Re: Cold Fusion Discussion

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

> > >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.

But this does not release them from the requirement to do good honest
science. At least in the eyes of the investors.

> 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.

You do have an [over-active] imagination. You are wrong.


> 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.

And now who is changing the subject so, to speak? At the start, there
were 3 CF proponents: Pons/Fleischmann (PF), and Jones. The former
barnstormed the world with table-top energy, without considering even
the simplest of questions, theoretical or experimental. Jones was
just quietly doing science. The idea that CF experiments were easy to
perform was *created* by the grandfathers of the modern CF phenom:
PF, and their grandson, Bockris. Not the detractors! CF has been
hobbled by this ever since, entirely through their own fault. No one
to blame but themselves.


> 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."


Hah! See above. When disbelievers mentioned this to PF, they were
ridiculed. In fact, CF *believers* relied too much on the 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?

The very first challenge to PF took place in PF's lab. That
challenger was not sneering, and did *not* believe that CF must be
easy. And he went into it with an open mind. He gave PF ample
opportunity to expand their measurements and create the first
independent ancillary evidence of their effect. When the initial
experiments were negative, PF, in a haze of distrust and YES,
CONSPIRATORIAL PARANOIA, turned down the opportunity to explore it
more. Unfortunately, their fate was then sealed, and what could have
potentially been retrieved from the mire of science by press
conference was forever besmirched. All CF proponents labor under this
cloud, whether serious or crackpot.


> > 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.

Delayed perhaps, but widespread disbelief has no more power to cause
an event to not happen than widespread gullibility has the power to
cause an even to happen.


> 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 see these words almost exclusively from those who have had their
own work refused for publication. They develop a belief that since
the established community will not listen to them, the established
community is conspiring against them (sorry Bill, but there is simply
no other word to use here). In the first days of CF, there was a
great deal of communication between those in editorial control of
prestigious physics journals and those close to the fray. Any of
these journals would have given their eye-teeth to be the one to
publish confirmation or simply ancillary evidence. In the end, to do
so would have been to compromise their scientific integrity, period.
Because the result was just too superfluous. Those journals then
*correctly* backed off from the circus. Refusal to publish hinged on
key questions of science, not of politics. When PF then attempted to
*inject* politics and do science by *lawsuit* (primarily P), they
were properly dismissed. And again, the CF community has suffered.
But they need to look inward for the reasons, not outward.


> 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.

Those in the fusion community, in the very early days, were in close
contact with the first ones to enter PF's lab to try to do additional
experiments. You can bet they were interested, but there was not much
fear of embarrassment. They wanted to know if it was real, period.
The first response was definitely one of reviewing the evidence and
rejecting the evidence as wanting. PF's reaction to this was a
conspiratorial one, highly unrepresentative of the larger scientific
community. But despite efforts at spin-control, PF became
uncontrollable, shooting from the hip, and hitting the target about
as often as one would expect.


> 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.

Your point is well taken. On the other hand, those same industries
make or break their reputations (and bottom lines) on whether they
make scientific progress. If the CF proponents make progress, they
will eventually make their reputation (and their bottom line). That
they had to do it in virtual isolation will make their victory
sweeter.


> 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.

So, one loud voice was able to discredit years of effort in an entire
country of capable physicists and electrochemists? Sorry, but we must
be skeptical of this.


> > 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.

If true, the believers will have their day. Why oh why is
<http://www.amasci.com/weird/anode.txt> not inundated with hits from
scientists all over the world, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to get
the obvious demonstration of fact? Serious question! It is there for
all to see, for the taking. No one is stopping it. It even refers to
a premiere journal in the field. Free for the taking. I ask, if for
example I am a disbeliever, what power do I have to stop the
onslaught of this free knowledge, not to mention energy? I do not,
and neither does the "establishment." At best, we are foolish to
ignore it, and will suffer the economic consequences when we aren't
the ones with "control" of it.


> 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.


Your thinking betrays a lack of experience with peer-reviewed
journals. I have known a number of reviewers, even some with
political or personal axes to grind, and have been on the receiving
end of the reviewer's stick a number of times, including rejections.
While there *are* personal and professional biases that exist, in
physics journals anyway there are many self-correcting mechanisms
which do work, and in 20 years of industrial and/or academic work,
I've never met any serious professional who would buy your argument,
short of those who frankly blame their problems on conspiracy, most
of them using that exact word. A target of conspiracy, imagined or
real, will simply never believe that his arguments are demonstrably
flawed scientifically. I realize that you cannot be convinced
otherwise, so I, like Mr. Tarara, will shortly conclude my
contribution.

> 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.

To paraphrase, I myself look at the evidence and decide that CF has
about a 5% chance (or less) of being real.  Does that make me a
"disbeliever"? Of course not. A "disbeliever" disbelieves, and
evidence be damned. Just as believers believe, and evidence be
damned. Although I previously stated that I am a "disbeliever," this
was merely to draw a comparison.

Rather, I am extremely skeptical. I was a graduate student in solid
state physics at the University of Utah when the story broke, and I
was acquainted with several behind-the-scenes people involved (though
not PF) in the early days, including Salamon and others. I also had
the luxury of just sitting back and observing what was happening. Not
long after, I was fortunate enough to be able to witness seminars
given by Jones at the UofU, only a short drive from his lair.

And unfortunately, I and my peers were likely the first grad students
on this planet subjected to quantum mechanics homework problems
involving CF, from a professor who had been sitting in on telephone
conferences and chalkboard discussions literally in the first hours
of the story. No more going to look the answers up! :-(

As it did then, the community will ultimately decide the validity,
interim and final. Truely. And those who have purposefully impeded
the advance of science on both sides of the question will ultimately
have their come-uppance. PF have already *rightly* had their
come-uppance. Others have followed. Others will follow. And the rest
will survive with reputations validated or revived.


Signing off,


Stefan Jeglinski