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]

[Physltest] [Phys-L] Re: Cold Fusion from UnderNews



On Sunday, Jan 23, 2005, at 19:54 America/New_York, Bernard Cleyet
quoted:

In his talk he quoted Charles D. Beaudette as offering the following
characteristics of scientific skeptics:

1. They do not express their criticisms in those venues where it will
be
subject to peer review.

2. They do not go into the laboratory and practise the experiment along
with the practitioner.

3. Assertions are offered as though they were scientifically based
when in
fact they are mere guesses.

4. Satire, dismissal and slander are freely employed.

Perhaps some of you might be interested to read my "Open letter to . .
.,"
shown below. It does address the issue raised in 2 above. Not a single
panelist contacted me after that letter was posted at my website.
Neither
did I hear from the DOE.
Ludwik Kowalski



196) Open letter to the DOE, and its team of 18 scientists
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

1) This unit (a set of questions) was prompted by a recent note
entitled “US Review Rekindles Cold Fusion Debate.” Written by Geoff
Brumfiel, from Nature, it was published on12/2/04.

<http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041129/full/041129-11.html>

The author wrote: “Claims of cold fusion are intriguing, but not
convincing. That is the conclusion of an 18-member scientific panel
tasked with reviewing research in the area. The findings, which were
released on 1 December by the US Department of Energy, rekindle a
15-year-old debate over whether nuclear fusion can occur at room
temperature.”

I do not know any scientist who still claims that useful energy can be
produced from fusion of two isolated deuterium nuclei at a room
temperature. That was the major topic of concern 15 years ago. The new
DOE panel was expected, as far as I know, to evaluate claims of
selected nuclear anomalies, such as generation of helium, or emission
of 3 MeV protons, that were not know in 1989.

2) Broomfield wrote that “According to the report, the panel was split
approximately evenly on the question of whether cold fusion experiments
were actually producing power in the form of heat.” Is it not true that
in science controversies are resolved through better experiments rather
than by counting how many experts are for and against competing claims?

3) Were you, the members of the panel, offered opportunities to visit
laboratories of cold fusion researchers in order to participate in
decisive experiments, or to personally observe and criticize them?

4) According to the DOE report your conclusions were reached on the
basis of one review paper (and interactions with selected cold fusion
researchers during a one-day meeting). I would like to know if, in
addition, some of you tried to replicate selected experiments in your
laboratories. If so, then please share your findings.

5) Did you request anonymity or was it the DOE initiative to remove
your names from individual reports? I am probably not the only one
interested in your names and affiliations. As you know, scientific
publications are usually signed -- for good reason. Who among you were
“nine additional scientists chosen by DOE for their expertise in
relevant fields”? Who among you are experts on detection of helium, at
low concentrations?

6) Four months before the second DOE report was published I addressed
you, indirectly, in the form of a Letter to the Editor of Physics Today
(published on page 14 in the September 2004 issue). I asked: “Is there
any indication that leading cold fusion scientists are incompetent or
that their data are fraudulent? Is the research methodology that cold
fusion scientists use different from that 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. ”The
title of my letter was “Seeking Answers From Cold Fusion Review.” Why
was the issue of competence and honesty not mentioned in the DOE
report? I expected it to be addressed in view of commonly used
epithets, such as “bad science,” “voodoo science,” and worse. A clear
statement about qualifications of those whose work was investigated
would be extremely useful in the context of existing accusations and
attitudes.

7) I agree with you that “claims of cold fusion are intriguing, but not
convincing.” Experiments must be 100% reproducible to be convincing.
But that does not mean they are fraudulent, or that they belong to
voodoo science. Electrostatic experiments were also irreproducible
before the role of humidity was recognized. That is why more research
is needed. The biggest obstacle is negative publicity. You had a chance
to decisively remove that obstacle. But you did not take advantage of
that opportunity. What should be done now to help the honest and
qualified scientists who are currently exploring the intriguing aspects
you mentioned in the report?
Conditions of their work are highly abnormal; what can be done to
improve them significantely?

8) I would be happy to post your replies here; they will be seen by
many interested (and often very qualified) readers. Your replies are
likely to become important historical documents, no matter how the
issues are resolved in the future.

9) Let me finish this open letter by introducing myself. After teaching
physics for more than three decades, at Montclair State University in
New Jersey, I retired and became an independent researcher. I was
trained as an experimental nuclear physicist (Ph.D. 1963, University of
Paris, France) and am now happy to be an investigator of CANA
phenomena. By CANA I mean “chemically assisted nuclear activity,” a
much better name for what we often call, incorrectly, cold fusion. The
electrochemical cell that I am using (to replicate an intriguing Oriani
effect) contains neither palladium nor heavy water.

P.S. (12/12/04)
10) I believe that your reason for addressing the issue is not
different than mine; we want to see the CANA controversy resolved, one
way or another. I also think that it is premature to speculate about
practical applications; the emphasis should be on scientific aspects of
anomalous phenomena, not on benefits they might possibly offer.
Technological explorations will follow naturally after anomalous
effects are recognized as real; and after normality is established..

11) In the DOE report I read: “Results reported in the review document
purported to show that 4He was detected in five out of sixteen cases
where electrolytic cells were reported to be producing excess heat. The
detected 4He was typically very close to, but reportedly above
background levels.” Were all sixteen experiments conducted by equally
qualified researchers?

In any case, such experimental results are highly significant; total
absence of nuclear byproducts (ashes) was one of the most convincing
arguments against the suggested nuclear origin of excess heat. That is
why I took the 1989 DOE report very seriously. On the basis of your
observations, I would say that a tremendous progress was made on the
issue of “missing ashes.”

12) I am disappointed that additional experiments were not performed by
experts among you to clarify the situation, for example to show that
the effects are not due to contamination. I would very much prefer to
have a delay of one year, if necessary, than a timely report stating,
essentially, “on one hand this and on the other that.” An old joke
about a one-handed lawyer came to my mind when I was reading the second
DOE report. For everything positive in the DOE report there is an
immediate negative, and vice versa. How can such report help us to form
a valid opinion about what has happened in the CANA field in the last
decade? As experts you are in a much better position to address the
contradictions than most of us.

13) And here is another reason to be disappointed. The new DOE report
states: “To explain these unusual characteristics, the reviewers were
presented with a theoretical framework that purported to describe how
collective energy from the material lattice couples to a deuteron pair
to induce fusion, how the only fusion reaction channel that occurs
would be the production of 4He, and how all the energy is coupled back
into the material in the form of heat instead of high energy
gamma-rays. The reviewers raised serious concerns regarding the
assumptions postulated in the proposed theoretical model for the
explanation for 4He production.”

Generation of helium from deuterium is anomalous because it can not be
explained by accepted theoretical models. I agree that our textbook
models must be taken very seriously because they have been confirmed by
highly reliable experimental data. You are not alone in thinking that
attempts to develop a better theoretical model (presumably explaining
generation of 4He) are far from being totally satisfactory. But why
should this weaken our confidence in the experimental fact itself? Why
was the weakness of a new model mentioned in this context? Yes, I know,
the field is blind without a theory to guide it. But wouldn't you agree
that establishing validity of experimental facts is even more
impotrant, at this stage?

14) According to the last paragraph of the DOE report “material science
aspects of deuterated metals using modern characterization techniques
could be helpful in resolving some of the controversies in the field.”
That is certainly true. But use of commonly available, and much less
expensive, tools should also be encouraged, especially among students.
To prove, or disprove, a controversial claim can be an educational
project. What can be a better way to expose students to the excitement
of scientific research?
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l