Slashdot Mirror
Cold Fusion Scientist Exonerated
Icarus1919 writes "New Scientist reports that the scientist who discovered a possible cold fusion reaction by bombarding a solvent with neutrons and sonic waves has recently been exonerated of accusations of scientific misconduct following the verification of his results by another scientist."
Yay! I'm gonna get a Mr. Fusion!
What was once true, is no longer so
this means what? Was cold-fusion discovered or what?
This article is the most confusing thing I've read all day. All those techy words! :(
"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson
How many transactions per second can this ANS thing handle?
And why doesn't it work in California?
Well, maybe in 20 years we'll have plenty of power for electric cars, but then in 20+ years, what will we do with all that bio-fuel?
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Cold Fusion Scientist Exonerated
Was that post-mortem?
Have you read my journal today?
Mr. Kilmer will happy to hear this news.
Where's the cold fusion? The article sounds more like Sonofusion. Which, I can assure you, is a long ways from "cold".
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Interesting 2 paragraph article... but really.. this is a "so what?" post.. is it this slow of a news day?
The lead in this story should be that the "cold" fusion results were verified.
Let them be verified again!
The person accusing Taleyarkhan of misinterpreting data was one of his own post-docs. I wonder what that person has to say now? I think it's easy to make allegations and its difficult to shake the effects of false allegations.
First, the article title is VERY misleading. As others have pointed out, the question at hand is whether sonoluminescence can lead to fusion. In some peoples' minds, this is "cold" fusion, because the whole damned apparatus doesn't have to be a plasma. However, where the fusion is claimed to be taking place (in the middle of tremendously cavitating bubbles) *IS* in a plasma state (at least for part of an acoustic cycle). Thus, this might be better termed "locally hot" fusion or something. Or just "sonofusion", which everyone in the field seems to understand.
Second, the New Scientist blurb is interesting in that Rusi seems to have been cleared of scientific fraud. The question, if I remember correctly, was whether the neutrons he was seeing were due to poor experimental techniques, contamination (accidental or purposeful), or simply weren't there in the first place. This blurb SEEMS to clear him of accusations of purposeful contamination and just making up the existence of neutrons. However, it doesn't mean that they were really there, and certainly not that he's really found thermal neutrons from fusion in his experiments. THAT will take a whole lot more "confirmation".
(IAAP, but haven't been following this conflict closely. The last I paid attention was at the ASA meeting last December in Hawai'i. So I'm sure someone will correct my--- inadvertent---mistakes. This is, after all, Slashdot.)
Quick Lets get Val Kilmer to reprise his role as "The Saint". In " The Saint II: Electric Bugaloo- The real cold fusion"
Of course I didn't read the article. Who does?
Shouldn't his results be verified by more than one other scientist?
How about at least five other scientists test his methods?
I knew there was an electric bugaloo film! So it wasn't some fiction of my imagination. Did some fella dance with a broom and break his neck.
Apparently, Purdue refused to state what the exact allegations investigated were, how many inquiries it conducted, or what its conclusions were based on. Hard to tell if the investigation's conclusions were arrived at fairly or were politically motivated. More details in this NYT article which I found from this blog entry.
His vindication is all well and good, but does it mean that their may still be some merit in pursueing his research further, now that it has been established that it wasn't fake?
Most people seem to think that hydrogen atoms can only get together under extreme pressures and heat. The ones that disagree seem to think that some tricky apparatus is required to get two hydrogen atoms to unite. I want to know: has anybody tried just asking them if they wouldn't mind merging their nuclei? It might just work.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
Capturing and making the energy useful will be tricky, launching a whole new school of (hopefully) lightweight (and safe) efficient power units. Imagine using the thumpa-thumpa woofers in your trunk to scoot your car down the street.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
... has anybody tried just asking them if they wouldn't mind merging their nuclei? It might just work.
Gosh, I hope not.
Just think what would happen if the hydrogen in the ocean water overheard and even a small percentage of them decided to go along...
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
This is about bubble fusion. Those interested in cold fusion should look here http://www.lenr-canr.org/.s -selling-solar.html
--
Get hot fusion: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
And so will Miss Shue, who discovered cold fusion for Mr. Kilmer after she was able to travel from 1985 to 2015 with Mr. Lloyd and Mr. Fox, thanks to Mr. Fusion.
he ought to publicise the names and email addresses of his accusers.
So - the question of 'reputation': 'Hard to shake' the reports of a former team-mate? This is primary research, and the results are bloody testable. Screw reputation. This is cricism is expected, required and to be commended. Taleyarkhan is surely not surprised that folks are jumping on every issue that they can find. If his sonofusion is replicated then he will be a hero.
In life in general: *every* accuser of corruption is attacked as a liar. This is not fun - folks don't do this normally unless they really saw something worrisome. The accusation invariably gets themselves investigated as well, and usually by folks sympathetic to the accused. It is *not* easy to make allegations, and folks with even a hair of power constantly bury any and all criticism. Seriously, whistleblowing is not fun - not in academia, not in industry, not in public service, not in religious institutions... nowhere.
His research has been published and folks are replicating (and, of course, mostly failing to replicate) his results. Discussions of the results (and non-results) are ensuing. This is satisfactory science. He was mocked for leaving his name off of a couple of papers that were by *very* close colleagues, which is fair too.
But the consensus says they were wrong. It has already been reviewed and talked about. Why are we allowing further discusion about it?
This is a responce I read from another post on evolution or was it Global warming. I just want to take the Time to say, "This is why!" The process let us look at it and come to adifferent conclusion and this should be used as often as possible.
If this had been treated like other topics, no one would have taken the trouble to see if it works or not. They would have just asumed the consensus was always right.
http://www.proton21.com.ua/index_en.html
The first successful experiment was performed on February 24, 2000 in a specially created and proprietary set up. In fact, the 5,000+ successful experiments in controlled nuclei-synthesis performed since 1999, using various targets made of light, medium, or heavy elements; have allowed the research team at EDL to comprehend and evaluate this unique scientific breakthrough.
The discovered process has been noted for its practical, environmentally friendly and extraordinary energy efficient attributes.
Two major outcomes have emerged from this process:
* First, the creation of an energy output far exceeding the initial impact.
* Second, the creation of an array of unique nuclei-synthesis elements. These new elements were tested by leading scientific laboratories in Ukraine, Russia, USA, etc, and their artificial origin was confirmed.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Most scientists are snobs. They are just shrouded in politics and beliefs. There are a whole slew of topics that if you even mention you want to just consider the possibility of they want to revoke any credibility you may have and label you gypsy. Cold fusion is one of those topics. Fusion is nothing all that magical. It happens all around us. It's the black box that produces the same amount of energy as a traditional coal plant through fusion that is so dubious.
Myself I'm a big fan of the idea that the earth generates some of it's internal heat from cold fusion.
So you conduct some experiments and report the results and what you believe to be the reason behind the results. Normally, if you are wrong, someone else writes a paper and points out holes in your reasoning or flaws in your experiment, etc. So then you, a little wiser, go back and try again etc.
But, if you should have the temerity to publish something that goes against the scientific orthodoxy, then instead of refuting you they investigate you as a fraud and a charlatan. Hmmm...it's a good thing he didn't publish something that disputes any aspect of global warming...excuse me...climate change.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
It's an encouraging first step.
Now all we need is for the pseudo-empiricist bigots to stop posthumously calling Stanley Meyer a charlatan as well, especially considering that he was poisoned in order to get him to stop engaging in his research.
There are a lot of things going on at the moment, research wise, which are outside the orthodoxy...and that doesn't mean they're not possible.
One of Einstein's most redeeming characteristics was his degree of humility. There are a lot of scientists who would do well to follow his example in that regard, and to acknowledge that there is still so much that they do not know.
"Cantor established the importance of one-to-one correspondence between sets, defined infinite and well-ordered sets, and proved that the real numbers are "more numerous" than the natural numbers. In fact, Cantor's theorem implies the existence of an "infinity of infinities." He defined the cardinal and ordinal numbers, and their arithmetic. Cantor's work is of great philosophical interest, a fact of which he was well aware. Cantor's work encountered resistance from mathematical contemporaries such as Leopold Kronecker and Henri Poincaré, and later from Hermann Weyl and L.E.J. Brouwer. Ludwig Wittgenstein raised philosophical objections. His recurring bouts of depression from 1884 to the end of his life were once blamed on the hostile attitude of many of his contemporaries, but these bouts can now be seen as probable manifestations of a bipolar disorder. Today, the vast majority of mathematicians who are neither constructivists nor finitists accept Cantor's work on transfinite sets and arithmetic, recognizing it as a major paradigm shift. In the words of David Hilbert: "No one shall expel us from the Paradise that Cantor has created."
I added the bold highlights to the Wikipedia quote. In case you doubt Wikipedia, my copy of Van Nostrand Reinhold's Encyclopedia of Mathematics says substantially the same thing. Cantor's work is one of the primary foundations of modern computer science."Lack of technical competence coupled with the arrogance of power, as usual, leads to no good end."
Or maybe it's been dumbed down for/by the press.
Physicists often over-simplify or inappropriately categorize things when trying to explain their papers to reporters (note that most journalism programs don't include courses on nuclear physics). Even if the reporter knows the difference between genuine cold fusion and sonofusion (keeping in mind that "cold" can be used somewhat ambiguously in regards to fusion), they might not expect their readers to and dumb it down themselves.
Most likely of all is the stereotypical Professor Frink sitting in his lab babbling excitedly away about how it works while the reporter sits there and nods. When he says something like, "While individual Alpha particles are created with energies of N electron-volts, the system temperatures are on par with hypothetical cold fusion scenarios," guess which two words out such a statement will actually get written down in the reporter's notes.
Taleyarkhan didn't claim he had caused cold fusion. He claimed sonofusion.
For all readers getting excited about Mr. Fusion and nuclear jetpacks, I hate to inform you that Taleyarkan's experiments, assuming they genuinely did induce fusion, fell far, far short of unity.
On a slightly off-topic note, for those who have not been following the details in the cold fusion field, some very persuasive evidence has emerged FOR the original cold fusion experiments (the Pons-Fleischmann style cold fusion using Palladium and Deuterium). The evidence was presented by researchers at the US Navy's SPAWAR labs late in 2006. The reserchers are highly experienced scientists who have taken their time and performed the experiments thoroughly. A description of the evidence is at http://www.newenergytimes.com/news/2006/NET19.htm# ee.
Some of the biggest problems in cold fusion experiments has been long incubation periods, perhaps weeks/months, difficulty in calorimetry experiments for determining if heat was being generated, and replication.
Two techniques have been detailed by SPAWAR. The first is the using chemical co-deposition methods to combine Palladium and Deuterium, allowing a solid Palladium structure to form with Deuterium already 'mixed' in with it. Previously, weeks were often needed to allow absorption of Deuterium into the Palladium. Using the co-deposition technique, cold fusion effects become apparent within minutes, such as anomalous amounts of tritium, low-intensity x-ray radiation, and increased heat. This happens on a highly repeatable basis.
The second, highly outstanding experimental result is the use of nuclear industry standard CR-39 nuclear track detectors, which look like small pieces of plastic and are permently etched with tiny impact craters whenever a high energy nuclear particle hits them. Chemical reactions cannot produce the craters or tracks. The experiment involved placing a CR-39 track detector physically next to the Palladium-Deuterium electrode.
What resulted was the detection of some of the highest density counts ever seen on the detectors of high energy nuclear particles. Independent nuclear experts who have examined the CR-39 detectors recognized the signature tracks of protons and alpha particles, which, to be ejected from the atoms where they reside, require millions of volts - at least 1,000,000 times more energy than can be produced by any known chemical reaction. As a control experiment, exposed CR-39 detectors in a lithium solution without palladium in it resulted in only a sprinkling of tracks, randomly distributed and so few in number that they could be accounted for by background radiation.
The only surrounding energy sources were a few volts from the current applied through electrolysis; the second is an applied external electric field of about 6,000 volts. The particle tracks look identical to tracks made by nuclear particles that have at least 2 million electron-volts.
The really nice thing is is that you can almost see the tracks with your naked eye. Take the detectors elsewhere, to conferences etc, show others later; the tracks are permently etched evidence of nuclear reactions occuring in a Palladium-Deuterium benchtop setup.
The evidence here for Pons-Fleischmann cold fusion is now getting to the point where the scientific community has to seriously consider that Pons-Fleischmann cold fusion DOES exist under the right conditions, whether people want to accept it or not. Hard to replicate is not the same as impossible to replicate.
that he gets to eat his enemies hearts?
Well, I am that "other scientist." It is nice to see good press for bubble fusion reach slashdot (no, I didn't submit it.)
First, I agree with the previous posters that this is not "cold fusion." The centers of the collapsing bubbles are very hot. Apparently hot enough to cause fusion.
The research I published was based on experiments conducted at Purdue University using a setup provided by Dr. Taleyarkhan. All equipment calibration, measurements, and data analysis were preformed by me and my students. We had full access to the equipment and we were very careful to make sure that there was nothing to contaminate our data.
People who have read the actual paper (Transactions of the American Nuclear Society, vol 95, p 736) would agree that the results published leave no room for doubt that the neutrons are caused by the collapsing bubbles in a deuterated fluid - the appropriate control experiments were performed - the statistics are significant.
The controversy comes because several well respected and talented physicists have not been able to reproduce Dr. Taleyarkhan's results in their own labs. This has led several people (including an editor from Nature Magazine) to conclude that Dr. Taleyarkhan must be faking his data.
I cannot explain why it has been so hard to reproduce the results in another lab except to say that null results are pretty easy to get in any sensitive experiment and it originally took Dr. Taleyarkhan several years to perfect his methods.
I suspect that all that is needed is a little more time and we will hear about several labs who have confirmed this work completely independently. Of course we are working on that very thing here at LeTourneau University.
Even if it takes some time to reproduce the results at another lab, having independent researchers come to Purdue and reproduce the experiments should be a big step in moving past the controversy.
Respectfully,
Dr. Ted Forringer
Assistant Professor of Physics
LeTourneau University
For some reason I can't find the link on Purdue's website, but here is the press release as it was e-mailed to me. This is where the newspapers are getting their information. -- cut -- February 7, 2007 Purdue integrity panel completes research inquiry WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. - A Purdue University committee appointed to conduct an initial inquiry into internal allegations of research misconduct at Purdue by a professor of nuclear engineering has concluded its work. The committee determined that the evidence does not support the allegations of research misconduct and that no further investigation of the allegations is warranted. The committee was appointed in the College of Engineering under the university's policy on integrity in research to consider allegations against Professor Rusi P. Taleyarkhan regarding a reported confirmation at Purdue of sonofusion, the use of sonic waves in a table-top apparatus to produce nuclear fusion. Purdue's policy on integrity in research requires that all allegations of research misconduct be reviewed under procedures that ensure strict confidentiality. The policy states: "The mere suspicion or allegation of wrongdoing, even if totally unjustified, is potentially damaging to a person's career. Consequently, no information about charges of a lack of integrity in research may be disclosed except to the appropriate university and federal authorities." However, in the interest of ending speculation regarding Purdue?s inquiry, Dr. Taleyarkhan has agreed to allow the university to confirm the existence of the internal review and disclose its final result, according to Joseph L. Bennett, vice president for university relations at Purdue. "Professor Taleyarkhan cooperated fully throughout the inquiry," Bennett said. "Research at a university must be conducted with absolute integrity. When Purdue received internal allegations of research misconduct, Purdue pursued those allegations thoroughly to conclusion in accordance with the confidential procedures required by its published policy. Professor Taleyarkhan is engaged in very promising, significant research, and we hope he will now be able to give his full attention to this important work. Purdue believes that vigorous, open debate of the scientific merits of this new technology is the most appropriate focus going forward." Taleyarkhan led a research team at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory that first reported the "bubble fusion" phenomenon in a 2002 paper published in the journal Science. Those researchers later conducted additional research at Oak Ridge, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the Russian Academy of Sciences before Taleyarkhan came to Purdue in 2003 to continue his research. In March 2004 and January 2006 his group published their second and third papers on this subject. Scientists have long known that high-frequency sound waves cause the formation of cavities and bubbles in liquid, a process known as "acoustic cavitation," and that those cavities then implode, producing high temperatures and light in a phenomenon called "sonoluminescence." Researchers have estimated that temperatures inside the imploding bubbles reach 10 million degrees Celsius and pressures comparable to 1,000 million earth atmospheres at sea level. Nuclear fusion reactors have historically required large, expensive machines, but acoustic cavitation devices might be built for a fraction of the cost. Contact: Joseph Bennett, (765) 494-2082, jlbennett@purdue.edu Rusi Taleyarkhan (765) 420-7537, rusi@purdue.edu Purdue News Service: (765) 494-2096; purduenews@purdue.edu Related Web site: Purdue policy on integrity in research: http://www.purdue.edu/policies/pages/teach_res_out reach/c_22.html
Perhaps he has been "vindicated", but I'm not at all sure that the results are valid. Just because he was cleared of misconduct by the investigative board, that does not mean there isn't still some caveat to his experiments that muddles a clear interpretation of the results. What is more promising, however, is the fact that another colleague managed to get similar results. The conditions are just too difficult to recreate however (and there was some debate as to whether Taleyarkhan actually helped the colleague out significantly, so as to make the second run not really an "independent" experiment), so until more truly independent labs can reproduce the results, I'll still be taking this with a grain of salt.
The three methods- heavy water battery, sonofusion, and the tesla coil can all be done with simple apparatus. None produces net energy.
Nu Scientist != Science
Will Slashdot ever tire of flogging that rag at us?
This is my list of 10 key discoveries that were initially rejected by scientific peers, or at least not easily accepted:
t es/1921/press.html
1. Theory of Relativity wasn't well received at the time. In fact, Einstein didn't actually get a Nobel Prize for it. Instead, he received the prize for other work he did dealing with quanta. http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laurea
2. Quantum Mechanics - Even Einstein didn't particularly like Quantum Mechanics and the search for the unified model. It was the home of the quote "God doesn't play dice with the universe."
3. Darwin's Theory of Evolution - This was hotly debated at the time, and still is. On-going debates in school boards still occur.
4. String Theory - Hotly contested, mostly because no one can show if it is actually correct.
5. Newtonian Calculus - The notation sucked. Most of the calculus done today uses Leibniz's or Euler's notation, however all of Euler's, Newton's, Lagrange's and Leibniz's notations are still in use.
6. Periodic Table - This was a key chemical discovery, and initially not accepted. It was a big change to the understanding at the time.
7. Freud - The father of psychoanalysis. Many of his notions were not widely accepted, correctly perhaps. Nevertheless, he founded psychiatry.
8. Armstrong and the FM Radio. He also designed the double-heterodyne tuner, which is the primary tuner type in use today. He died poor after leading a controversial life, and butting heads with Sarnoff at RCA.
9. AC Power - Edison was firmly behind DC power. AC power can be sent long distances efficiently by using a transformer. DC power cannot. AC power is in use in almost all homes throughout the world, and Edison lost this technology debate.
10. Transatlantic Radio - At first, it was not at all decided if transatlantic radio was technically feasible, and even then if it was commercially feasible. Times have changed.
It turns out that most scientific discoveries are highly controversial initially. This controversy is a sign that they are new ground-breaking research.
Cantor was a funny guy. His naive conception of sets lead to Russell's Paradox -- a serious problem. The Axiom of Choice is provable for finite sets, but not true in all infinite models of set theory. It certainly isn't intuitive.
e matics). (In short, it comes down to philsophical realism and anti-realism)
Cantor was no crack pot. His work on trigonometric series (that is, Fourier analysis) lead naturally to his work in set theory. He was well respected and should have had thicker skin.
Weyl, Brouwer, Poincare were constructivist mathematicians. In broad strokes it means that they reject the law of the excluded middle and everything that implies it. Including the Axiom of Choice. They had very good reasons for wanting to do this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_(math
In short, none were crack pots. It was a serious debate with real consequences for the field. And it's not really over.
After all, I am strangely colored.
The impression that I got was that the original cold fusion wasn't repeatable anywhere and the original pair that made the claims wouldn't let anyone else touch the apparatus that they had used. Any further inquiry was basically evaded and really looked very suspicious in their behavior, and it was time to just move on.
It's hard to figure out what exactly is going on, but this is a good overview. Things are messy, P&F certainly made errors, both scientific and political, there are people who will say cold fusion is UN-POSSIBLE no matter what evidence is presented, some proponents who BELIEVE it must exist, and even some researchers continuing to do real science to figure out what might be there, if anything.
There's a real religious fervor to it, which is unfortunate - I've heard even scientists who do science to attempt to falsify the hypothesis are chastised by the establishment for their heresy. I accept this as an unfortunate artifact of having humans do science.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Which of those people were non-scientists again?
People often confuse discussion and rejection when it comes to science. String theory is a perfect example. The physics community is spending millions of dollars on string theory research. Meanwhile, some theorists are doubting that string theory is the right scientific approach to apply to the problem of unification. Thus, they must be rejecting it? That's absurd!
Meanwhile, fields like relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution and psychology were accepted scientifically long before they were accepted by everyone else. You give other good examples of commercial interests getting in the way of scientific progress. Where are the examples of scientists stopping scientific progress?
They'd need to be one way valves and the suction would pull the passengers through them....
GET BUSY WITH THAT NOW!!!
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
As long as the experiment is verified by an odd, rather than even, number of scientists...
FWIW, Kronecker was a finitist, you might say the finitist, and as such, no one would seriously expect him not to object to Cantor's work, which is about as contrary to finitism as it gets. Wittgenstein is also noted for finitist leanings, if you will, although he denies being an actual finitist.
SIGSEGV caught, terminating
wait... not that kind of sig.
Bombardment with neutrons and psionic waves?
Just in case if someone wants to read about this issue:
I'm no engineer/beta scientist. Hence, all the smoke and mirrors surrounding Cold Fusion confuse me; How does it relate to 'hot' Fusion? (i.e. what are the difference, besides the completely obvious) What kind of fusion project is ITER?
Yeah. My opinion over the "cold fusion" thing has always been- even if it _isn't_ fusion it sure seems like there is something _interesting_ going on that's worth investigating.
Billions have been spent on less interesting thing stuff - like the expensive international space station for instance. Not really bang for buck for "interesting stuff done". Work on making space travel cheap and reliable _first_, then only do lots of work on space stations. Not the other way round. Doh.
http://www.newpath4.com/millenialdawnpowerandlight secure21.htm .
and http://www.newpath4.com/enginewow.htm (air + steam), both coming
under the heading > http://www.newpath4.com/imitationenergy.htm
Imitation Energy is like imitation sugar, sweet but no pollutants er calories.
Industrial Age 2 + How-to Stop Malignant Cancers.
Scientist Exonerated
vs
Scientist Exonerated of Accusations
You don't measure energy in volts. Are you sure you understand what you're parrotting?
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
I took a course ( NUCL 200, intro to nucl engineering) under Rusi. He is a really good prof and he made the so called "filter out" class, quite enjoyable. My other friends wanted to take the same class under him, when the news came out and he stopped teaching, we were all really shocked. I still remember the errie feeling i got when walking past his closed office doors. Man it really was something. I am glad that he is cleared of all the stuff that was put against him. Thanks Purdue!
One should examine at this point whether Putterman crossed the line in his criticism of Taleyarkhan. Unwarranted or excessive criticism is probably just as harmful for the progress of science as scientific fraud.
Actually, in particle physics, you do, sort of. Electron-Volts (eV) and multiples thereof (keV, MeV, GeV) are common units for energy if you look at particles.
Well I have some serious issues with your list:
1: Einstein was a mainstream scientist. He may have pursued some branches of scientific thought that others thought were lost causes - and in fact HE LOST some of them. But he was a mainstream scientist. He made specific testable predictions with relativity as required. And when the scientific evidence proved him wrong (i.e. he thought the universe was constant and unchanging and devised a cosmological constant until Edward Hubble discovered it was expanding) he ammended his theories to fit the evidence (he dropped the cosmological constant).
2: Quantum Mechanics was proposed by mainstream scientists.. and you are seeming to contradict yourself by citing Einstein as evidence that it is non-mainstream since you call him a non-mainstream scientist in #1. In any event.. quantum mechanics was not discovered by some quack in his bathtub. It was discovered by mainstream scientists and proven using the scientific method. Einstein also didn't merely SCOFF at quantum mechanics as bad science... he tried to prove it wrong using logic. And when he was shown that his argument was flawed, he was disturbed and didn't like it, but he didn't call quantum mechanics bad science. He just insisted he was sure it was wrong and that somehow someday someone was going to prove it.
3. Darwin was a purely a mainstream scientist. He is about as mainstream as you get, and even made major contributions to the scientific method itself. He helped to define mainstream science.
4: String theory in every incarnation was researched by mainstream scientists... and they ADMIT that currently they can't prove it, but are refining and have some experiments which may yeild results soon. They aren't trying to spin hocus pocus they are trying to proceed using the mainstream scientific method. Briane Greene who is a major proponent of string theory is a national bestseller and his book The Fabric of the Cosmos was Discover Magazine's book of the year. He is hardly being tarred and chicken feathered.
In the early day string theory was not widely accepted because it was SERIOUSLY DEFFECTIVE and appeared to be quite probably nothing more than a mathematical curiosity. Quite much like many other theories which did in fact turn out to be nothing more than mathematical curiosities.
5. This is not an example of non-mainstream science. This is an example of a wealthy scientist getting more attention than a scientist of modest means. None the less.. this is all mainstream science.
6. Periodic Table - I'm not a chemistry buff, but the only evidence I can find of the periodic table being scoffed was John Newlands's version which was wrong and is no longer used. I can't find any evidence that the periodic table we use today had major controversy except that 2 slightly different versions were invented independantly by 2 main-stream scientists.. one strictly by atomic mass, and another almost strictly by atomic mass but some elements out of order on the basis of their chemical properties (later vindicated by the discovery of electronic structure). I am not sure what this says about non-mainstream science however.
7. Freud - The father of psychoanalysis. Here is a non mainstream scientist who's theories are still taught and idealized although there is no scientific basis for them whatsoever. Part of the problem you get when you let people get Arts Degrees in psychology. None the less... psychoanalysis *IS* bad science. This only goes to show that you can easily get your bad science accepted if you were the first person to ever bother studying some field. This his theories are all bunk they dont constitute a breakthrough.
8. Edwin Howard Armstrong was an engineer, not a scientist. And his controversy was primarily patent disputes, not scientific disputes. No one tried to debunk FM radio as bad science. Rather it was a threat to the AM radio industry and as usual you know what happens when someone's business model is threatened. FM radio was not a breakthrough.
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.