Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: Cold Fusion Discussion

On Sun, 19 Sep 1999, Stefan Jeglinski wrote:

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.

I have to disagree. "Tolerance of ambiguity" requires that we assume it
to be an unknown, and therefor it cannot impact our decision.

It'd be a bit too convenient if, when "CF" companies perform R&D silently
with no public results, this is a piece of evidence that CF is not real.
Either CF is not real, and the companies have nothing to show for it, or
CF is real, but the companies are beating their heads against some
(secret) brick wall, and don't yet know how to engineer a reliable
hot-water heater (or simple, replicable demonstration experiment, for that
matter.) The "CF-believers" would prefer that the companies actually have
(secret) sporadic success, but no announcements. The "CF-disbelievers"
would prefer that the companies are misguided, and that there is no
possibility of successful products. The proper course appears to be:
"evidence too weak to provide ammunition for either side."


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.


True, but you seem to be changing the subject. We are not talking about
journal publication or pure research, we are talking about commercial CF
concerns like Ceti and Blacklight Power. Commercial companies would be
EXPECTED to do advertizing or to issue press releases.

Hmmmm. In your message I think I detect a note of "these disgusting CF
proponents are all the same! Even the commercial companies do science by
press release!" Perhaps I'm wrong. I hope it's just my imagination,
and you aren't falling into hate-think.


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.

Yep. Unfortunately, if CF resembles conventional fusion the least little
bit, then to attain success it will take far more funding than any
corporation can supply.

All throughout the entire CF controversy we find the idea that CF
experiments must be easy to perform. In my opinion, the CF phenomenon was
dismissed on the grounds that it HAD TO BE easy to achive, and when simple
experiments did not exhibit any odd effects, this "proved" that CF did not
exist.

If CF phenomena are very difficult to coax out of the equipment, then
everything changes. In my opinion, the CF disbelievers relied a bit too
much on this idea of "easy CF." When the researchers who had successfully
replicated the Pons/Fleichman results said "look, you can't just stick an
Pd wire into a mayonnaise jar full of D2O, that will guarantee failure,"
they were met by sneering, and by the skeptics insistence that CF *must*
be an easy effect to demonstrate, otherwise it cannot exist. But since
when does science REQUIRE that physics phenomena be EASY to replicate?


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


The trouble is, it might not happen, ever, and the reason for it could
very well be from the negative effects of widespread disbelief. A "wright
brothers" demo should not be necessary. To convince people that CF is
real, all that should be needed is replications, and collections of
results investigating the details of the phenomenon. We have these, but
conveniently they only exist in those "disreputable" CF journals, and no
upstanding scientist would ever read such despicable trash. (See how it
works?)

I have to agree that science cannot just accept any crackbrained idea that
comes down the pike. However, there is a difference between reviewing the
evidence and rejecting the evidence found wanting, verus attacking the
results with nail-spiked clubs because the implications of those results
are deeply embarassing to the fusion community.


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.

If both parties agree to do this, then there is no problem. The problem
with CF is that the disbelievers commonly say things like "I'll only
accept the reality of CF if XXXXX", and then when XXXXX occurs, they
silently change their assertions. Now if I'm Einstein, and I say "I don't
believe it, you'll have to convince me", then the situation is far
different. Einstein is being *honestly* disbelieving. Those who PRETEND
to be openminded, yet always change their criteria while pretending that
they do not, are being dishonest. They are projecting a false attitude of
openmindedness, when in reality they are staunch disbelievers (with
extremely high staunch-isity factor!)


No amount of demonstrations would shift the barriers.


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


I'm sure I could come up with a kick-ass hoax. I'm certain that you would
be suspicious, even if you couldn't figure out how I was pulling it off.
(See my HOAXES page for a couple of doozies,
http://www.amasci.com/hoax.html)

Demonstrations can always be dismissed as hoaxes. After all, commercial
companies frequently perform hoaxes (vaporware demonstrations) as a part
of their deal-making strategies. "We ALMOST have it working, so let's
field a faked demonstration which will show how it works, once we get the
last bugs out." The demonstrations fielded by industry are not so
trustworthy.

In addition, when disbelief is 100%, demonstrations don't cut it. (If the
Wright Brothers flew over the White House, the President might be
hospitalized on the grounds that he was drawn into a mass hallucination.)
To break the barriers, either companies need to sell CF-heated bunion pads
or something, or somebody needs to sell working "CF-chemistry sets" in
science museum stores. If the adult scientists will have nothing to do
with CF, then let their kids have fun with it. (Here's one that the CF
proponents claim gives strange results, but is a bit too dangerous to hand
over to the kids:

"Cold" fusion for the brave:
http://www.amasci.com/weird/anode.txt


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.

Jed Rothwell, one of the louder pro-CF voices, continuously complained for
years that the Japanese effort was profoundly flawed because the
experimenters were not collaborating with Pons and Fleichman (and therefor
not learning all the specialized skills that were needed), and also that
they were repeating the same experiments over and over and over without
looking for reasons why the results were null every single time. This
went on for years. If I recall, he asserted that the politics in the
Japanese labs were such that the situation could never be altered.
Finally the funders put a stop to it. And of course the disbelievers had
a field day, because CF was finally disproved in a big way.


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.

If disbelievers refuse to inspect evidence, and if journals refuse to
publish evidence, then the anti-CF side is in danger of winning, but only
because of unseemly tactics.

Which brings up journals. CF people have their own journals. I don't see
this as right. Analogy: what if minority groups want to break into a
political system which excludes them? What if they totally fail to do
this, and instead they build a tiny, separate political system which is
exclusively for and run by the minority groups? Should we say "It's OK,
they have their political system and we have ours?"

On the contrary, it appears to me that the minority groups have failed.
Even worse, the majority now has another reason to keep them out: after
all, they now have a political system of their own. Separate but equal!
Yeah!

It's a load of c**p. The truth is that modern science journals refuse to
publish CF papers. Why? Because the reviewers given any CF papers are
ignorant: they have no connection with the CF community and of the ongoing
results (and are even proud of this!), and because they have fallen into a
position of 100% disbelief, and will happily reject any CF papers with
extreme prejudice, and see this as justified. It's a self-fullfilling
prophecy. "After all, if CF was real, it would be in all the journals,
and since it is not, we can rightly reject all CF papers, and keep such
worthless trash out of our journals." It's just like that SciAm writer
who talked himself out of investigating the Wright Brothers aircraft on
the grounds that, if it was real, it would already be in all of the
papers. It only takes a few reviewers to adopt this circle-think stuff,
and as a result, no CF papers will ever be accepted.


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.

Huh? The "head kicking altitude" must remain fixed, otherwise a double
standard would be created. If some claims are rejected because the
RESEMBLE other failed claims, then a reason to ignore evidence has been
found, and irrationality has set in. If in 1900, hundreds of crackpots
build flapping-batwing flying contraptions, and if the physics community
becomes disgusted and erects barriers against ever considering such
foolishness in the future, then there is a double standard. Should the
Wright Brothers fail to appear with their kick-ass demonstration in
openminded Paris, the possibility of powered flight in 1905 *DIES.*

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.

If P&F saw real phenomena, and it wasn't just some strange chemical
reaction, then the situation is not as you describe. Only if we assume
that CF is bogus, are things as you say. If CF is genuine, then an
enormous mistake (and probably a lot of genuine suppression) has occurred.
If CF is bogus, then it has not.

This is called "experimenters regress". If we know what we are looking
for, then we know when we have found it, but if we are UNCERTAIN about the
reality of a phenomenon, then we can not trust our experimental results
unless they are very strong indeed. And if there is no theory to explain
the results (or if there are multiple competing theories of relatively
equal strength), then the non-strong experimental results will not
necessarily vindicate a particular theory. How to proceed? I think the
Planck method is typical: the controversy ends when openminded new
researchers of the next generation come in, and the old supporters of
particular results/theories die off. If we confront and accept this, then
there is not such a large denial/dishonesty problem. But science needn't
work this way, advancing "funeral by funeral" whenever the research
generates controversy.


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.

The pro-CF researchers are performing slow, methodical unheralded
peer-reviewed research in their "separate but equal" journals. They
suffer under the yoke of ridicule, career-damage, and little or no
funding. If they come up with earthshaking products such as water-fueled
heaters, this will be in spite of the contemporary scientific community,
and over the continuing acts of suppression.

Yet if they do succeed in the end, then I predict that the contemporary
scientific community will eliminate such an embarassing situation by
re-writing history as it always does, and acting like the successful CF
researchers were always treated with respect, always had adequate funding,
and that the "disbelievers" were always just a small minority.

Or...

:)

...perhaps CF truely is bogus, and the outcast status of the "CF research
community" is entirely proper. I myself look at the evidence and decide
that CF has about a 95% chance of being real. Does that make me a
"believer"? Of course not. A "believer" believes, and evidence be
damned. Just as disbelievers disbelieve, and evidence be damned.


((((((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) )))))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb@eskimo.com http://www.amasci.com
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits science projects, tesla, weird science
Seattle, WA 206-781-3320 freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L