Re: Arthur C. Clarke on Cold Fusion

[William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>]

I believe that it is nigh-impossible to change people's opinions regarding
"Cold Fusion," so I usually am not tempted to dive in and argue about it. 
When any reversal of opinion requires the losing of face, then reversals
of opinion cannot occur in public.  Therefor why even try?  If "CF" is
eventually shown to be valid, then everyone will leap on the bandwagon,
but there will be no detailed investigations of the ones who spent years
ridiculing the topic. "Who, me?  I was always a supporter!"  It sure is
easy to be on the side that's winning?  I hope that I myself, years from
now when CF is shown to be entirely bogus, will still have the stomach to
read all these old archive files and see what led me into my shameful
pro-CF beliefs.  I probably won't though.  I'm just as human as anyone.


On Mon, 29 Jun 1998, Hugh Haskell wrote:

> Isn't this the standard scenario of pathological science? Wild enthusiasm,
> followed by belated skepticism when the confirming experiments don't work,
> followed by increasing paranoia on the part of the original discoverers,
> whereupon the whole thing goes underground and survives on rumors and
> conspiracy theories.

Yes, it suggests that pathological science is a distinct possibility. 
However, we cannot argue that, since the above symptoms exist, THEREFORE
it must be pathological science.  There are other alternatives, so the
conclusion does not follow.  But since pathological science is a
possibility, we should be wary and not immediately adopt solid beliefs
regarding the reality of LENR (low energy nuclear reaction) phenomena.

> The excuse that they won't make it publish for fear of ostracism just
> doesn't wash. If it really works, and they can demonstrate it conclusively
> (the real thorn in the ointment is that word--conclusively)

Not necessarily.  If it really works, yet is a feeble and hard-to-initiate
effect, and if it goes against solid theory, then it becomes incredibly
difficult to convince anyone that it exists.  Rather, the effect itself
will be judged to be impossible, and this fact will be used to judge the
reliability of researchers: anyone who sees evidence in support of CF is
in incompetent researcher (and knowing the reception they will receive if
they noise it around that they've seen such things, the they are probably
stupid.) 

If CF papers are constantly rejected by journal editors, and finally some
separate CF-only peer review journals come into being, then researchers
simply publish their works there.  Those who wish, can subscribe.  Those
who know that CF is a waste of time need never see a paper about it.

> they, and Pons
> & Fleishman, will be wealthy beyond their wildest dreams, and then couldn't
> care less about what the scientific community thinks.

Hardly.  Only if CF was easily converted from a laboratory curiousity into
a major new energy source would wealth and fame be automatic.  The
researchers who successfully replicate the CF phenomena have had no luck
in making the effects reliable, or increasing their scale.  (The people at
CETI were claiming various successes, but they are a business, and they
keep their developments behind a cloak of secrecy.)  The CF effects seem
to be critically dependant on microscopic surface processes which nobody
understands well.  If it was easy, we wouldn't be having this discussion,
and "CF" would have been immediately industrialised.  That it was not, is
evidence either that is doesn't exist, or that it always was a feeble,
flaky, poorly-understood effect.  In addition, if it is an effect which
attracts the wrath of those who dislike the idea that theory-violating
anomalies exist, then it is little wonder that the CF field is just where
it is today.  "Extraordinary phenomena require extraordinary evidence".
In other words, we raise the bar for results which go against theoretical
expectations, and lower the bar for results which validate known theory.


> In fact, if they did
> demonstrate it conclusively, and could give a rational scientific
> explanation of what they did, the scientific community would embrace them
> with open arms. 

They have no rational explanation.  There are many competing theories, but
none mesh easily with known physics.  I expect that we will see CF-based
commercial products long before anyone figures out how the process works. 
If Pons and Fleichman are ever embraced by science, it will be after they
are safely dead and are unable to remind everyone of the suppression and
ridicule which took place.

> Not only would they celebrate one of their own, but these
> people would be the saviors of scientific research, because everybody would
> be eager to fund all kinds of research, hoping to find more of these
> breakthroughs. If you believe all this is going to happen, or that it has
> already happened but is being kept secret for fear of ridicule, they I have
> a bridge up in Brooklyn, that I would like to interest you in next time I'm
> in your neighborhood.

Not kept secret for fear of ridicule exactly.  Papers are rejected after
peer review, and if most peers have an attitude of "I won't believe it
unless you show me incontrovertible proof", then no papers will be
published.  Do most research findings require incontrovertible proof? 
What about the common wry assertion that 90% of the papers found in
journals will be shown to be wrong?  There is a bias against CF, the
barriers have been artifically raised against it. 

Now, popular articles with a pro-CF slant, that is another story.  Of
course editors are fearful to publish such things.  Look at the reaction
towards them just in this group!  Who has the bravery to stand up to that
sort of critical response?  Few people, if their jobs depend on it.  I'm
safe, people can attack me all they want and it only damages my ego, not
my career or family's income.

Actually, it is more than likely that the editor of a magazine already is
hostile to CF, and so the fear is on the part of the writers.  As a
professional science writer, do I dare to damage my reputation by
reviewing the latest ICCF conference, or by even mentioning that such
conferences are still taking place?  I certainly would think twice.
Probably much more than twice.


> I believe that Pons & Fleischman most recently took their operation to the
> French Riviera, where they were working in a lab funded primarily by Sony
> (actually, not a bad investment for them--they put up what is for them
> petty cash for a few years and if it does pan out they are huge winners. If
> it doesn't, they have lost nothing of consequence to them). But I recently
> heard that Sony had cut off their support. Can anyone confirm or clarify
> this information?

I think the lab is no more.  I know that Dr. Fleichman had retired awhile
back.  They were unable to take their results much beyond the
hard-to-replicate "laboratory curiousity" stage they initially started
with. 


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