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 Fri, 17 Sep 1999, Richard Tarara wrote:

Why do we always assume that:

1) The government must fund all Physics research. Research on both CF and
spaced-based solar satellites could easily be funded from private/commercial
sources.

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.

Some CF-skeptics say "if their research is a success, then they'd hold
press conferences!" Right. Then, when CETI demonstrates their
multi-hundreds-watts CF device at a research meeting, skeptics go silent,
and attack on some other front.

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. No amount of demonstrations would shift the barriers.
Everyone would just make accusations of hoaxing. CETI would have to hand
over a high-wattage, reliable CF-reactor to an independant group.)


2) That only the U.S. matters? Certainly countries like Japan would be
more than eager to latch onto physics that might lead to energy independence
and great financial gain.

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. Anyone who has
fallen into a state of 100% disbelief cannot be affected by reasonable
arguments. "Disbelief" is a form of belief, and its power must be
respected (and avoided like the plague!) Once 100% conviction is in
force, all evidence magically becomes suspect. Only an enormous kick in
the head would have any results, and no such possibility exists at
present.


Sorry, but the below is just one more 'Conspiracy Theory' -- starring Mel
Gibson. ;-)

Hear we go again.

This belittling/disparagement stuff is way beneath you, Rick. I think you
ought to take a hard look at what you're saying. (Maybe ask some trusted
3rd parties for their opinion on your debating tactics.) At the very
least, attempting to bring Conspiracy Theories into the debate it is a
transparent straw-man argument.


Peter brings up a valid problem: Conflict of Interest in those who render
judgement upon a new discovery. "Don't put the foxes in charge of the
chicken coop." Who should judge whether CF is valid? Most hot-fusion
professionals are in danger of emotional bias. Scientists are human, so
they'd better not go around declaring that they can control their biases.
If the CF phenomenon is genuine, then it means that the staggering amounts
of money put into Tokamak-style fusion might have been wasted. It means
that hundreds of people devoted their careers to a technology which might
prove of little worth should electrochemical-fusion result in efficient
reactors. Obviously the pressures on such people would be tremendous.
They would have to be literal *saints* to not be affected by it. If they
are normal, non-saintly humans, then they would be in danger of succumbing
to tricks of their subconscious, such as conveniently finding strange
justification and weak excuses to dismiss CF as unreal, and they would not
even know that they were doing this. It would seem perfectly sensible at
the time, yet future historians would see something entirely different.


In all my reading of CF literature, I've not encountered any "conspiracy
theory" stuff. In the "perpetual motion" and "antigravity" crackpot
fields the situation is far different. There it's rare to find a
researcher who DOESN'T accuse government or industry (or Space Aliens!) of
suppressing the research. When the crackpots start discussing
antigravity, it's an effective (though dishonest) tactic to bring up
conspiracies. The crackpots will launch into paranoid tirades and destroy
their own credibility.


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.




----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Vajk <vajk@IX.NETCOM.COM>
To: <PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu>
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 1999 11:56 PM
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Discussion


Richard Tarara <rtarara@SAINTMARYS.EDU> writes:

I fear Bill has been watching too many Hollywood 'conspiracy' movies
(like
every other movie released). He seems obsessed with Cold Fusion and sees
a
suppression of 'truth' here. B*******t, I say. Others have given an
adequate outline of the scientific community's reaction to this work
which
has been altogether proper. To me, the overriding reason that CF is NOT
getting a raw deal is the fact that it would have ENORMOUS economic
potential should it work. To suggest suppression, is to fall for the
'CHAIN
REACTION' script--deliberate suppression to protect certain economic
interests--in the case of the movie it was so that one company could make
all the profit rather than releasing the scientific info to the world.
Fundamentally, suppression of CF science would help no one other than the
current Utility companies, and then only for the short-term.


I fear this view is a bit naive regarding financial motivations -- it
omits a MAJOR economic player here, MUCH bigger (with respect to
fusion) than the utility companies --- viz., the hot fusion (whether
laser or plasma flavored) research mill.

Before I explain all that, let me hasten to make a disclaimer: I
believe CF is more likely than not incorrect, although I have heard
some plausibility arguments to the effect that, when palladium is
saturated with hydrogen, the mean distance between hydrogen nuclei is
small enough that there is significant overlap between the wave
functions of the two nuclei, so there should be a finite (if small)
probability of fusion happening. But there are many other indicators
against the validity of CF.

Please note that the hot fusion establishment has been receiving on the
order of half a BILLion dollars annually since Project Sherwood began in
the late 1940's as a classified program -- that's been MORE THAN 50
years!

During 1976 to 1979, the Department of Energy, with technical support
from NASA , conducted a detailed feasibility study on another power
source for the future, Solar Power Satellites (patent issued in 1968 to
Dr. Peter Glaser of Arthur D. Little, Inc.). Very large satellites
(up to 10 square KILOmeters in area) would be deployed in geosynchronous
equatorial orbit, capturing solar energy, converting it into
electricity (either photovoltaically or by heat engines) which would
power phased array microwave transmitters to beam power to the ground,
where rectifying antenna arrays would convert it back into electric
power for distribution over the electric grid. Each satellite would
deliver 5 to 10 Gigawatts of power 24/7, the power output of Grand
Coulee when fully developed (GC is still operating at only 30% or so of
eventual capacity).

After 3 years, the feasibility studies (total cost about $17 MILLion)
showed NO SHOW STOPPERS -- transmission of electric power by microwave
was DEMONSTRATED at over 95% efficiency, electric power in-to-electric
power out. Environmental issues, military implications (vulnerability
and threat analyses), necessary technology development, economics,
etc., etc., all showed feasibility by the early decades of the 21st
century. Yet, in President Carter's last budget, the entire project
($5 MILLion a year was requested) was killed.

Why? By whom?

The project had been placed inside the SAME office in Department of
Energy which runs the hot fusion program. Carter asked each agency to
cut 10% for the 1980 budget. The fusion program's funding was, as I
mentioned, about $500 million, and to this date, I haven't heard
anything more optimistic than 50 YEARS before commercial operability --
we still have major SCIENTIFIC unknowns, let alone dealing with
ENGINEERING and ECONOMIC and ENVIRONMETAL uncertainties. Strange,
isn't it, that a tiny 1% item in the Fusion Offices program, an item
with a great deal of promise, was axed completely as a contribution to
cutting $50 million from fusion.

As far as the US is concerned, this line of study is pretty much dead
twenty years later, and hot fusion is no closer to actual
implementation ....

In a related case, Gerard K. O'Neill, particle physicist of some
reknown at Princeton, tried from 1971 to 1976 to get an article
discussing the possible feasibility of building large scale human
colonies in orbit (using raw materials from the Moon and the asteroid
belt) published -- the frankly speculative, but technically well
supported, article was repeatedly rejected for publication on the
grounds that "nobody else is thinking along these lines [and therefore
it must be wrong]." The article finally saw light of day in the
September 1976 issue of "Physics Today" -- yes, our own, beloved
physics community was most reluctant to even THINK about a novel
concept.

The following is not intended in any way as a blanket condemnation of
our profession -- but DON'T underestimate the amount of venality
(regarding funding and intellectual turf) within our membership.

Peter Vajk, Ph.D.
St. Joseph Notre Dame High School
Alameda, CA 94501
vajk@ix.netcom.com

"The universe is not only queerer than we imagine; it is stranger than
we CAN imagine." -- J.B.S. Haldane



((((((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (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