Scientific American Column: 'It's Not Cold Fusion...But It's Something' (scientificamerican.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Scientific American magazine has published a guest column on low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR) [putting] into context the history of what was mistakenly referred to as cold fusion and what happened. The bottom line is that there is compelling cumulative evidence for nuclear reactions taking place, including shifts in the abundance of isotopes, element transmutations, and localized melting of metals. Furthermore, those reactions do not have the characteristics of either nuclear fission or nuclear fusion. Despite sharp criticism from much of the scientific community after the 1989 announcement by Fleischmann and Pons, the Department of the Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center and other reputable organizations continued the research and published many papers. The article reports that "to the surprise of many people, a new field of nuclear research has emerged," adding that even in the early 20th century, atomic scientists were already reporting "inexplicable experimental evidence of elemental transmutations."

Comments

Justice.

[beheaderaswp]

Back in the 80's when my physics chops were far better I was sure they were on to something.

Just goes to show, that even in the scientific community, bias can play a part in what gets to the public. Just because they are scientists, doesn't mean they aren't human.

I hope those two guys get their due. They deserve it, and they took a ration of grief which damaged their careers. Fleischmann is dead- but someone should wrote Pons a check since he's still kicking around..

Re:Justice.

[phantomfive]

I was sure they were on to something.

That's basically the articles I've been reading for the last couple decades (including here on Slashdot, from time to time): that they are on to something, but no one knows what. The frustrating thing is that the state of the situation hasn't changed much over decades.......

Re: Justice.

[Anonymous Coward]

We know it's you Pons. Stop doing this.

Re:Justice.

[110010001000]

Just because some dude writes a opinion column in a rag doesn't make it true.

Re:Justice.

[Anonymous Coward]

I was sure they were on to something.

That's basically the articles I've been reading for the last couple decades (including here on Slashdot, from time to time): that they are on to something, but no one knows what. The frustrating thing is that the state of the situation hasn't changed much over decades.......

It's changed some. The funding for the science has significantly decreased.

Re:Justice.

[Rei]

My thoughts too.

This in particular got me:

The Widom-Larsen theory offers a plausible explanation—localized conversion of gamma radiation to infrared radiation.

Huh? Now how is that supposed to happen?

Looking up the theory I found this article, where they describe the theory: intense electromagnetic fields at the surface dress electrons with extra mass, which allows electron capture to form a cold neutron and a neutrino. Cold neutrons are pretty much immediately captured causing a transmutation reaction. That's all pretty basic physics, if you accept the premise that you're getting heavy electrons from intense electromagnetic field effects (which they argue for). But what about the gamma? No explanation there.

I see this page tries to offer a plain-english description of the theory for the gamma:

W-L alleges that gamma emissions are anisotropic and selective in their directionality. Meaning they, for some mysterious reason, direct themselves toward the heavy electron SPP patches. These transient SPP patches are also imagined to have precisely tuned, energy specific absorptivity capabilities which seems like a stretch as well. Also the persistence of gamma absorption during the "life after death" phase is equally perplexing, as the SPP shields are thought to disappear during this phase. Not to mention delayed gammas caused by neutron absorption also create issues for this heavy electron gamma shield hypothesis

If that's accurate, that's very weak indeed...

Re:Justice.

[Solandri]

From what I remember, the bias against their claim wasn't because it was counter to accepted science - everyone was killing themselves trying to replicate the experiment - copies of their paper were being faxed and re-faxed almost to illegibility prior to publication. It was because of how they sensationalized their announcement - a full press conference with all the major TV news stations broadcasting live. I think their findings would've been much better received if they'd just published a journal article saying "we got a weird unexpectedly large energy production from this experiment - can anyone else replicate it?", instead of trying to go the rock star route as if they'd already won the Nobel Prize.

It's also worth pointing out that even fusion in stars isn't anywhere near as concentrated an energy source as regular chemical reactions. The energy production by fusion in the center of the sun is estimated to only be about 275 Watts/m^3. Less than human metabolism (average human body is less than 0.1 m^3 and gives off about 100 Watts), and about the same as a compost heap. So when you're talking about low energy nuclear reactions, you're talking about really, really low energy levels. Possibly so low as to be of no practical use other than explaining some minor discrepancies in energy measured by certain very sensitive experiments.

Re:Justice.

[110010001000]

Actually I realized the submitter is flogging a book series on the subject and is also the author of the column. So I guess that explains it.

Re:Justice.

[Anonymous Coward]

Scientific American is a rag? You really need to get a grip on your derision, it's getting out of hand.

Re:Justice.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because they are scientists, doesn't mean they aren't human.

A better way to put it might be that not all, or even most, accredited scientists are scientists. Everyone who decryed the EMDrive, LENR, or pretty much anything else did it not because they themselves looked at the data, they did it because they assumed that it wasn't a safe bet. Such people should be stripped of their degrees and forsaken to the role of the lowliest of sex workers for their role in corrupting science and the lack of integrity shown by voicing an opinion without adequate information.

Re:Justice.

[Toonol]

It's gone up and down, but mostly up. http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/Agencies%3B.jpg

Re:Justice.

[Toonol]

Compared to its quality thirty years ago, it is. It has gone from a respectable scientific publication to something on the order of Popular Science. It's painful, because I absolutely loved that magazine when I was young.

Re:Justice.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, about that "their due" thing.....I suspect history would have been a little more kind to them if they hadn't tried to screw over Steven Jones in the process by breaking their agreement to publish simultaneously.

Re:Justice.

[rickyslashdot]

FINALLY - someone is willing to actually LOOK at the evidence, and THEN formulate a theory to explain the energy production.

Same thing goes for the Reactionless Drive - https://duckduckgo.com/?q=reac...
NASA is currently scratching their heads (and asses) as to how this thing works, but they are convinced that SOMETHING is going on.

Hell, TRY IT OUT, and IF it produces results, then get your head out of your educated, doctorial (god-like) ass and look at the reality of the real world processes.

Science is NOT founded on theory, it is founded on provable and repeatable processes that get theories developed to explain the realities.

Re:Justice.

[moosehooey]

After about 25 years, I just let my subscription lapse...

Re:Justice.

[thrich81]

Stellar fusion is a whole different subject than artificial fusion. You're right that fusion output per volume or weight is quite low in stars, but that is because the fusion being done is essentially four bare protons to helium4 which must evidently (I'm too lazy to look it up) include at least one reaction in the chain with an extremely low cross section. Actually it states in the article you linked that the slow reaction in the sun's Proton-proton reaction is the first one (proton + proton -> deuteron [H1 + H1 -> H2]). No artificial fusion schemes (low or high energy, serious or crackpot) ever consider using H1 as a fuel. They all start with isotopes much, much easier to fuse (usually deuterium, tritium, or helium3). And we do have an example of a high yield artificial fusion technique -- the thermonuclear weapons, which obviously are many orders of magnitude more powerful per kilogram than stars (I know most of their yield is usually fission, but they do produce a significant positive yield from fusion).

Re: Justice.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are completely comparing apples and oranges. The density of material at the center of the sun will never be reached in a powerplant, nor does it need to be. One kilogram of fusion fuel can provide the same amount of energy as 10 million kilograms of fossil fuel. Try using that comparison.

Re:Justice.

[hey!]

I don't know if I'd call it justice.

One of the distinguishing features of science among all academic pursuits is that science is uniquely resistant to seductive ideas. Not utterly resistant, mind you, some idea stick around for a long time because nobody can figure out a way to prove or disprove them. But if an idea doesn't stand up to even a year of empirical scrutiny, then anyone who makes strong claims for those ideas is going to have egg on their face. It's harsh, but it's more just than wishful thinking.

Scientists are trained to be circumspect. It's not just a cultural norm, it serves a purpose. The State of Utah spent millions of dollars on a National Cold Fusion Institute because Pons and Fleischman jumped the gun with a press release about an unreproducible result.

Re: Justice.

[Noah Haders]

if I wanted the density of the center of the sun, I could just check with your mom.

Re: Justice.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes because the science is settled ...

Re:Justice.

[Anonymous Coward]

From what I remember, the bias against their claim wasn't because it was counter to accepted science ... It was because of how they sensationalized their announcement...

If I recall correctly, they announced their results early because they thought another group of scientists was going to announce the results of similar research.

Re:Justice.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's also worth pointing out that even fusion in stars isn't anywhere near as concentrated an energy source as regular chemical reactions. The energy production by fusion in the center of the sun is estimated to only be about 275 Watts/m^3. Less than human metabolism (average human body is less than 0.1 m^3 and gives off about 100 Watts), and about the same as a compost heap. So when you're talking about low energy nuclear reactions, you're talking about really, really low energy levels. Possibly so low as to be of no practical use other than explaining some minor discrepancies in energy measured by certain very sensitive experiments.

Stars have a low power density because they stabilize at a dynamic equilibrium where the pressure of the star's core is exactly balanced with the gravitational force of the gas around. Increasing power density increases the temperature, which increases the pressure. The core then expands because of the overpressure, which lowers the power density. That's why sun-sized stars burn their hydrogen so constantly over billions of years. The bigger the star, the higher the pressure, i.e. the power density is higher. Large stars burn their fuel much faster for that reason. Without this stabilizing effect, stars would go off like a cosmic hydrogen bomb the moment they form.

Re: Justice.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bitch, please. Quit talking before you exceed your Schwarzschild radius.

Re:Justice.

[dunkelfalke]

That depends on the tamper material. Using lead tamper the projected yield would be about halved, but it would come mostly (90% or more) from fusion. Using uranium tamper is what makes thermonuclear bombs dirty.

Re:Justice.

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you going on about? P and F were only on to poor methodology and a lack of discretion and reserve regarding the release of conclusions. Most of the possible reactions that are noted are not the same as the original P and F experiment asserted.

Re:Justice.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are mischaracterizing both the EmDrive research and science generally. Yes, science is driven by observations, so there is nothing wrong (per se) with testing outlandish ideas.There are a number of other things which follow on from that focus on observation, however. The first thing is the importance of the hypothesis, laying out in theory what should happen during your measurement/test. This clearly should take into account all previously known observations. The second relevant consequence of science being verified by observation is that our knowledge is limited by our ability to measure things, and by the precision of those measurements. Unfortunately for those in search of a perfect means to truth, some things cannot be measured, and all measurements are inherently subject to error. The history of science could easily be viewed as a gradual reduction of error in various measurements.

The EmDrive researchers have failed to adequately account for a number of sources of error, in a measurement that is barely above its noise floor. It also contradicts Relativity, which is one of the most precisely-tested theories in all of science, We have tested Relativity in particle accelerators, in interferometers, and in measurements of cosmic phenomenae. It has some known holes, but it is an accurate description of reality over the domain in question. Theories like Relativity aren't ever really discarded: even if some other better theory comes along, it still needs to describe that part of the universe's functions in more-or-less those same terms, so the truths we can obtain this way are reliable even if our explanation changes, because they're based on objective measurement. So Relativity can be considered a constraint on the solution space for this problem. Relativity is such a wild departure from our normal experience of reality that it could not be entertained without extraordinary evidence, so we've spent about the last hundred years acquiring that evidence. That the EmDrive contradicts Relativity rather overtly is a huge issue, but it also manages to contradict the conservation laws of energy and momentum, which would throw into question all of known physics and profoundly alter our understanding of the universe.

Physicists are pretty tolerant of new ideas -- it's part of the job description. They're trying to decide between various conflicting models of reality. If EmDrive worked it would mean new avenues of research for decades if not centuries. But so far, the observations do not match the claims. There are more sources of error than have been described and quantified, and the signal (thrust) is exceedingly weak. Arguing that you have invalidated all known physics with a hunk of copper and a microwave is pretty wild, but we are all willing to take it seriously if it happens. But in order for that to happen, you have to prove that you're not just measuring thermal noise.

All in all, the odds are damn need certain that EmDrive thrust is an experimental error. Failing that, the next most likely solution is that it is some heretofore-unknown result of some previously known phenomena, but that it is too subtle an effect to be of any practical use. Suggesting that there are holes in our understanding of physics big enough to drive a Mack truck through, well...no one is going to stop you, but if you're going to form your view of the universe on that kind of basis, you may as well go straight to magic and unicorns, it's about as likely and more fun. And you can go right ahead testing those theories, because after all, no one can prove that unicorns and magic don't exist, but I hope you'll understand why no serious physicists are devoting any time to this issue.

As an aside, I can only imagine the cognitive dissonance that comes with your worship of the trappings of science combined with your disdain for scientists and education. It must be quite distressing.

Re:Justice.

[ISoldat53]

They have nice pictures though.

Re:Justice.

[Bryan Ischo]

Wow you held out for a long time. I let mine lapse about 10 years ago for the same reason. I was by that point already calling the publication "Scientific Omnimerican", because it had essentially already morphed into Omni magazine. Pseudoscience and science fiction from cover to cover, meh.

Re:Justice.

[slashrio]

Huh? Now how is that supposed to happen?

I've learned that if there is no understanding, you HAVE TO rely on the experimental data.
Verify, confirm, and reproduce them, but DO NOT dismiss them as 'impossible', or say something like:
"There is no theoretical framework explaining 'your claim'.".
If the data shows nuclear effects, 'boiling' of titanium, then something clearly has happened.
And if there is no understanding then that is the more reason to allocate funding to it.
Not to destroy the messengers...
Ignacio Semmelweis is a sad example of what can go wrong if this principle is not followed.
And soon we'll see what wrong has been done to Pons & Fleischman.

Re:Justice.

[slashrio]

As you said, there's nothing wrong with trying and it seems that NASA is willing to do that in space in order to escape that noise floor.
No cognitive dissonance here...
In the meantime I'm eagerly awaiting the results of the next experiment.

Re:Justice.

[Rei]

Verify, confirm, and reproduce them,

As a general rule, the experiments can't be "verified, confirmed and reproduced". That's a large part of the reason why this ended up as fringe science.

The most logical explanation is that measuring precise energy/heat flows over long periods of time and measuring miniscule quantities of isotopes without them being overwhelmed by contamination is difficult to do without error.

Re: Justice.

[Anonymous Coward]

It sounds like scientists are stumbling ever closer to what Walter Russell discovered long ago and proved at Westinghouse labs in 1927 with his demonstrations of elemental transmutation. Google "Russell Westinghouse Report 1" and start reading. He demonstrated nitrogen being tramsmuted into hydrogen and believed hydrogen was the perfect source of fuel for the future. His charts and teachings explain how and why it works. I spoke with someone who, in the 90s, replicated the Westinghouse demonstration and verified with mass spec. Google also "Walter Russell plutonium" and check out his periodic charts of elements. Some of you will find it very interesting. Tesla allegedly told him to lock his discoveries in a vault for 1,000 years because humanity wasn't ready for them.

Re:Justice.

[syntotic]

Hey! I proposed to **caress elements with elements** and watch for nuclear phenomena of the radioactive type to happen short of chemistry. First time I had that idea and the underlying mechanic in my mind it turned out, a few years later, into the tunnel effect phenomena. 104x104 is a big grid to set to watch interactions under different conditions, not considering isotopes and We have not done it systematically. I wonder if the Pons are the same Pons I knew from school...

Re:Justice.

[cwsumner]

It doesn't have to make a "sun", if it can boil water it is enough to be useful. And it has, in at least some of the attempts.

Re:Justice.

[cwsumner]

From what I remember, the bias against their claim wasn't because it was counter to accepted science ... It was because of how they sensationalized their announcement...

If I recall correctly, they announced their results early because they thought another group of scientists was going to announce the results of similar research.

Possibly. And they angered the competition, which used the news media to discredit them, by misrepresenting what was happening in the experiments trying to repeat the results.

And more than one large corporation started research work to find out what it was, without telling the scientific establishment. As far as I know, those are still progressing...

Re:Justice.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's gone up and down, but mostly up.

http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/Agencies%3B.jpg

Without spending time to do anything other than a quick eyeballing of that graph, it seems largely static when you exclude the DOD & NIH.

Re:Justice.

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot something;

$80 million in 1976 equates to $339 million in 2016 - http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

So, mostly down.

Re:Justice.

[slashrio]

People have no idea yet in what kind of theoretical framework to see this, yet to be established--let's be fair--phenomenon, and you already 'know' it's an over-unity drive? Maybe you're triggered by the reports that there was some thrust being claimed at standstill at a certain power consumption, but nobody can tell yet how thrust would depend on speed. And with respect to what kind of reference frame. And you even might have a point.
However, physics is rife with examples of researchers being told that what they were investigating was impossible (Wright brothers?).
I think it's a bit too early to call 'morons' on people, and you really should stick to using physical argumentations in order to keep the debate clean, thank you.

Re:Justice.

[slashrio]

If you put an EM drive in space and it accelerates, then I think it would be difficult to deny that 'it works'.

Re:Justice.

[Anonymous Coward]

From everything I heard, Pons & Fleischmann "took a ration of grief" for very good reasons.

A lot of scientists got their underwear in a knot over how P&F released their results. I doubt this was the killer blow, though it was certainly ill-advised to piss-off the scientific community. I mean truly, if your research is going to live and die based upon peer review, result replication and all the rest, how stupid do you have to be? Alienating the only viable means to scientific credibility? And worse yet, when you are making extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary proof?

No, the thing that killed cold fusion and the P&F results was that nobody could explain it or replicate the result. The first is a serious problem. The second is a total deal-breaker. P&F were finished when nobody could replicate P&F.

Not only did the P&F research die, but the very phrase "cold fusion" became anathema. You want to taint any scientific result, just call it "cold fusion-like". Cold fusion is now officially the Milli Vanilli of the scientific world. It's a laughing stock.

Re:Justice.

[Rei]

The discussion was not about EM drive. And nobody has done what you're describing, they've just been pouring huge amounts of power into the thing inside vacuum chambers and measuring "thrust" near lower bounds of their measurement equipment's sensitivity. XKCD said it best.

Furthermore, let's stop obscuring it behind the name "EM drive" and call it for what it is: "Shawyer's Fantastical Perpetual Motion Machine". Because that's literally what's being proposed: a violation of the laws of physics that would allow for perpetual motion. Versus the obvious answer of measurement error / mass loss / etc, I'm going to have to side with the latter.

Re:Justice.

[slashrio]

The discussion was not about EM drive.

Then why do you keep going on about it?
No, wait, don't answer that rethorical question. ;)

Party time!

[mindwhip]

Wohoo! Alchemy is a thing after all!

Re:Party time!

[Anonymous Coward]

But it's impossible without a transmutation circle

Alchemy!

[mveloso]

It's alchemy! Alchemy I tell you!

Re:Alchemy!

[Anonymous Coward]

As above, so below.

FTA: similar results as early as 1910/1920

[mveloso]

"Perhaps most surprising is that, in the formative years of atomic science in the early 20th century, some scientists reported inexplicable experimental evidence of elemental transmutations. In the 1910s and 1920s, this research was reported in popular newspapers and magazines, and papers were published in the top scientific journals of the day, including Physical Review, Science and Nature."

Re:FTA: similar results as early as 1910/1920

[LynnwoodRooster]

If it's peer reviewed, it's gotta be true. Right?

Re:FTA: similar results as early as 1910/1920

[Anonymous Coward]

Initial peer review only says that it wasn't immediately obvious how it was wrong. Long-term peer review seems to be coming to the conclusion that it might have been right.

Re:FTA: similar results as early as 1910/1920

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, you were being a facetious ass? fuck off.

Here is where you can learn more

[Anonymous Coward]

If you'd like more information, three books were just published on this subject. Volume One, Hacking the Atom, explains what happened from 1990 through 2015. Volume Two, Fusion Fiasco, is all about what happened in 1989. Volume Three, Lost History, tells the story of the early 20th Century elemental transmutations. Information on the books is available here:
http://stevenbkrivit.com/series-summary/

Re: Here is where you can learn more

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the next step would be combing this with the emdrive to get more thrust out of the emdrive!

Does that mean?

[Artem S. Tashkinov]

"inexplicable experimental evidence of elemental transmutations"

Alchemy is ... real? I'm not talking about turning stuff into gold but turning some elements into others using certain ... what-looks-to-be chemical reactions?

Re:Does that mean?

[Rei]

Elemental transmutation is standard nuclear physics - particularly neutron capture. The issue is that you go through a lot of of nuclear reactions and a lot of energy for a very small amount of transmutation. So what might possibly be economical for energy production is totally uneconomical for producing, say, gold. Not to mention that you have to isolate the targeted substance afterward.

The only transmutation of commercial value is for production of specific isotopes, such as for medical, industrial, or space uses.

The theory that they're plugging in this article is that in some situations you can "dress" an electron with extra mass in a LENR cell via electromagnetic fluctuations, enabling election capture and the emission of a neutrino and a low energy neutron, which is readily captured.

Re:Does that mean?

[newcastlejon]

Alchemy is ... real? I'm not talking about turning stuff into gold but turning some elements into others using certain ... what-looks-to-be chemical reactions?

By definition you can't change one element into another using chemistry. Nuclear reactions on the other hand always produce different elements or different isotopes. Making gold is not economical and I read somewhere that it's actually easier to turn gold into lead than vice-versa, but in theory one could turn a profit by transmuting iridium (around $30 per kg) into rhenium (~$6,000 per kg) and optionally then turn the rhenium into osmium (~$10,000 per kg). That is if one happened to have a slow neutron source lying around and a lot of time on one's hands. The trick, I imagine, would be separating the stock material into its isotopes. This is an exercise left to the reader, as the saying goes.

Re: Does that mean?

[im_thatoneguy]

Except it would no longer cost $10k/kg if someone was producing significant quantities.

Justice for the EM drive.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it'll be the EM drive's turn?

Re:Justice for the EM drive.

[110010001000]

No. That was already validated by NASA (Eagleworks). Yeah totally. NASA. You know it!

Re:Justice for the EM drive.

[Immerman]

Well, as a personal side project by guys working for NASA anyway. Not *quite* the same thing. As much as I want to believe it works, and think that enough evidence has been accumulated to test it properly in orbit, let's not pretend it's been tested with the resources of NASA behind it.

Ross's e-cat?

[aglider]

If that's about Rossi's e-cat, then I go back reading Mickey Mouse...

Re:Ross's e-cat?

[nukeguy1000]

The SCIAM article is not at all about Rossi, the lead author of the SCIAM article is the guy who busted Rossi for fraud.

Re: Ross's e-cat?

[Entrope]

No, it's about ethics and accuracy in physics reporting!

Re: Ross's e-cat?

[Anonymous Coward]

Precision if language! Dont want results in the non-significant portion of numbers.

Re: Ross's e-cat?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Precision if language!"

uhhhh ummm....

Re:Ross's e-cat?

[Anonymous Coward]

Rossi has not (yet) been busted for fraud, for the e-cat that is.
Interestingly, as we speak he is suing a large investment company for a e-cat IP related lawsuit (and not the other way around!)

Re:Ross's e-cat?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody is interested in busting Rossi, he's like the crazy man yelling at the pigeons in the park
The lawsuit of Rossi has nothing to do with the e-cat scam

Too many scams with LENR

[GuB-42]

LENR is great for scammers. It's like free energy but with better sounding "science" behind it.
Scammers with the necessary scientific background and a good sense of misdirection can easily fool scientists. Scientists are good at finding natural causes for surprising results. However, if the result comes from deliberate trickery and that the trickster did enough research to avoid breaking all the laws of physics, scientists can be fooled like kids at a magic show.
So I thing that many of the results for LENR are poisoned by such scams and any attempt at meta-analysis is doomed.

Re:Too many scams with LENR

[cwsumner]

That's true, but it's beside the point.

However, some corporations hire magicians to help evaluate such things. An engineer or two also is benificial. Don't depend just on scientists... ;-)

Our Sun

[Anonymous Coward]

Our Sun works the same way through cold fusion. Some day, science will catch up to this fact.

Re: Our Sun

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, and all the heat that the sun puts out is from the arguements over it cant work that way.

I took the pragmatic view at the time.

[tlambert]

I took the pragmatic view at the time.

If it worked, engineers pretty much shouldn't care *how* it worked, or *why* it worked, to be able to make it useful.

The UCF studies were, to me, the most interesting ones. However, there was so much criticism heaped on them, and they were electrochemists, not physicists, and they announced it "the wrong way" (which is how most things are announced these days), and ... it was not worth tracking any more.

My favorite joke was base on Utah funding the research for "Pons and Fleishman" and ending up with a bunch of cold cream and margarine...

Steven B. Krivit is paid by big oil

[Anonymous Coward]

This self proclaimed specialist has written so many articles obfuscating LENR and all the people really devoted to the field ...

Re: Steven B. Krivit is paid by big oil

[Anonymous Coward]

Our Sun has an abundance of heavy elements. Imagine a molten giant planet where a strong gravity sorts elements by their weight. On the surface of this planet you find a liquid to plasma region where Helium 3 is expelled and exposed to electric arcs. This is a secret that NASA, government and big oil is hiding. A practical source of near limitless electrical power for everyone when replicated on a smaller scale.

Our Sun is NOT one big ball of helium and hydrogen plasma as claimed by mainstream science.

Re: Steven B. Krivit is paid by big oil

[Pikoro]

If it's a secret, how do you know about it? Let me guess. You're a plasma universe person aren't you?

Re: Steven B. Krivit is paid by big oil

[Anonymous Coward]

We know the dimensions of the sun, and can measure its mass from orbital mechanics. Thus, the average density is easy to compute. It is only the density profile that can be "tweaked". How is your hypothesis consistent with what we observe?

Re: Steven B. Krivit is paid by big oil

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a plasma universe person aren't you?

I think they call it "plasma cosmology" now. It used to be "electric universe" but people were recognizing that it was just a nutball conspiracy theory thing, so they changed the name.

As usual

[slashmydots]

Scientists resistant to something with solid evidence because they don't like being wrong about their incorrect knowledge of how subatomic particle work? YOU DON'T SAY! Through the last 200+ years, scientists have had the cycle of someone saying they're wrong, they resist it, then it's proven right, and they look like stubborn and very unscientific idiots then repeat the cycle. This time around it's even funnier considering we have next to no idea how radioactive decay really works or even seemingly random subatomic particle type changes. I don't think we're even 100% on how isotopes form in the first place. But nooooo, let's shun this "new" science because it's scary and doesn't match what I learned in college. Scientists are soooo unreasonable.

Re:As usual

[110010001000]

You are right. Therefore everything is true, and possible, but just being suppressed by scientists. So where is my warp engine?

Re:As usual

[whoever57]

So where is my warp engine?

I would be happy with a car that is powered by water.

Re:As usual

[NormalVisual]

Through the last 200+ years, scientists have had the cycle of someone saying they're wrong, they resist it, then it's proven right, and they look like stubborn and very unscientific idiots then repeat the cycle.

I think the poster boy for this is Ignaz Semmelweis. The scientific community dismissed his results out of pride, and thousands died as a result.

Re:As usual

[Anonymous Coward]

Fiberglass air cooled engine that Runs on water man!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpQWjvet9o4

Re:As usual

[serviscope_minor]

Through the last 200+ years, scientists have had the cycle of someone saying they're wrong, they resist it, then it's proven right, and they look like stubborn and very unscientific idiots then repeat the cycle

They've also far more often been through the cycle of someone saying they're wrong, resisting it, turning out to be completely correct and still having a bunch of dimwits cherry pick a tiny number of times when that didn't happen an hold those up add some sort of proof that scientists should always listen to cranks.

Re:As usual

[thrich81]

Who modded this up? Come on mods! Really? --> "This time around it's even funnier considering we have next to no idea how radioactive decay really works or even seemingly random subatomic particle type changes." Anyone ever heard of Quantum Field Theory, Quantum Electrodynamics, and Quantum Chromodynamics? The theories of particle decays and reactions with none ever observed violations and which the LHC has spent billions of Euros to find flaws or way to improve without success so far.

Re:As usual

[Stephan Schulz]

Through the last 200+ years, scientists have had the cycle of someone saying they're wrong, they resist it, then it's proven right, and they look like stubborn and very unscientific idiots then repeat the cycle. I think the poster boy for this is Ignaz Semmelweis. The scientific community dismissed his results out of pride, and thousands died as a result.

This is just a variant of the Galileo Gambit. Yes, over the last 200 years there have been several instances where "science" (as in the majority of scientists) has been sceptical to accept paradigm-changing new claims. Semmelweis is one example, as is Alfred Wegener with his idea of continental drift. But for every genius causing a major shift in scientific opinion, there have been legions of bozos proposing perpetuum mobiles, morphic fields, magnetic water cures, electric universes, and other crap. And on the other hand, many earth-shattering new theories like relativity (both versions) and evolution have been rather quickly accepted, because they were presented with convincing arguments and testable hypotheses. As Sagan said: they also laughed at Bozo the Clown...

Re:As usual

[Anonymous Coward]

While it may not be common, the parent has a point. Such behavior often manifests in fields where our understanding is lacking. Refining the epicycles on one's own theories has much less chance of failure than pursuing the underlying truth, and useful predictions are still valuable. Other fields where this tends to happen are superconductivity and quantum mechanics. QM is great for making predictions, but the prevailing interpretation that denies a concrete underlying reality contributes little to actual understanding. Even the nature of particles is entirely beyond us, and they may only exist as a convenient approximation of reality.

Re:As usual

[radarskiy]

"then it's proven right"

By scientists.

If there are two competing theories, at least one of them is wrong. That does not represent a moral failing of the scientists that proposed that theory.

Re:As usual

[radarskiy]

"If there are two competing theories, at least one of them is wrong."

Actually, I have a counter example to my own claim: wave-particle duality, where two contradictory theories were both proven correct. J. J. Thomson won a Nobel Prize for discovering the particle nature of the electron and his son George shared the Nobel Prize for discovering the wave nature of the electron.

Re: As usual

[Anonymous Coward]

In the spirit of this topic discussion, wouldnt just removing the oil from a perfectly good, fuctional gas enfine give one a warp[ed] engine without spending millions to develope a new type if engine for a different tupe of encironment?

Re:As usual

[Anonymous Coward]

Through the last 200+ years, scientists have had the cycle of someone saying they're wrong, they resist it, then it's proven right, and they look like stubborn and very unscientific idiots then repeat the cycle.

I think the poster boy for this is Ignaz Semmelweis. The scientific community dismissed his results out of pride, and thousands died as a result.

This is just a variant of the Galileo Gambit. Yes, over the last 200 years there have been several instances where "science" (as in the majority of scientists) has been sceptical to accept paradigm-changing new claims. Semmelweis is one example, as is Alfred Wegener with his idea of continental drift. But for every genius causing a major shift in scientific opinion, there have been legions of bozos proposing perpetuum mobiles, morphic fields, magnetic water cures, electric universes, and other crap. And on the other hand, many earth-shattering new theories like relativity (both versions) and evolution have been rather quickly accepted, because they were presented with convincing arguments and testable hypotheses. As Sagan said: they also laughed at Bozo the Clown...

Its not a fallacy to make such an association as its directly relavant to the subject matter of how academia handles theories that question estabilished beliefs. Further Ignaz Seemelweis DID have evidence to back up his claim; Additionaly Darwin did not have as easy a time of it as you seem to be suggesting.

You seem to be the one guilty of such a fallacy by associating those who make correct claims with those who make incorrect claims when both have been rejected by academia. Look under the heading of "Guilt by association as an ad hominem fallacy" from the article you refered to. As it is a fallacy to treat the two sets as equivalent it is wrong to excuse missing important correct theories because other people make wild theories.

Re:As usual

[esonik]

with none ever observed violations

This is incorrect. The experimentally observed neutrino oscillations imply that neutrinos do have a mass which directly contradicts the Standard Model which assumes neutrinos to be massless particles.

Re:As usual

[Immerman]

The point though is that, prior to establishing a convincing body of evidence, which generally requires lots of independent experimentation and verification (i.e. broad acceptance at least to the point of being willing to dedicate resources to actually testing your claims) there is no reliable way to distinguish between those making correct and incorrect claims. After all, both are clearly incorrect as judged within the context of the established scientific models.

Re:As usual

[Stephan Schulz]

Its not a fallacy to make such an association as its directly relavant to the subject matter of how academia handles theories that question estabilished beliefs. Further Ignaz Seemelweis DID have evidence to back up his claim; Additionaly Darwin did not have as easy a time of it as you seem to be suggesting.

You seem to be the one guilty of such a fallacy by associating those who make correct claims with those who make incorrect claims when both have been rejected by academia. Look under the heading of "Guilt by association as an ad hominem fallacy" from the article you refered to. As it is a fallacy to treat the two sets as equivalent it is wrong to excuse missing important correct theories because other people make wild theories.

Well, the case of Semmelweis is not that simple. For one, his observations were correct - hand-washing of hospital staff with a solution of calcium hypochlorite did reduce incidence of puerperal fever -, but his theory that this was due to "cadaverous matter" was wrong, and he got lucky that his cleansing agent was antibacterial. It took until Pasteur and Koch came up with the modern germ theory of disease that the mechanism was reasonably understood. Also, Semmelweis became embroiled in the political fallout of the 1848 revolutions, which slowed down the scientific discourse. And despite this, it only took about 20 years until Lister developed antiseptic techniques that were widely accepted. Pons and Fleischmann gave their press conference in 1989, now 27 years ago, and that in an age when communication takes days to seconds, not months, to cross the globe.

As you yourself seem to acknowledge, it takes significant time and evidence until a theory reaches scientific acceptance. A new, competing, theory needs to be at least similarly compelling to be accepted. Scientist are naturally sceptic. To quote Sagan again: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - a sentiment shared by Laplace and Hume. The vast majority of claims that would overturn accepted scientific theories are complete crap. Of those that are serious and not obvious nonsense, most are still wrong. That's why the onus is on the proponent to demonstrate that they understand the field they work in, and that they have carefully considered other options and potential errors before people start spending resources on new claims.

Re:As usual

[slashrio]

Right on! A bit milder formulated: His empirical data was dismissed without any attempt to reproduce and confirm it, because there was 'no theoretical framework explaining the results'.
A showcase of how criminally stupid (medical) scientists 'en masse' can be.

Re:As usual

[NormalVisual]

His empirical data was dismissed without any attempt to reproduce and confirm it, because there was 'no theoretical framework explaining the results'.

The lack of an explanation for the observed results certainly didn't help, but there were an awful lot of doctors that had the opinion that they were gentlemen, and it was thus insulting to imply that they were somehow unclean and had to wash their hands.

Re:As usual

[slashrio]

generally requires lots of

Not really.
What is required, is that people who didn't put any effort in trying to verify or falsify the given claim shut their mouth.
Then if nobody is trying to repeat the experiment, then science will just be delayed until someone finally does, not destroyed as in the case of Pons & Fleischman.

Re:As usual

[slashrio]

The point is that Ignaz Semmelweis had empirical data.
You are wrongly equating empirical data with 'crap' in the same way as the (medical) 'scientists' in his time did, as a better look at it could have saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of women.
Is someone comes with falsifiable data, and his claim is interesting enough, then a scientist tries to reproduce the data and may express his doubts if he can't, but most certainly has to shut his mouth as long as he hasn't engaged in any such experimental activity.
Comparing people with ununderstood scientific claims ad initio with clowns and bozos is absolutely counter productive.
Fools laugh at anyone...

Re:As usual

[thrich81]

I'll defer to anyone who knows better, but my understanding is that non-zero neutrino rest masses do not contradict the Quantum Electrodynamics or Quantum Chromodynamics upon which the Standard Model is based. The elementary particle masses (electron, muon, neutrinos, quarks, etc) are not predicted by any of those or the Standard Model, but are free parameters determined by experiment for now. Thus the Model is incomplete, but accurate up to it's level of completeness. But my point is that at the level it is now it provides a very good model/quantitative predictions of "how radioactive decay really works or even seemingly random subatomic particle type changes" which the grandparent cavalierly dismisses. Of course when someone uses the phrase "really works" then we get into philosophical discussions which science doesn't address.

Re:As usual

[lgw]

That's an awesome bit of science trivia - very cool.

BTW, examples like that is why science should never be said to "prove" anything - proof is the stuff of math, not science. Also, per current theory, electrons are waves, full stop, as is everything else, really. The waves are quantized, sure, but using particle as a metaphor will constantly lead one astray, and should really be abandoned.

Re: As usual

[Anonymous Coward]

"What is required, is that people who didn't put any effort in trying to verify or falsify the given claim shut their mouth."

Ahh yes, my professor used to say the most important part of science is shutting up and not asking questions. It is through quickly bestowed unthinking acceptance that truth advances.

Re:As usual

[RockDoctor]

I would be happy with a car that is powered by water.

Get a Tesla (or golf buggy or milk float ; whatever), a hydroelectric power plant and a dam to feed it with water ... there you are : water powered car.

Except, of course, that the power is actually solar power, not water power. The water is just a storage and concentration medium.

Re:As usual

[Immerman]

What was destroyed? Are we not now accepting, after only a few decades delay, that yes there is in fact an anomalous process occurring?

F&P screwed up big time in irresponsibly presenting their findings in a grossly over-hyped manner before they had achieved reliable repeatability, and by so doing they cost themselves and their discovery a dramatic amount of credibility. That's on them. Had they instead reported their results responsibly, in academic journals rather than in a heavily publicized press event, then there would have almost certainly been far less backlash.

Criticism is an integral part of the scientific process, and is quite often accompanied by derision proportional to the publicity of the claim. That's why researchers normally pass around their preposterous new ideas to a handful of trusted colleagues for review and testing before making big public claims.

Re:As usual

[Anonymous Coward]

The point though is that, prior to establishing a convincing body of evidence, which generally requires lots of independent experimentation and verification (i.e. broad acceptance at least to the point of being willing to dedicate resources to actually testing your claims) there is no reliable way to distinguish between those making correct and incorrect claims. After all, both are clearly incorrect as judged within the context of the established scientific models.

My point was actually about the falseness of the claim of fallacy, but lets have a look at what you claim.

So by your reasoning you can not tell before building such a body of evidence if a theory is wild so to criticise it before building such evidence is itself flawed. If you can tell that certain theories are wild and not about others then you can differentiate between them before building such a body of evidence. Also I wasn't aware of a scientific model that disagreed with Ignaz Semmelweis. You also seem to have ignored the evidence he did have in support of washing hands saving lifes. Also claiming that a criticism is wrong because the thing being criticised say otherwise wouls seem to make it uncriticisable.

Re:As usual

[Anonymous Coward]

Its not a fallacy to make such an association as its directly relavant to the subject matter of how academia handles theories that question estabilished beliefs. Further Ignaz Seemelweis DID have evidence to back up his claim; Additionaly Darwin did not have as easy a time of it as you seem to be suggesting.

You seem to be the one guilty of such a fallacy by associating those who make correct claims with those who make incorrect claims when both have been rejected by academia. Look under the heading of "Guilt by association as an ad hominem fallacy" from the article you refered to. As it is a fallacy to treat the two sets as equivalent it is wrong to excuse missing important correct theories because other people make wild theories.

Well, the case of Semmelweis is not that simple. For one, his observations were correct - hand-washing of hospital staff with a solution of calcium hypochlorite did reduce incidence of puerperal fever -, but his theory that this was due to "cadaverous matter" was wrong, and he got lucky that his cleansing agent was antibacterial. It took until Pasteur and Koch came up with the modern germ theory of disease that the mechanism was reasonably understood. Also, Semmelweis became embroiled in the political fallout of the 1848 revolutions, which slowed down the scientific discourse. And despite this, it only took about 20 years until Lister developed antiseptic techniques that were widely accepted. Pons and Fleischmann gave their press conference in 1989, now 27 years ago, and that in an age when communication takes days to seconds, not months, to cross the globe.

As you yourself seem to acknowledge, it takes significant time and evidence until a theory reaches scientific acceptance. A new, competing, theory needs to be at least similarly compelling to be accepted. Scientist are naturally sceptic. To quote Sagan again: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - a sentiment shared by Laplace and Hume. The vast majority of claims that would overturn accepted scientific theories are complete crap. Of those that are serious and not obvious nonsense, most are still wrong. That's why the onus is on the proponent to demonstrate that they understand the field they work in, and that they have carefully considered other options and potential errors before people start spending resources on new claims.

My main point was actually that I didn't think there was a fallacy. It definitley wasn't the same as bullshitting about Galileo then claiming therefore nothing from academia can be trusted, while at the same time suggesting people should trust less reliable sources which seem to be what the galileo fallacy is about.

I actually like the royal society motto of take no ones word for it (Nullius in verba) so don't consider anyone beyond dispute, including Sagan (I don't really know anything about him), and definitely including Hume who I do dispute in at least one case and do know a little about. However it does come with the burden of arguing the case but I disagree there is more onus on one side than another. This idea can be abused to suggest 2 sides are equal when they really are not (e.g. the coverage of the autism/MMR vacine none link), but I view the principal as correct.

I will now dispute Sagan's claim by pointing out that extraodinary means anything that is not ordinary so any evidence that is not ordinary will satisfy for any claim that is not ordinary. There is a looser meaning of the word but that is highly subjective and would allow the continual dismisal of evidence by claiming it is not 'extraordinary' enough. It would be better to say that common beliefs often have lots of at least circumstantial evidence so any counter claim would have to come with equally strong evidence, or at

Re:As usual

[slashrio]

What was destroyed?

What about the careers, not to speak about personal lives, of Pons & Fleischman?
What about the taboo on further investigation of this subject with physics wanting to do so risking to have their career damaged/destroyed as well?
This must have had a negative influence on the further development of LENR science.
Although the current mechanism might be such, the way they presented their results should never have had any influence on the way the findings would have been received. I wouldn't have been surprised if some malice would have been in play as well.

Re: As usual

[slashrio]

Your professor was wrong and equating the reaction of your professor to what I stated is one more example of the false equivalence fallacy.
Your reasoning--if it even was something like that--is flawed.

Re:As usual

[slashrio]

...they were gentlemen...

I'm trying really hard to see how this would be a valid scientific way of reasoning in any way.
Was this maybe meant as an excuse?
Didn't they teach math in them days? Could this 'scientific medical community' not work out the numbers and see how incredibly more important than their own egos this was?

Re:As usual

[Immerman]

By being completely irresponsible with their announcement they gambled with their careers and lost. Had their results been easily replicable they would have become scientific superstars, able to write their own ticket for the rest of their life.

As for the chilling effect on further research, that WAS unfortunate, but was just a delay. Further research continued being done y many around the world, which is why it's starting to be taken serious by "the establishment" again. It's not even completely clear that there was a substantial delay - without their over-hyped announcement it might have taken considerably longer to gather a comparable amount of interest.

> the way they presented their results should never have had any influence on the way the findings would have been received
That would be nice if researchers were robots, but they're humans, just like everyone else. And science depends on replication - F&P made grandiose claims, and those require grandiose evidence, which they did not have (rule of thumb in science is you can never trust the original researcher's results - they're too invested and are liable to overlook confounding factors generating false positives).

When other excited researchers attempted to replicate their experiments the vast majority got negative results, and said so loudly and publicly - also called for, counter evidence needs to be presented as loudly as the original claims so that it gets heard. And, knowing with certainty that pretty much any experiment will generate a certain percentage of false positives, when the vast majority of independent replication attempts give negative results it's a pretty safe bet that the original results were one of those false positives.

Contrast that with what would likely have happened if F&P had instead done the responsible thing and shared there results quietly with a few colleagues, maybe publishing in some journal first. They would have gotten the same negative feedback, quietly, and likely proceeded with their same follow-up research that exposed the erratic nature of the results and some of the confounding factors. They would never have suffered the mass ridicule, but they also would have had far less chance of becoming "superstars" - had their experiments been replicable much of the community would have become aware of them through second- or third-hand confirmations, vastly diffusing the publicity F&P would have gotten.

Re:As usual

[Immerman]

No, you can't. Not unless there's some really compelling evidence backing them up. Anything that runs counter to the accepted laws of physics (like, say, triggering fusion at energies orders of magnitude below the accepted cross-section, without generating any of the predicted byproducts) is going to be ridiculed by the majority, which is why researchers who make such world-shifting claims typically quietly seek out widely respected allies before making grandiose claims in a broadly public venue - their respectability lends credence to your claims, and it's easier to convince them in private, where they can humor you without putting their reputation in danger.

Look at Relativity - Special or General. They are on the face of them, ridiculous. They run counter to accepted functioning of the universe, turning the entire concept of gravity and motion on their heads, and there was substantial resistance to adopting them. What made the difference was that they also perfectly explained some observational anomalies that were widely known and accepted, and made lots of testable predictions.

Similarly Quantum Mechanics, which is even more preposterous, but also explained widely recognized anomalies and made many similarly preposterous predictions *which could be easily tested* (such as the two-slit experiment with electrons).

And none of those were accepted right away either, it took years, decades even of argument and refinement before they were even taken particularly seriously.

Contrast with F&P, whose first announcement was an extremely public claim that their "impossible" physics, which they had no theory to explain (they were chemists after all), was going to change the world - and were then immediately found to have not even done enough research to have discovered how erratic their claimed phenomena actually was as almost everyone who attempted to replicate it completely failed to do so. Given that it's to be expected that practically any experiment will occasionally generate false positives, that has charlatan written all over it.

Re:As usual

[j-beda]

with none ever observed violations

This is incorrect. The experimentally observed neutrino oscillations imply that neutrinos do have a mass which directly contradicts the Standard Model which assumes neutrinos to be massless particles.

The Standard Model is not QM. QM says nothing about the mass of the neutrino.

Re:As usual

[michael_wojcik]

Scientist are naturally sceptic.

But thanks to Semmelweis and Lister, artificially aseptic.

Re:As usual

[slashrio]

It was not up to them to make results 'easily replicable' and I don't equate enthusiasm with 'completely irresponsible'.
So, let me observe that our opinions differ, I still think the ridicule they received was quite too much.
You also forget the mass amplification factor which made the response so destructive to their careers:
It was only two of them that published the results so loudly to the community. But that community massively responded just as loud back, and that is a tad too loud for me, for them, and for the subject. So I still think they were treated unfairly, especially now that it seems they indeed were up to something, although their interpretation may have been lacking.
And how could they possibly have given the right explanation if even now people still don't know what exactly is going on?

Re:As usual

[Immerman]

They didn't need to have a good theory, or easily replicable results (though making sure their results are replicable is *absolutely* a priority for researchers - a paper published without enough information to replicate the experiment is a paper that can only damage your career). All they needed to do was publish their anomalous findings quietly, in a venue suited for such early results, and they would have been fine.

Their problem was not their discovery, but that they "shouted it from the rooftops" You shout at the crowd, you've got to expect the crowd to shout back, and make sure you are prepared to handle that inevitable backlash. They didn't even try, and the crowd knocked them on their ass.

As for "especially now that it seems they indeed were up to something" - that is completely irrelevant. Unless you imagine that the research community had access to time-travel, their findings could only be judged by the information available at the time.

Re:As usual

[slashrio]

Unless you imagine that the research community had access to time-travel, their findings could only be judged by the information available at the time.

One would expect though that this kind of geniuses would suffer from a trait called 'memory', from which they could recall that sometimes people who present shocking data unjustly get burned by their own community, and so they could have decided to do the right thing: not to destroy them.
But no, the whole scientific community got in a frenzy and did it anyway. That shouldn't have happened.
Then now that it seems they indeed were up to something there wouldn't have been any problem to look back to.

Re:As usual

[Immerman]

Yes, there are occasionally false negatives. There are also many orders of magnitude more true negatives. Giving them all the benefit of the doubt would do far more damage to scientific advancement than occasionally delaying the advancement of a particular discovery by a few decades.

Re:As usual

[slashrio]

Wrong. This is just about proper human behavior, but I'm prepared to say you are right and I am wrong, just for the sake of stopping this exchange. :)

Re:As usual

[Immerman]

Very well. And I'll concede that it would have been nice it the backlash had been less intense and more rationally mediated. I was sorely disappointed by the demonization of the subject in the face of the researchers who were getting positive results.

I just don't think it realistically could have gone any other way given human (and especially geek) nature. "Proper human behavior" is a nice ideal, but it's generally delusional to expect it from actual humans.

And given the long history of cranks making grandiose claims about inventing "free energy devices", I think the derision was to be expected, and that F&P really should have taken the time to think about what they were doing and make sure their results could actually back up their claims.

Re:As usual

[slashrio]

Ok, point taken, over & out.

Where's the beef?

[Comrade Ogilvy]

I seen a few reports of something weird going on. I am not going to make assumptions that they are wrong or right. But it is discouraging to see such an utter lack of clear incremental improvements in measuring the anomalous effect.

"Guest Blog"

[Stephan Schulz]

It's a guest blog contribution, not an article by Scientific American staff. Unless it's backed by some real science, it's not significant. The first author, Steven Krivit, is a journalist with a long history of publishing borderline claims on "Low Energy Nuclear Reactions", the newish euphemism for "Cold Fusion" - i.e. he makes suggestive claims, but keeps just south of complete bullshit, to maintain some kind of intellectual deniability.

Notice how in this article he name-drops Chandrasekhar to bolster the reputation of Lewis Larsen and thus the so-called "Widom-Larsen theory" without explicitly endorsing it or claiming it explains the purported experimental evidence.

Re:"Guest Blog"

[AutodidactLabrat]

THANK YOU!
Finally some sense!

Re:"Guest Blog"

[DerekLyons]

It's a guest blog contribution, not an article by Scientific American staff.

This. Plus, it's 2016 not 1976 - and Scientific American is not quite the reputable source it once was.

Re: "Guest Blog"

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong Chandrasekhar. The guy you're looking for is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subrahmanyan_Chandrasekhar

Re: "Guest Blog"

[Stephan Schulz]

Wrong Chandrasekhar. The guy you're looking for is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

Yes, you're right. No idea how that happened - I think I pasted the link directly. Must have clicked in the wrong place somewhere. I was referring to Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar of 1.4 solar masses...

Re:"Guest Blog"

[esonik]

You didn't study the published papers (on Widom-Larson theory). The proposed Low energy nuclear reactions are a phenomenon of the weak nuclear force whereas fusion is a phenomenon of the strong nuclear force. These two forces are entirely different beasts.

Re: "Guest Blog"

[Joey Vegetables]

1.4 solar masses??? Might I respectfully suggest a low-calorie diet?

This is in Scientific American?

[93 Escort Wagon]

Color me skeptical. I know there are Slashdotters who happily buy into conspiracy theories on a wide range of topics, but - come on, Scientific American?

Re:This is in Scientific American?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cockup before conspiracy. Biases like these usually aren't deliberate: there's nobody in a smoke-filled room planning to suppress LENR. Instead, if LENR is a thing (which I'm not saying one way or another), it's just scientists being people too.

submitter?

[davidwr]

Actually I realized the submitter is ... also the author of the column. So I guess that explains it.

Is this just your hunch, or is it backed up by something?

I ask, because if it is confirmed as a self-submitted slashvertisement, that will negatively influence my opinion of the piece and its authors.

Re:submitter?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know you could look it up yourself as well.

Re:submitter?

[davidwr]

An anonymous reader writes:

So, you wrote it?

Lots of wishful thinking

[OneHundredAndTen]

But not really much new in the way of facts. Apart from this, THE major reason why Pons and Fleischmann lost credibility is because almost nobody could reproduce their results.

Er, um...

[Anonymous Coward]

Has anyone shown that they can draw energy, and derive work from one of these devices? Can I charge my cellphone with it? Heat up my coffee with it? Start a car with it? Have these guys made an any-size scale reactor out of one?

Uh Oh!.....

[stoicio]

"inexplicable experimental evidence of elemental transmutations."

Isn't this what happens before X-Men and Godzilla appear.....

How do you get slow neutrons?

[IgnorantSavage]

I read the linked article, and he refers to "ultra-low-momentum neutrons with a huge capture cross-section". Has anyone dug deeper into this? How do you create these neutrons? Or is it just pseudo-science?

Seems like if you could actually do this, there are a lot of crazy things you could do. Such as creating unstable isotopes that decay into something else. Either the decay by-product could be valuable, or the energy released...

Alchemy, anyone?

Re:How do you get slow neutrons?

[sgtsquid]

In nulcear engineering they are also called "thermal" neutrons because they have about the same kinetic energy as the surrounding material (thermal energy). Basically just neutrons that move too slow to easily pass out of the material they are formed in without reacting. They are the same neutrons that a fission chain reaction depends on in a reactor.

Re:How do you get slow neutrons?

[Anonymous Coward]

You get slow neutrons by moderating them, mostly in water but sometimes in graphite.

Can an AC get a "+1 thermal" around here?

Re:How do you get slow neutrons?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the theory says electron and a proton merge with (emission ((or absorption??) of neutrino I guess) because of wave function overlap in the condensed matter phase . Then the neutron is slow, has large wavelength , can be captured by nucleus with different energy level. Or something

Re:How do you get slow neutrons?

[joe_frisch]

Proton rest mass: 938.28 MeV
Electron rest mass .511 MeV
Neutron rest mass 939.57 MeV

So, when the electron and proton combine, where does the extra energy 780KeV come from to make a neutron. This is ignoring how slow the reaction would be even if it were energetically allowed.

People talk about "heavy" electrons in metals but interactions with atomic fields are likely to be at most in the 100eV range, not 100s of KeV.

Its nonsense.

Re:How do you get slow neutrons?

[esonik]

These specific neutrons are supposedly created during a process of weak interaction called "electron capture" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
This is not pseudo-science - it is a well-known process - see the Wikipedia article.

When this happens in heavier elements/nuclei the neutron is not emitted but becomes/stays part of the original nucleus.

In TFA case the sole proton of a hydrogen atom is converted. Thereby the formerly bound proton becomes a free neutron, but with a very low kinetic energy (in fact, below thermal). Free neutrons can themselves trigger nuclear reactions in nearby atoms, thereby transmuting them.

You are right, one could do crazy things - if this theory is true it would open the door to an entirely new technological field (nuclear chemistry). It goes beyond being just another energy source.
One of the claims is that you can very effectively shield gamma radiation.

The new aspect here is that you can trigger electron capture (with a laser) for stable elements - hydrogenated metals, whereas usually electron capture is a decay channel for unstable elements.

By analogy to electricity that's like the difference between a lightning bolt (a natural force we can't control) and somebody being able to build an electric circuit.

Even if the chances were high that the whole story/theory falls apart we should devote significant resources to investigate because the potential benefits are tremendous.

Re:How do you get slow neutrons?

[IgnorantSavage]

Thanks, very interesting.
Once someone mentioned 'thermal neutrons' it made more sense. Whether or not this kind of thing actually turns out to be real, it is good to see scientists working on high-risk research.

Not how science works

[transami]

Whenever the main stream media wips up a shit storm to discredit some science and witch hunt those behind it, you know something else is afoot. Science doesn't work that way. If Fleischmann and Pons were right or wrong then other scientists are going to verify it, one way or the other, and that's that. At worst, it comes out that they did sloppy work and it looks bad on their CVs. But thats it and life goes on. That's how real science works -- in fact the vast majority or hypotheses and experiments prove to be wrong.

My guess is, it proved a very easy way for entrenched interests to defiance research into energy sources that could seriously disrupt the status quo.

Re:Not how science works

[Incadenza]

Moderated as 'Paranoia'

No, there is not

[Anonymous Coward]

However I like Krivit and his blog, so far there has been reproducible experiment. A result out of the ordinary which is not consistently reproducible outside of the marge of error, is not a result. It is interesting but that's about it. And that is what LENR suffer right now : a plethora of protocol, with some very limit borderline detection result, and nothing really reproducible. Look if there was a reproducible result with "take detector X, solution Y, place in such and such position boom you get more isotope, more X ray of such and such wavelength", that would have been known by now. The problem is, there is no such result. So until then, it is all talk no substance.

Re:No, there is not

[Anonymous Coward]

If not reproducible for decades, we must call it a FRAUD.

And as usual

[Namarrgon]

Someone takes a blog article with no cited evidence as gospel truth, then crows about how it validates their personal beliefs. Particularly ironic in this case, as said personal beliefs are about scientists always jumping to biased conclusions. You don't say.

A) when scientists turn out to be wrong, who is it that proves them wrong - is it blog authors or slashdot posters? No, it's other scientists with stronger evidence.
B) there may be interesting accumulated evidence in the LENR field, but this guest blog does not cite any, so does not prove or disprove anything.
C) Many labs tried to replicate Pons and Fleischmann's work, and couldn't. The public backlash was heightened by them having gone to the press before peer review, but the real fault lay with the media over-blowing the hype prematurely - and people accepting unquestioningly everything the media said.
C) If there are, as alleged, some interesting results worthy of further study, then hopefully some labs will follow them up further. LENR falls in the extraordinary-claims basket, so the proper response for most labs is to ignore it until more speculative researchers get around to producing evidence strong enough to merit a closer look. Has that happened yet? TFA thinks so, but does not make a case a reputable lab would find compelling.

Really?

[Demena]

We have solid evidence for the "EM" drive. We even have a solid theory that makes testable predictions. MiHsC. Your comment represents abuse not scientific views.

Re:Really?

[rubycodez]

no the evidence not quite solid yet, even NASA's team that did the experiments say it might just be thermal expansion making the results. Soon there will be test in space and then evidence will be solid or not

Re:Really?

[meerling]

If it comes out with reproducible results larger than the margin of error, then there's something to work with, even if their theory is snorting dried pixie feces.

I remember seeing a lot of people on those particular subjects that were mentioned yelling and screaming it's fake simply because they didn't have a theory that these people would accept. That's not good science. That's not even in the realm of science.

I seem to recall that a couple places did replicate the LENR results, one of the first was either the University of Oregon, or Oregon State University. The only difference they'd seen between a setup that succeeded and one that failed was the level of surface fractures on the platinum (catalyst, cathode, some kind of thingie made of platinum) of the one that succeeded, though their output was lower than the rate inventors were claiming.

Never forget, our physics, and all the rest of our sciences, are wrong. However, they are less wrong than they were in the past, and scientists are working all the time to make them more correct every day. Time goes on and science gets better. Old theories are replaced by better ones, and the universe continues still completely indifferent to our squabbles. So sometimes why won't know why something works, and sometimes we'll understand it good enough, but perfect knowledge is a fantasy.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

And where are these reproducible results? The last paper that everyone foams at the mouth about saying "but NASA scientist!" is poorly written and an even worse experiment. A lack of a control at even fairly simple levels, a total lack of "well it could be something else, lets double check". There was a number of control experiments they could have done. But instead the did the single worst possible one. As in no effective control at all.

And on top of all that, this is emag. Stuff we know a lot about and have nailed down *very* well. With 100s of thousands of experimental and engineering verification of the theory and the practice.

In god we trust. The rest of you show me the fucking data. AND THERE IS NO DATA. Wishful thinking is for suckers.

Re:Really?

[slashrio]

Or: "but but but... let's just try."

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are thoroughly out of date I believe.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you look up MiHsC (Modified Inertia by Hubble Scale Casimir effect)? Did you see the predictions? Did you see how they matched so many of the various EM drives?

Re:Really?

[rubycodez]

nope, that is the essence of NASA's report, sorry if you believed the popular hype summaries of it

Fission, Fusion, What else?

[Anonymous Coward]

If it gets bigger its fusion, if it gets smaller its fission. Is there any other "change" where it neither grows nor shrinks? Simply adding or removing a single proton (and an electron) is a kind of edge case of fission or fusion. Adding/removing a neutron isn't that interesting really.

So what is this all about? (too lazy to read TFA or even the linked articles.)

Yes, excess energy is possible.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have been experimenting for the past 10 years, and can personally confirm excess energy is possible. Details of experiments that can be very easily replicated at low cost found here: subtleatomics.com/experiments There's quite a few fantastic things coming out of all this in my view: (1) new energy potential that may assist with climate change mitigation, (2) our understanding of atomics is definitely being expanded, (3) our understanding of physics in general is being expanded.

There's a name for this: Alchemy

[Anonymous Coward]

I will donate to any Kickstarter/GoFundMe to bribe ANSI or NIST or someone to officially refer to it as Alchemy.

Cold Fusion is so 80s

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think I would trust anything that has its roots in the lab that brought you cold fusion and the fiasco that followed.

Everything that got the scientific community interested was disproved and afterwards the fraud started and went on from there. You got to respect a guy who gives up when it is time to give up, but those guys didn't.

Initial Energy Problem Too.

[Roger W Moore]

But what about the gamma? No explanation there.

This isn't the only dodgy thing about this theory the whole electron-mass argument seems dubious looked at from a simple energy standpoint. They are claiming that the electrons in the metal hydride have a mass of well over an MeV for this to work. This is a HUGE amount of energy, about 6 orders of magnitude higher than any chemical energy. Basic energy conservation requires this mass to come from somewhere so where does it come from? Energies that large (by the time you have multiplied it by the number of electrons) are usually pretty obvious - it should be about 5-6 orders of magnitude higher than the energy stored in a battery of the same size.

Re:Initial Energy Problem Too.

[Rei]

I wouldn't be willing to categorically rule that out because you don't have to have such an effect uniform across the entire electrode; it could be concentrated at field peaks, such as the tips of dendrites, and thus only affect, for example, a fraction of a millionth of the mass.

But I agree, it does not sound likely. And that gamma explanation sounds extremely dodgy, if that's what they're arguing.

Re:Initial Energy Problem Too.

[Roger W Moore]

I agree there are ways around this but these should be relatively easy to test e.g. does the reaction only occur in certain surface configurations like the tips. Interestingly though this will also make it far, far less useful as a power source because even if you can scale it up the energy input to get the reaction will be huge and ~50% of the energy released will be needed to sustain the reaction which IIRC is around the efficiency of heat based power plants so it does not leave much extra for power generation.

Re: Initial Energy Problem Too.

[Anonymous Coward]

Back to Feynman, if the results are reproducible and current theory cannot explain it, there must be laws we don't know about. Further, if this behaviour is not reasonable within the existing theory then the existing theory is wrong.

Have we as scientists become is precious about our theories that we will protect then in the face of experimental evidence.

Scientific theories should be viewed as "useful models", not truth. Even if quantum theory isn't entirely true it is a good enough model to give us fission and the micro computer. But the belief that it is true may have blinded us to alternative theories that explain these phenomenon and could yield advances in other areas such as energy production and gravitic repulsion.

Re:Nuclear car

[Anonymous Coward]

I want my goddamn nuclear car, I want a car with some sort of a small sized nuclear reactor. Slow nuclear ... transfusion/transfusion/subfusiin/submission, I don't care, I want it now.

Thorium powered DeLorean

Evidence exists

[Anonymous Coward]

All the way back to the early 1900s.
So, once again, the near-religious attitude of conventonal scientists is shown to be a poor substitute for an open mind and experimental evidence.
"It doesn't fit the current model of _____ ( Standard model, Newtonian orbits, flux-ether, phlogiston, 'the Earth is the center of the unverse'....)"

So, objectivity, as a trait, probably is not taught properly.
Spock on (1960s) TV is a better role model.

Re:Evidence exists

[Anonymous Coward]

So where are the researchers going to get funding for testing all the various LENR theories?
Not from the Fed Gov where all the proposal reviewers have their biases and good-buddies in labs.
( there is a paper - cant remember where - on the fact that highly-ranked institutions are self-citing within the community far more than others...)

One better step - admit the drawbacks/unknowns in theories. Begin researching why there are drawbacks/unknowns.
Epicycles are mentioned above, and it rings true for a lot of current theories.
Where are the equivalent 'Maxwells Equations' for the weak force? Nuclear force?

Note: no theory is perfect. they are all just proposals, until they can predict perfectly with no experimental surprises....
This business of having a theory being reverently recited and defended irrationally is a major impediment to progress,
and is an ugly aspect of science today.

It's not fusion but it is.

[BlueCoder]

People are splitting hairs. Proton reactions are not occurring but neutron capture is...

The point is F&P discovered something new that was worthy of more scrutiny and were politically tared and feathered.

Re:It's not fusion but it is.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes it is IMO one of the interesting things with F&P.
"Hey look, something interesting is happening here"
but instead of leading the world to investigate it, somehow the whole field was banned.
Anyone touching LENR is a leper and treated as such.

There was not much progress in +25 years but today we know most of the reproduction of the experiment failed because of the quality of palladium
and the bias and disbelief of some of the experimenter (the MIT report, made by hot fusion scientist).

Brainfuck

[Anonymous Coward]

Congrats. The BF worked on you.

Where are the cold-hard results ? The article was full on sociology and short on substance.

Also, what is "localized conversion of gamma to infrared rays" ?

I call BS on this article.

Citation Needed

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people make wild claims. They jump to theories.

But can their experiments be reproduced ? It seems NOT.

So: BS.

Bull

[Anonymous Coward]

We do not need theories. We need REPEATABLE EXPERIMENTS. Somebody ELSE can then think up the theory.

Maybe you have a point with your sociology, but you chose the dumbest way of proving it.

Re:Nuclear car

[Anonymous Coward]

Where I live we have nuclear powered (rail) cars for decades. But due to the work of oil-financed nihilists ("GREEN") we will soon go back to the cars being powered by russian gas.

Not

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because you have been subjected to shitloads of hollywood crap does not make your meme correct.

Mr Fleischman and Pons are most likely from the Megalomanic Set (reseach their names) and they were brought up to be another Einstein, Röntgen, Teller, Rockefeller, Rothschild, Curie, Oppenheimer etc.

So they thought it would be a good idea to be publicity whores before another competent scientist could validate their experiments. It blew up in their face.

If you want to analyze something, analyze the demograpghy of said people. That's worthwhile, because they also brought their megalomanic attitude into the highest spheres of finance and politics. Their "growth" mania has fucked up more than one nation to date. If you Americans do not reign into them, you will have a nice civil war at hand.

Re:Not

[Anonymous Coward]

The funny thing is that the the followers of Marx (also from the said group of people) will emphatically believe any of these stories. That is because Marxism is an outgrowth of Banksterism and Banksterism legitimizes itself and its crimes by saying "but we invented/enabled all these superuseful, revolutionary things. Lets have more banksterist, progressive materialism and you will get FREE ENERGY !!!".

not time yet

[Goldsmith]

I got to do a rotation through the Navy lab that was working on LENR shortly before it was shut down. The folks running it were exactly the kind of scientist you want working on this: careful, self-critical, experienced, and most importantly, not part of a pro-LENR institute (they answered to skeptical Navy brass, not LENR true-believer donors and investors). Unfortunately, LENR is controversial, difficult to get funding for, and easy to tie up in regulatory red tape. They were caught in a strange Catch-22. As they were able to convince their bosses that nuclear reactions were happening, the facility and oversight requirements increased. At some point the safety and reporting requirements outpaced the resources they had access to. The Navy lab closed several years ago. As far as I know, there is no independent group like that studying LENR anymore.

pons and fleischmnn were frauds

[Anonymous Coward]

at the time, i was at mit, working in biology for a person i would describe as near genius, a physical chemist
he comes in, and says, one of them has some serious papers, but i was talking to some of the guys [mit profs] in physics, and pons and fleischman are off by *19 orders of magnitude* in their calculations...
my boss shakes his head, you know, 19 orders of magnitude, thats a pretty big error..

Then it turned out, PnF were observing any thing near what they claimed, they would be dead of neutron flux

don't forget, what they were doing was putting huge amounts of energy in - boiling a tank of water - and measuring the energy out, and they saw a tiny delta
if you know anything, you know that if a,b are large, and iuf c = a/b is much smaller then a or b, then it requires extra ordinary experimental chops to say c is real

Frauds

Naughty!!

[Bruce66423]

Good point well made...

Index and Table of Contents Now Online

[Anonymous Coward]

The Index and Table of Contents for Fusion Fiasco, a 530 page book telling what happened before and after Pons and Fleischmann made their misguided public announcement (prompted by other scientists and university attorneys), have been posted online. The other two books also have their Table of Contents and Indexes posted online also.

Are the result reproducible?

[Roger W Moore]

Back to Feynman, if the results are reproducible and current theory cannot explain it, there must be laws we don't know about.

What you say is true but there are two very important caveats: the results have to be reproducible and unexplainable by current theory. So far 'cold fusion' type experiments fail on one of these criteria: there is considerable doubt about the reproducibility since not everyone seems to be able to produce the same effects. Perhaps the new results are reproducible, I don't know, but at this point the situation is the same as the fable of the boy who cried wolf. There have been many such claims of results in the past none of which have actually been reproducible and so now when they make new ones is it at all surprising they are met with a combination of indifference and derision?

The problem here is not the response of mainstream science it is the irresponsible claims which this field seems to make on an almost regular basis. It is not belief in existing scientific models which is the cause of the negative response but rather a disbelief that the people making the claims have properly checked that the results really are reproducible. If we do miss a real effect here it will not be attitude of mainstream science which is to blame.