Re: Cold Fusion Discussion

[Stefan Jeglinski <jeglin@4PI.COM>]

> CF research is being funded by private companies, but those companies
> treat all of their results as a Big Secret (as is usual in this sort of
> situation.)  Unless these companies can develop a manufacturable product,
> we have little way of knowing if their research is a success or failure.

We may as well assume it is a failure. Otherwise anyone and his
brother can create any fantasy they want, claim that we don't know it
is not a success, and claim to have created new reputable science.
While not exactly dishonest, the method is at least disingenuous. But
it is the way of the Corporation.


> Some CF-skeptics say "if their research is a success, then they'd hold
> press conferences!"  Right.

The press-conference style of publishing results was practically
perfected by CF proponents on day 1. CF proponents will always have a
hard time living this one down, which is unfortunate for those who
seriously try to research it.


> This illustrates the "moving goalposts" phenomena, where opponents demand
> increasing amounts of "proof", and when each one is met, the demands are
> suddenly and silently changed.  (In war, where the enemy cannot be allowed
> to win under any circumstances, the rules are not similar to rational
> debate.) In the case of Cold Fusion, many demands have been met, yet there
> is no global shift in belief regarding the phenomenon. (Probably only a
> "Wright brothers" type of demonstration can puncture the bubble of
> disbelief.


So be it. No one is ultimately preventing the research. No one is
preventing them from creating their own journals. No one is
preventing them from publishing or having conferences. And no one is
preventing them from making entire countries energy self-sufficient.
And the evidence is that they have done all of these, except the last
one of course.

I say let them give a Wright Brothers demonstration. When and if it
happens, all the more sweet will be their victory.

And I also say the moving goalpost phenomenon is not invalid at all.
Einstein, never a strong proponent of many things quantum mechanical,
constantly tried to move the goalposts on Neils Bohr, inventing all
kinds of ingenious scenarios. Bohr relished the thought of
considering these, and the game they played went far in advancing the
cause and method of QM, arguably now one of the most successful of
theories. If I have a theory or experiment, and someone moves the
goalpost on me, I should be willing and able to proceed, otherwise
the theory or experiment lacks something.


> No amount of demonstrations would shift the barriers.


This is not true. Admittedly, it has to be a kick-ass demonstration
at this point.



> Japan poured quite a bit of funding into CF research.  Then they gave up!
> The story is interesting, and I could tell the "pro-CF" side, but I doubt
> it would sway any disbelievers in the slightest bit.

I would be interested in the concise pro-CF side. That Japan gave up
funding strikes me as having a simple reason: no future (by far the
most common reason for giving up). I would be most interested to hear
other reasons why Japan gave up. As for me, yes I am a disbeliever,
but I'm still willing to be convinced. But a "pro-CF" argument sounds
pretty weak to me on the surface unless there is new and shocking
evidence. Why, because the "anti-CF" side is no slouch.


> Only an enormous kick in
> the head would have any results, and no such possibility exists at
> present.

Exactly. We no longer wish to hold our heads stationary at a
comfortable head-kicking altitude. We move on. Let them chase us down
and kick us in the head when they can.


> Peter brings up a valid problem: Conflict of Interest in those who render
> judgement upon a new discovery.  "Don't put the foxes in charge of the
> chicken coop."  Who should judge whether CF is valid?  Most hot-fusion
> professionals are in danger of emotional bias.  Scientists are human, so
> they'd better not go around declaring that they can control their biases.
> If the CF phenomenon is genuine, then it means that the staggering amounts
> of money put into Tokamak-style fusion might have been wasted.  It means
> that hundreds of people devoted their careers to a technology which might
> prove of little worth should electrochemical-fusion result in efficient
> reactors.  Obviously the pressures on such people would be tremendous.
> They would have to be literal *saints* to not be affected by it.  If they
> are normal, non-saintly humans, then they would be in danger of succumbing
> to tricks of their subconscious, such as conveniently finding strange
> justification and weak excuses to dismiss CF as unreal, and they would not
> even know that they were doing this.  It would seem perfectly sensible at
> the time, yet future historians would see something entirely different.

And likewise for the CF proponents. What they lack in time and money
expended they make up for with pride and the desire to retain
professional respect in a field marred almost from the get-go. The
earliest proponents of CF were the worst of all possible foxes in
charge of the chicken coop. Everyone since has labored under this
cloud and they are mostly in the unenviable position of "put up or
shut up," a virtual death sentence of many things science in today's
research atmosphere.


> In all my reading of CF literature, I've not encountered any "conspiracy
> theory" stuff.  In the "perpetual motion" and "antigravity" crackpot
> fields the situation is far different.  There it's rare to find a
> researcher who DOESN'T accuse government or industry (or Space Aliens!) of
> suppressing the research.  When the crackpots start discussing
> antigravity, it's an effective (though dishonest) tactic to bring up
> conspiracies.  The crackpots will launch into paranoid tirades and destroy
> their own credibility.
>
> But try the same with Cold Fusion people, and it is not *their*
> credibility which comes into question.  Cold Fusion requires serious
> brainpower and facilities before any research can be done.  Cold Fusion
> supporters are professional physicists and engineers, not weak-minded
> basement inventors who, once disparaged, will STAY disparaged.


With the possible exception of the two that put it on the map: While
Pons' "partner in crime" has perhaps gotten some unfair coverage,
Pons himself was the original apparently-respected researcher who
could not sort out conflict of interest, who could not stand the
thought of being corrected (much less being wrong) and who could not
stand up to the political machine that took over.

Had CF followed the path set out by Jones, it would not be where it
is today. This statement is one of those double-meaning statements
recently discussed in the "recommendations" thread. If Jones had his
way, there would not be much promise of virtually unlimited
"table-top" energy. It is clear that Jones did not have his way, and
yet there is still not much promise of virtually unlimited
"table-top" energy. Given this outcome, it seems that an original
approach of slow methodical unheralded peer-reviewed research would
have been better for the entire CF field.



Stefan Jeglinski