Fussin' and fusion

A couple of years ago I read up on cold fusion and decided there might actually be something to it, despite the vigorous attempts of the scientific community to debunk it.

Now there's a new report of possible confirmatory findings.

Researchers at a US Navy laboratory have unveiled what they say is "significant" evidence of cold fusion, a potential energy source that has many skeptics in the scientific community.

The scientists on Monday described what they called the first clear visual evidence that low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR), or cold fusion devices can produce neutrons, subatomic particles that scientists say are indicative of nuclear reactions.

"Our finding is very significant," said analytical chemist Pamela Mosier-Boss of the US Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWAR) in San Diego, California.

"To our knowledge, this is the first scientific report of the production of highly energetic neutrons from a LENR device," added the study's co-author in a statement.

The study's results were presented at the annual meeting of the American Chemical Society in Salt Lake City, Utah.

The article goes on to snark:

The city is also the site of an infamous presentation on cold fusion 20 years ago by Martin Fleishmann [sic] and Stanley Pons that sent shockwaves across the world.

Despite their claim to cold fusion discovery, the Fleishmann-Pons study soon fell into discredit after other researchers were unable to reproduce the results.

Get that? The "infamous" presentation. Keep in mind that the main paper that discredited Fleischmann and Pons was the one produced by MIT - and serious questions have been raised about the scientific integrity of this paper:

Take, for starters, the Energy Resources Advisory Board (ERAB) panel appointed during the [George H.W.] Bush administration to look into the cold fusion claims made by Pons and Fleischmann. That panel leaned heavily on an experiment done at MIT that found the field unworthy of financial support. Since then, however, Dr. Eugene Mallove, the chief science writer at MIT at the time, has come forward to denounce the MIT study, citing irregularities in the way MIT's results were presented.

Mallove contends MIT's researchers did generate excess heat in their cold fusion experiment, and then fudged that finding in their final report. As evidence, Mallove has produced a copy of the original heat-measurement graph used in the MIT experiment, which showed slight heat production above the expected level. That graph did not appear in the final MIT report. In its place, the MIT team published an "adjusted" graph that showed no production of excess heat.

Mallove resigned in protest and demanded an investigation.

In addressing Mallove's complaint, MIT did not dispute that the original graph had been altered. Instead, one of the 15 authors of the MIT report was permitted to take the unusual step of changing the description of the experiment's purpose *after* the paper describing it was published.

According to an appendix added to the report as a result of the investigation into Mallove's charges, the experiment was redefined to have been a search for a sudden onset of released energy, rather than to determine if unaccounted-for heat was being generated in cold fusion cells. No such claim was made at the time the report was originally published and presented to Congress. Mallove contends MIT's handling of the matter was fatally flawed. "In science, we don't usually allow anyone to redefine the purpose of an experiment to match the results," he says.

On the basis of questionable research like this, Drs. Fleischmann and Pons became "infamous."

I concede that the two chemists probably should not have rushed to make their findings public. Had they waited and gone through the normal peer review process, their claims might have met with less resistance. On the other hand, the peer review process could have ended up suppressing their experiment altogether. So it's a close call.

Whether there's any practical value to cold fusion, I don't know, but since the Fleischmann-Pons results have been replicated in other laboratories, it's pretty clear that something is going on.

Comments

[The Major]

Of course, the interesting thing would be to publish quotes by famous skeptics regarding cold fusion. Therefore, after appearing so authoritative on this subject, how can they have the same credibility again?

[The Major]

For example, Mr Randi:

"while we still have some demonstrably erroneous ideas such as "cold fusion" with us"

[Micky]

Michael,
I'm very impressed you spotted the spelling mistake of Fleischmann in the report!

[pmprescott]

Off topic, Michael what's your take on the new Shakespeare plays and poems. I noticed in the article the theory you've advanced on an alternate author.

[Michael Prescott]

Michael what's your take on the new Shakespeare plays and poems.

There are new Shakespeare plays and poems?

The guy's been dead 400 years and he's still writing - what a trouper!

[Art]

There are new Shakespeare plays and poems? The guy's been dead 400 years and he's still writing - what a trouper!- Michael Prescott
--------------------------------------------

Maybe they've been channeled from the other side? "grin!" Speaking of channeled information, now if some Medium were to bring us some information about how to make fusion work or how to make an anti-gravity device that might be enough for me to have more faith in channeled information from Mediums instead of NDEs. I'd be willing to switch my allegiance from NDE's and Death Bed Visions to Mediums and channeled information.

[Kevin]

I'm quite interested in the new cold fusion findings, in that the whole fiasco which began with Fleischmann & Pons seeking to profit from their results and bypassing the often dubious and too easily anonymous "peer review" process is now turning back on those who were so quick to dismiss the initial findings. Dr. Mallove's subsequent disclosure on the dishonesty of those attempting replication of the primary experimental results only serves to underline the hypocracy of the Material Science religion: if observations/results contradict the dogmas held as "theories", the apostasy must be destroyed along with the heretics who professed them. Human foibles being what they are, I doubt many apologetic mea culpas will be forthcoming from the True Believers in academia, let alone misguided fanatics. We are witness to the slow (glacially so) change which will one day remove the prefix "para" from the word "paramormal". I can't help wondering what OTHER supressed results and altered data lay secreted in dusty files, deleted caches and highly classified databases. Arthur C. Clarke's Three Laws seem more cogent with each day and each new repudiation of "experts".

[Marcel Cairo]

I'm working on it, Art, I'm working on it.

"Had they waited and gone through the normal peer review process, their claims might have met with less resistance. On the other hand, the peer review process could have ended up suppressing their experiment altogether."

Cold fusion research is suppressed because it puts at risk the stature and power of the leaders in fusion and nuclear physics.

This is why the panel organized by the department of energy recommended funding of cold fusion research under the existing system. Special funding would give independence to cold fusion research while research proposals could be quietly controlled and rejected if they were submitted under the existing power structure.

This is also why parapsychology research is suppressed. Materialist scientists who control research funding will lose power and prestiege if they admit that materialism and our understanding of human consciousness has such gaping holes in it as to allow psychic phenomena to really exist.

In "The Conscious Universe" by Dean Radin in the chapter on "Seeing Psi" there is a chart showing that belief in psi decreases as commitment to the status quo in materialism increases. 55% of college professors belive in psi, 6% of members of the national academy of science believe in psi.

There is a real problem in the way research is funded in the US. Inividuals with a conflict of interets giving them a bias against new discoveries control funding. This situation with cold fusion is proof. We need to change the way research for controversial areas is funded, taking the control away from biased specialists and giving it to unconflicted individuals who have sufficient education to make sound judgements.

[Michael Prescott]

giving it to unconflicted individuals who have sufficient education to make sound judgements

I agree in theory, but in practice, when it comes to areas of high controversy, I'm not sure there are any unconflicted individuals. Everyone has an ax to grind or a cause to promote - including me!

[sonic]

I believe the experiments (or ones like them)
showing the existence of cold fusion have been replicated many times over the years.

"A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
Max Planck

This might be an example of the phenomena Max is referring to. And perhaps the greatest discovery of our lifetimes!

[Roger Knights]

"the whole fiasco which began with Fleischmann & Pons seeking to profit from their results and bypassing the often dubious and too easily anonymous "peer review" process ...."

I've read that they were pushed into hasty publicizing of their claim by their university, which was worried about another researcher who was working on something similar (very minor effect though) and who might pre-empt the valuable patent the Univ. hoped to win.

[Roger Knights]

"perhaps the greatest discovery of our lifetimes!"

Even if it turns out to be some non-momentous sideshow, it's worth exploring and mapping out all the little curiosities of our world.

[Roger Knights]

An anonymous commenter posted:

"We need to change the way research for controversial areas is funded, taking the control away from biased specialists and giving it to unconflicted individuals who have sufficient education to make sound judgements."

To which MP responded:
"I agree in theory, but in practice, when it comes to areas of high controversy, I'm not sure there are any unconflicted individuals."

There's a way around this: to institute a process in which there are fewer herd-minded / group-think persons among the funders, and in which funding groups are set in competition with each other to deliver results. I therefore suggest that we hand over a quarter (for a start) of science-funding duties now performed by the National Science Foundation to the country's top 5% scientists. ("Top" being determined by a combination of objective factors like publications and awards won, plus subjective factors like the opinion of their peers.) They could vote on their favorite proposed projects over the internet.

My motivation is the fact that several leading critics of current funding procedures have cited the research of De Sola Poole (sp?) that showed (contrary to Sagan's mechanistic, collectivistic, egalitarian model) that most of the advances in science are done by a small minority of scientists (the 80/20 rule at work I guess), and that the way to increase scientific progress is to identify and fund this minority. I believe that only other outstanding scientists can identify their peers. (There's a saying in the venture capitalist community that "A's choose A's, B's choose C's, and C's [that would be your average NSF bureaucrat, I suspect] choose losers.") The selected top scientists should not have to write up proposals to get grants, but should be given the money without strings attached. (After five years, those who'd wasted their Talent would be "Dealt With" by a new office set up in the sub-basement.)

I also suggest that the National Science foundation (NSF) be divided into Seven Dwarf Agencies (DA-1 thru DA-7 might be their names), each with one-seventh the budget of today's Giant NSF. I.e., each would have (roughly) $800 million to spend in any field they choose. Their share of the pie in the future would vary depending on how well each fared in competition with one another, as follows. Every year, the value of previously funded research (e.g., three, six, and nine years earlier) by each of these agencies would be evaluated, and those DAs whose picks had done the most valuable work would receive a larger share. As an added inducement, some of this money would go the administrators for higher salaries and more perks.

"Division of powers" and decentralization are embedded in our political system, so I'm operating "in the grain" of our traditional way of structuring political institutions. And my competitive arrangement reflects the thought of an icon of our commercial republic, Adam Smith: That if progress is desired, one can't set up a system that relies primarily on people's good intentions & high-mindedness, etc., as currently is the case, but rather rely on one that penalizes poor performance and rewards good outcomes (e.g., with ego-strokes and material benefits). So I'm not advocating anything fringy.

The evaluators could be panels of Nobelists, Editors, peer-reviewers, and other gatekeepers and opinion-leaders. I'm not so down on them that I think they lack the ability to recognize worth. But they seem able to do so primarily AFTER the fact. Being able to pick high-payoff winners BEFOREHAND is a special skill--one that will only come to the fore if it is rewarded, and if today's default practice "making the safe choice" is (ultimately) penalized.

DA's would be allowed to subdivide themselves into seven independent sub-agencies, to spread the risk and decentralize matters further. These sub-agencies should in turn be allowed to split themselves into seven sub-sub-agencies, etc.

[Art]

The problem with backing unpopular ideas is that people think you're a crackpot. I know how that feels. It takes a strong sense of "self" to be willing to risk that.

[Zetetic_chick]

A good thing is that "skeptics"' dogmatism regarding many topics (including cold fusion) have been documented in books, articles, and websites. When all these suppressed discoveries be accepted and recognized, then the irrationality of ideological pseudo-skepticism will be fully exposed.

Someone will have to write a documental, or a book, exposing the "rationalists" 's irrationality and documented it in detail. Pseudo-skepticism is one of the worst and more irrational sorts of pseudo-science, because it uses the rhetoric and ideas of established science to make its suppressive agenda plausible.

In his book Vodoo Science, physicist and "skeptic" Robert Park "debunked" cold fusion; and Michael Shermer has scoffed in it too (and I'm mentioning only "serious" skeptics and scientists... I'm avoiding skeptical magicians' "authoritative" opinions on it).

In the article on pseudo-skepticism in the suppressedscience website, the author writes: "Pseudoskeptic Michael Shermer makes the following ignorant argument in "Baloney Detection" (Scientific American 11/2001, p. 36):

The biggest problem with the cold fusion debacle, for instance, was not that Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischman were wrong. It was that they announced their spectacular discovery at a press conference before other laboratories verified it. Worse, when cold fusion was not replicated, they continued to cling to their claim. Outside verification is crucial to good science.

The argument against "science by press conference" is a good one, but it would be more credible if Shermer applied it to accepted science too. A prime example is Robert Gallo's announcement of the discovery of the "probable cause of AIDS" in a press conference in 1984 that preceeded publication of his research in Science and secured a political commitment to his alleged facts before critical scientific discussion could take place.

What makes Shermer's argument ignorant is his use of cold fusion as an example. Real scientists who have actually studied the evidence for cold fusion have come to very different conclusions. In February 2002, the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center of the United State Navy in San Diego released a 310 page report titled Thermal and Nuclear Aspects of the Pd/D2O System that discusses the overwhelming experimental evidence that the cold fusion effect indeed exists. Dr. Frank E. Gordon, the head of the center's Navigation and Applied Sciences Department, writes in the foreword:

We do not know if Cold Fusion will be the answer to future energy needs, but we do know the existence of Cold Fusion phenomenon through repeated observations by scientists throughout the world. It is time that this phenomenon be investigated so that we can reap whatever benefits accrue from additional scientific understanding. It is time for government funding organizations to invest in this research.

Yet Shermer, a psychologist by trade, feels called upon to pass summary negative judgment on this field of research."

http://www.suppressedscience.net/skepticism.html

In the article on suppresion of physics discoveries in the suppressedscience website, there is another brief commentary on the cold fusion scandal, and the pseudo-skeptical suppression of it:

http://www.suppressedscience.net/physics.html

[william]

“how to make fusion work or how to make an anti-gravity device that might be enough for me to have more faith in channeled information from Mediums instead of NDEs.”

At first glance it does seem that those on the other side might or should be able to make fusion work or anti-gravity device work but deeper thought might reveal that the substance on the other side is different substance than what we know as physical matter. Also they are not all knowing on the other side and the higher dimensions have entities that know better than to tamper too much with our progress.

Fusion technology or anti gravity device could be used to make weapons to control and steal others resources or even just to kill people that don’t think like we think. We humans are still in a kill one another stage of development for a variety of reasons such as political and religious ideologies.

We as a species have not figured out that when we harm and hate another we harm and hate ourselves. That oneness thing again.

[M. Simon]

Here is another fusion technology that seems promising but that has gotten on the wrong side of the Big Fusion guys.

Bussard's IEC Fusion Technology (Polywell Fusion) Explained

Why hasn't Polywell Fusion been fully funded by the Obama administration?