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



A MESSAGE FROM SOMEBODY WHO I KNOW WELL, AND
WHO I RESPECT FOR DEEP KNOWLEDGE AND OBJECTIVITY.

Ludwik:
As you state repeatedly, the whole atmosphere around CF has
been filled with poisonous material, some valid and some
emotional. One must be very careful, on entry into such an
atmosphere, to be protected by a useful theoretical proposal
or at least a plausible explanation that can be subjected to
experimental tests. On the basic level there are two obvious
questions:

(1) How could hydrogen atoms fuse at such a low temperature?
(2) If they do fuse, how is the energy released (if not in gamma
rays, then how) i.e. what reaction occurred?

If one has no proposed answer or proposed experiment to
get an answer, then one is in a state of massive weakness.
Your message seems to be that there is new evidence for an
interesting mystery, and the early workers were not fairly treated.
The author of such a message will be classified as an apologist
or defender, no matter how he qualifies such words. If, however,
he has a plausible proposal, it could possibly be different.

I infer that the major skepticism in the mainstream nuclear
science community stems from the silence on the basic two
questions above. Such skepticism seems to me to be justified
until something reasonable is proposed or, better yet,
demonstrated. Until then, essentially all responses will be
"impurities or errors".

HERE ARE MY COMMENTS:

BOTH QUESTIONS CAN ONLY BE ASKED IF A CLAIM IS
MADE THAT FUSION TAKES PLACE. IT WAS FOOLISH TO
MAKE SUCH CLAIM IN 1989 AND IT IS FOOLISH TO MAKE
IT TODAY. THAT IS WHY NAMING THE EFFECT "COLD
FUSION" WAS HIGHLY INAPPROPRIATE.

THE CLAIMS, AS FAR AS I CAN TELL, ARE:

1) EXCESSIVE (UNACCOUNTABLE) HEAT IS GENERATED
IN SOME EXPERIMENTS.

2) SOME NUCLEAR PROCESSES ARE TAKING PLACE
WHEN EXCESS HEAT IS GENERATED.

THE ONLY WAY TO VALIDATE SUCH CLAIMS IS TO PERFORM
EXPERIMENTS. IF IT WAS UP TO ME I WOULD ASK PHYSICISTS
TO FOCUS ON ONE ASPECT OF THE SECOND CLAIM, FOR
EXAMPLE, EMISSION OF ALPHA PARTICLES. INSTRUMENTS
FOR CONTRADICTING OR CONFIRMING EMISSION OF ~14 MEV
ALPHA PARTICLES AND ~3 MEV PROTONS (PRESUMABLY
OBSERVED BY MANY) ARE WIDELY AVAILABLE.

IN OTHER WORDS, TRY TO VALIDATE WHAT IS EASY, AND
WHAT WOULD BE A HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT INDICATOR OF
SOMETHING UNEXPECTED. CONFIRMATIONS WOULD
START A USUAL PROCESS OF GOING FROM KNOWN TO
UNKNOWN, FROM SIMPLE TO MORE COMPLEX, ETC.

A LACK OF CONFIRMATION WOULD INDICATE THAT
THOSE WHO MADE CLAIMS WERE WRONG. I WOULD
THEN ASK PHYSICISTS TO FOCUS ON ANOTHER,
PRESUMABLY OFTEN OBSERVED, "NUCLEAR SIGNATURE."
TRY TO VALIDATE OR CONTRADICT IT. THREE FAILURES
TO CONFIRM WOULD PROBABLY BE SUFFICIENT TO SAY
THAT EXCESS HEAT, IF ANY, HAS NO NUCLEAR ORIGIN.

I WOULD LET CHEMISTS DEAL WITH REALITY AND ORIGIN
OF EXCESS HEAT. THE TROUBLES OF CF BEGAN WHEN
CHEMISTS UNFAMILIAR WITH NUCLEAR PHYSICS STARTED
TO MAKE PRONOUNCEMENTS ABOUT IT, AND WHEN
PHYSICISTS UNFAMILIAR WITH CHEMISTRY ENTERED
THE COMPLEX FIELD OF ELECTROCHEMISTRY.

THE AUTHOR OF THE ABOVE LETTER IS A NUCLEAR
CHEMIST. HE WOULD BE HIGHLY QUALIFIED TO BE
AMONG THOSE APPOINTED TO MAKE "AN OFFICIAL"
REEVALUATION OF CF CLAIMS, ON BOTH SIDES OF THE
DIVIDER. MOST TEACHERS ARE NOT EQUIPPED, AND ARE
TOO BUSY, TO PROCEED WITH SUCH INVESTIGATIONS.
AUTHORITATIVE PRONOUNCEMENTS CAN BE USEFUL
TO MANY, SOMETIMES.

On Saturday, December 14, 2002, Chuck Britton wrote:

http://www.genesisworldenergy.org/pressroom.htm

as recommended by Robert L. Park in his recent note:

GENESIS PROJECT: A REALLY GOOD SCAM CAN BE USED OVER AND OVER.

Found at http://www.aps.org/WN

LOOKS LIKE FRAUD (OR JOKE) TO ME. WHERE CAN ONE
BUY THIS MAGIC ENERGY GENERATOR? HOW MUCH
DOES IT COST? I AM TOO BUSY TO START BROWSING.
LUDWIK KOWALSKI