I just submitted a reaction to that paper as my letter
to the Editor of Physics Today (see below). Will they
publish it? I am not sure; the Editor in Chief of
Physics Today rejected my review article on main
cold fusion claims three weeks ago. A week ago the
same article was rejected by the editor of American
Scientist. Why did they not send my objectively
written paper to knowledgeable reviewers? Why
didn't they say what is wrong in my paper? A
simple "we are not interested" is not appropriate,
I think. The editor of american Scientist did ask
me for a less detailed short piece and I submitted
it this week. Will it be published? I hope so.
Ludwik Kowalski
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Cold fusion; science or pseudoscience?
I agree with Toni Feder (Physics Today, April 2004, page 27) that
“skepticism about the credibility and reproducibility of cold fusion
remains widespread.” As a physics teacher who is not certain how
students’ questions about cold fusion should be answered, I welcome the
upcoming DOE investigation of recent claims in this controversial area.
Here are questions which I would like to see answered by the appointed
investigators: a) Is it true that unexpected emission of neutrons,
protons, tritons and alpha particles (at low rate) has been observed in
several cold fusion experiments? b) Is it true that accumulation of
4He, at the rate of about one atom per 24 MeV of excess heat, has been
confirmed by many scientists, as reported by McKubre? c) Is it true
that highly abnormal isotopic ratios have been found in some cold
fusion setups? d) Is there any indication that leading cold fusion
scientists are incompetent in the areas they investigate? e) Is there
any indication that their data are fraudulent? f) Is the research
methodology used by them different from the methodology used in other
areas of physical science?
Answers to these questions will help me decide what to think about cold
fusion and what to tell students about it. Speculations about practical
applications of new findings, in my opinion, should be de-emphasized at
this time. They will emerge naturally when basic scientific claims are
recognized as valid, and when cold fusion researchers are no longer
treated as if they were con artists and charlatans. The “chilling
effect,” mentioned by Randall Heckman, prevents young scientists from
entering the area of cold fusion research. I agree with Allen Bard that
being able to reproduce experimental results is not "good enough;" it
is only a preliminary step. But is it not true that poor
reproducibility was the central point of criticism when cold fusion was
first investigated fifteen years ago?
Ludwik Kowalski
(kowalskil@mail.montclair.edu)
Montclair State University
Montclair, NJ, 05543