| 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] |
The Physics Today (April 2004) article about
the US Department of Energy agreement to
review cold fusion is now posted as a FREE link:
<http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-4/p27.html>
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=
=20
=93skepticism about the credibility and reproducibility of cold fusio=
n=20
remains widespread.=94 As a physics teacher who is not certain how=
=20
students=92 questions about cold fusion should be answered, I welcome=
the=20
upcoming DOE investigation of recent claims in this controversial are=
a.=20
Here are questions which I would like to see answered by the appointe=
d=20
investigators: a) Is it true that unexpected emission of neutrons,=
=20
protons, tritons and alpha particles (at low rate) has been observed =
in=20
several cold fusion experiments? b) Is it true that accumulation of=
=20
4He, at the rate of about one atom per 24 MeV of excess heat, has bee=
n=20
confirmed by many scientists, as reported by McKubre? c) Is it true=
=20
that highly abnormal isotopic ratios have been found in some cold=
=20
fusion setups? d) Is there any indication that leading cold fusion=
=20
scientists are incompetent in the areas they investigate? e) Is there=
=20
any indication that their data are fraudulent? f) Is the research=
=20
methodology used by them different from the methodology used in other=
=20
areas of physical science?
Answers to these questions will help me decide what to think about co=
ld=20
fusion and what to tell students about it. Speculations about practic=
al=20
applications of new findings, in my opinion, should be de-emphasized =
at=20
this time. They will emerge naturally when basic scientific claims ar=
e=20
recognized as valid, and when cold fusion researchers are no longer=
=20
treated as if they were con artists and charlatans. The =93chilling=
=20
effect,=94 mentioned by Randall Heckman, prevents young scientists fr=
om=20
entering the area of cold fusion research. I agree with Allen Bard th=
at=20
being able to reproduce experimental results is not "good enough;" it=
=20
is only a preliminary step. But is it not true that poor=20
reproducibility was the central point of criticism when cold fusion w=
as=20
first investigated fifteen years ago?
Ludwik Kowalski
(kowalskil@mail.montclair.edu)
Montclair State University
Montclair, NJ, 05543