes the fact that bullets were known to travel at supersonic velocities should have clued these people in as to the errors in their equations. Unfortunately, as I mentioned in another reply, scientists sometimes choose to ignore factual data that contradicts their preferred theories.
Science is ideally ground-up observation, hypothesization, experimentation, observation and so on. However, if some "ideal" factoid is intruded into the process, it can convert the lazy and unimaginative worker from a properly scientific sceptic to an authoritarian priest of current dogma.
Once this happens the only means of progress is by waiting for the old guardians of the faith to die of old age, or by shooting them earlier. The "sound barrier" had the magical authority of an equation behind it, "natural law" expressed in mathmematics. Given the ritual efficacy of a mathematical equation at freezing thought processes, it's a wonder we aren't STILL flying at less than the speed of sound. Actually, I suppose that generally we still are, but we know we don't have to.
Similar situations have occurred repeatedly in science. It's why we actually need crackpots. Occasionally the effort of debunking them can open up entire new vistas.
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
the composition of the reviewers was understandably nuclear physicists... many of whom are deeply in hot fusion research. That means they stand to lose a lot by CF's successes.
/.er) is over. Good for everyone.
Uh ? Nuclear fusion is interesting, but the basic mechanisms are known. Right now it's more R&D than fundamental research - frontier of technology more than frontier of science.
OTOH, whoever comes first in actually demonstrating cold fusion will probably set the new record for the quickest Nobel prize ever (remember, Nobel prizes can be awarded to a maximum of 3 persons, and Fleischmann and Pons had the good taste of being only two - leaving one slot open for scientific sainthood)
If any of these scientists had felt that cold fusion was not merely a possibility, but something real that only waited for careful scientific handling, they would have left their current activities at once !
The gist of this report is that, essentially, we're not really sure what happens in "cold fusion" experiments, and we're definitely not certain that it is actually fusion, but the results, although unclear, justify that "cold fusion" be readmitted within the realm of real science. The redemption period that followed the Fleischmann and Pons debacle (as described in "Voodoo Science", which should be mandatory reading for any
Thomas-
the conclusions reached by the reviewers today are similar to those found in the 1989 review.
What? That Cold fusion would destroy the US energy industry and therefor rather than spend a small fraction of today's national energy bill researching it, should be chucked away and called a pipe-dream.
"Bottom line: technologies like antigravity and cold fusion will continue to be ignored because their implications on the modern military-industrial complex. Can you imagine a world where anyone can fly anywhere in under an hour for FREE? I would love to see that world, but unfortunately the powers that be don't."
Or they just don't work. Frankly if such a thing was possible in the 60s or 70s wouldn't you think that Russia or China would be using antigravity to get ahead of the US? or do you think they are in on it as well. There where lots of outlandish ideas in the 40s 50s and even 60s. I have some books that talk about atomic airliners that use iron vapor for a reaction mass. Underground cities to protect them from atomic bombs. And the atomic car that never need gas... Wow it must be hard to live in a world where you are sure that these marvels are being hidden from you...
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Considering how Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize before he did anything most people have ever heard of today, I'd have to say you have no idea what you're talking about.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.