Hey, I didn’t say it. Mike Adams, “The Health Ranger”, out at NaturalNews.com said it in a blog post called, The Lancet retraction of vaccine autism paper condemned as Big Pharma conspiracy to discredit Dr. Wakefield.
I’ll do the geek stuff below, but let’s just say, Cold Fusion is synonymous with weak (or bad) science touted followed by a press conference that made claims which were amazing if true…but they weren’t.
For most of the world, comparing research to cold fusion is not a compliment. But NaturalNews.com doesn’t see it that way. After the announcement of Cold Fusion:
The conventional physics community went berserk. They attacked Fleischmann and Pons relentlessly, attempting to destroy their character and any scientific credibility they might have held. They paraded a gang of “hot fusion” scientists through the mainstream media, telling everyone it was “impossible” to create nuclear fusion at tabletop temperatures. Through a repetition of lies, they convinced the world that Fleischmann and Pons were frauds.
Yep. Just like Big Physics killed cold fusion, Big Pharma is out to kill the MMR/Autism link.
As I said recently, just when I think the Wakefield/MMR story can’t get stranger, it does.
For the geeks:
Fusion is the process where nuclei are, well, fused together to form the nuclei of new atoms. For example, one can fuse two duterium (hydrogen nuclei with a proton and a neutron) nuclei and get helium. People study fusion because it might give us a huge source of energy. Fusion reactors are big, expensive creations that raise the temperature of the nuclei very high, and have yet to become a viable energy source.
Cold fusion was an idea that under the right conditions, fusion could be induced near room temperature. Two of the researchers who “discovered” cold fusion held a large press conference and touted their study well beyond what their data could support.
Left Brain Right Brain 
Hi Sullivan –
Disregarding the Wakefield angle, you might be interested in knowing that there seems to have been somewhat of a resurgence in the area of cold fusion research in the past two decades; it has just been being done quietly. I saw a 60 minutes on it.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/17/60minutes/main4952167.shtml
I’ve seen some skepticism that what they are talking about here is meaningful, or should rightfully be called cold fusion, but it does seem like some smart folks believed excess anamolous heat was being generated. It is difficult to ascertain how much faith we can put towards this, but it was an interesting show.
– pD
pD-
The important point to note is that the failure of Pons and Fleischman does not mean that “cold fusion” is impossible.
Also, it’s my impression that what is “cold” in the context of fusion could be extremely hot by any other standard.
You are completely wrong about cold fusion. It was replicated in hundreds of major laboratories, and these replications were described in thousands of papers. I suggest you read some of the mainstream, peer-reviewed papers describing this research. See:
http://lenr-canr.org
“Cold” fusion is generally understood to be fusion that takes place at or near room temperature. There may be a few people who argue that fusion taking place at temperatures below those needed to convert the fusing elements to a plasma is “cold fusion”, but that is largely a matter of semantics.
Cold fusion does occur and has been repeatedly documented and is well accepted in the physics community. There are “table-top” fusion “reactors” that are used as compact neutron sources.
What made the claims of Fleischmann and Pons remarkable was that they claimed that their cold fusion process generated more energy than it consumed. All other cold fusion processes consume more energy than they generate. In addition, Fleischmann and Pons appeared to have shown fusion that didn’t produce any neutrons.
In the end, the apparent net energy production was found to be an error due to poor instrumentation and the lack of neutrons was due to a lack of fusion.
Yes, comparing Andrew Wakefield’s claims to the cold fusion claims of Fleischman and Pons seems completely appropriate.
In both cases, the apparent “earth-shaking” results were due to poor experimental design and a willingness to ignore negative results. In both cases, the researchers tried to sell their results in the media when they hadn’t “sold” them to their peers. And in both cases, when other researchers failed to replicate the results, they were accused of corruption, collusion and bias.
Oh, and in both cases, the iconoclastic mavericks were dead wrong.
Seems like a perfect fit to me.
Prometheus
Prometheus wrote:
“What made the claims of Fleischmann and Pons remarkable was that they claimed that their cold fusion process generated more energy than it consumed. All other cold fusion processes consume more energy than they generate. In addition, Fleischmann and Pons appeared to have shown fusion that didn’t produce any neutrons.”
That is correct, although the effect does produce some neutrons.
“In the end, the apparent net energy production was found to be an error due to poor instrumentation and the lack of neutrons was due to a lack of fusion.”
That is incorrect. The instrumentation was excellent, and the experiment has been replicated at high signal to noise ratios by over 200 other major laboratories such as Los Alamos, SRI and Toyota. These labs all use top quality instrumentation, such as calorimeters costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the best tritium detection equipment on earth, at labs such as Los Alamos and BARC. In some cases tritium has been measured at millions of times background (10E18 atoms), so there is no question it is real. Neutrons have also been confirmed, albeit not at levels commensurate with a plasma fusion reaction.
Please do not quibble with these statements. The facts I am describing can be found in hundreds of mainstream, peer-reviewed journal papers. If you disagree, please critique those papers, not me. Your assertions are not in evidence. I strongly recommend you first read the literature before discussing this research — or any research.
“Yes, comparing Andrew Wakefield’s claims to the cold fusion claims of Fleischman and Pons seems completely appropriate.”
No, it was not, because Wakefield was not replicated.
“In both cases, the apparent “earth-shaking” results were due to poor experimental design and a willingness to ignore negative results.”
Negative results have also been published in the peer-reviewed literature. In 1989, 20 negative experiments were reported in the U.S. and Canada, each with 1 run. A total of 135 people participated in them. The reasons these early experiments failed are now well understood. Roughly 3,000 scientists have successfully replicated. During 1989, roughly 100 positive experiments were reported, some involving hundreds of individual tests, for example in a 10 x 10 array of cells. The experiment was subsequently replicated thousands of times. With some techniques, reproducibility is now 100%. The NRL recently reported several hundred positive runs in a row, using automated equipment. Their technique does not require any input electric power, so there is no likelihood of a calorimetric error.
“In both cases, the researchers tried to sell their results in the media when they hadn’t “sold” them to their peers.”
I would not call it selling, but replicating and then publishing in peer-reviewed journals is often considered the gold standard of proof. By that standard cold fusion is real beyond question. There are only a handful of papers describing failures and hundreds describing positive results.
“And in both cases, when other researchers failed to replicate the results, they were accused of corruption, collusion and bias.”
No one I know is accusing anyone of corruption or collusion. Some people are biased, and many people — such as you — make mistaken assertions about this research without reading the literature.
Mr. Rothwell,
Citations, please? And please remember that only cranks use the “look it up yourself, I’m not your librarian!” excuse.
I spent a good deal of time discussing this topic with members of our Physics Dpet. and looking through the recent (1995 and later) literature on cold fusion and failed to find any replication of the Fleischmann and Pons findings (esp. the net energy generation) – perhaps you would be so kind as to explain where I (and so many others) went astray?
Prometheus
Prometheus, caution is needed when some folks have Google alerts for certain phrases. See http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=1940 .
Prometheus wrote:
“Citations, please? And please remember that only cranks use the ‘look it up yourself, I’m not your librarian!’ excuse.”
I am, in fact, the librarian. And I copied all 1,200 of the peer-reviewed papers in my collection from the libraries at Los Alamos and Georgia Tech. Plus I have worked extensively with librarians at the ENEA, the NSF, EPRI, U. Nagoya and the University of Utah, which has a huge collection of cold fusion papers. A whole room full of stuff that I am hoping I can help them put more of it on line. They gave me the NSF conference proceedings, which I recommend, and the NCFI tritium studies, which are fantastic. The principal author is Fritz Will.
If you are looking for an overview of the field, I suggest you start with the documents featured on the main page:
The Student’s Guide
What is believed
Scientific Overview of ICCF15
U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, “Technology Forecast: Worldwide Research on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Increasing and Gaining Acceptance” DIA-08-0911-003, 13 November 2009
Many readers enjoy the Special Collections, especially the 2004 DoE review and U.S. Navy Collections. (See the link on the top left side of the screen.)
For lots more detail, see the Beaudette book (scroll down for the link to the full text). The Storms book is available at Amazon.com (linked right next to Beaudette).
The CBS “60 Minutes” video is popular. See the News section.
Anyway, there is an extensive set of indexes, so you can look up by author, publication, and so on. The Google search box on the front page is limited to LENR-CANR and very helpful.
I have worked with dozens of universities and corporations, helping them find specific information. I have 3,000 papers off line that I cannot upload because of copyright restrictions and so on. So if you can’t find what you are looking for, please contact me. My physical address, e-mail, telephone number and so on are on the front page.
“I spent a good deal of time discussing this topic with members of our Physics Dpet. and looking through the recent (1995 and later) literature on cold fusion and failed to find any replication of the Fleischmann and Pons findings (esp. the net energy generation) – perhaps you would be so kind as to explain where I (and so many others) went astray?”
Send me what you wrote and perhaps I can tell where you went astray. I cannot judge without first carefully looking at your conclusions and sources. If you are looking for excess heat results, did you read McKubre, Miles, Mizuno, Storms, Arata, Kunimatsu or anything from NRL or the ENEA? I would start with them.
Note that the titles listed above are hyperlinked at http://lenr-canr.org
I think most people would agree this was the gold standard in calorimetry and excess heat available back in 1994:
Click to access McKubreMCHisothermala.pdf
I hope that comes out hyperlinked. If not, look it up:
McKubre, M.C.H., et al., Isothermal Flow Calorimetric Investigations of the D/Pd and H/Pd Systems. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1994. 368: p. 55.
Rothwell boasts about the peer-reviewed literature, but the only specific references provided are not refereed. The Scientific Overview of ICCF15, which he recommends, lists “What is Needed?” in the field, and gives a list (hypothesis, methods…) that might be found in an undergraduate laboratory course. In other words, what is needed in the field is basic scientific competence, which explains why all the papers claiming evidence for cold fusion are of marginal quality at best, and why they have failed to convince most scientists (including experts hired by the DOE to evaluate them), and why none of the publications are in mainstream nuclear physics journals.
The report from the US Defence Intelligence Agency, which is also recommended, includes the rather lukewarm statement “This body of research has produced evidence that nuclear reactions may be occurring under conditions not previously believed possible.” And this report is seemingly from a single person within the DIA, apparently advised by a cabal of CF believers.
I don’t get it. Energy (heat) is not a complicated thing to detect. Heat from fusion is millions of times higher per molecule than chemical heat. And yet there’s not enough to *show* it to the man on the street. The 60-minutes program had to hire an expert to tell us there is heat, and Rothwell refers vaguely to “thousands” of papers. If CF were real, one good demonstration is all it would take.
abcxyz wrote:
“Rothwell boasts about the peer-reviewed literature, but the only specific references provided are not refereed.”
That is incorrect. The McKubre paper is peer-reviewed and there are hundreds of others. However, the overview documents I listed are not reviewed, and many of the peer-reviewed papers are not available at LENR-CANR.org because of copyright restrictions. They are listed in the indexes and can be found in any university library.
“The 60-minutes program had to hire an expert to tell us there is heat . . .”
“60 Minutes” asked Prof. Duncan, a leading expert in calorimetry, only because the claim is supposedly controversial. Duncan saw that input is less than 1 W and output is 20 W, continuing hundreds of times longer than any chemical effect could with this mass of reactants. This is not difficult to understand. A few months after the “60 Minutes” broadcast, Duncan held a seminar for other experts at U. Missouri. You can watch the video on line (see our News section). None of these experts was aware of the status of the research before the seminar. None believed in cold fusion. At the close of the seminar, a speaker asked how many were convinced. Every one of them raised his hand.
“. . . and Rothwell refers vaguely to “thousands” of papers.”
I do not merely refer to them. I list them in the indexes.
“If CF were real, one good demonstration is all it would take.”
Thousands of good demonstrations have been performed and published. That is why experts such as Prof. Duncan are completely convinced as soon as they look at the data. People who refuse to look a the data will not be convinced.
I pretty much agree with Prometheus (mythic Greek figures tend to stick together). The difference I see between Wakefield and cold fusion is that the cold fusion people didn’t commit fraud. They have done and are doing sloppy research, and their “positive” results are all a result of errors that they have not accounted for. I think that for the most part they do believe that what they are doing is correct. I don’t think that Wakefield does. I think that Wakefield knows he is committing fraud and doesn’t care. He is in it for the money, and doesn’t care how many children he hurts or kills in the process. The cold fusion researchers are not killing or hurting anyone, they are simply deluding themselves with their poor research techniques.
With all due respect to Mr Rothwell, he has a website where he has accumulated a great deal of the literature on cold fusion. I have spent a lot of time on his site and have read a lot of the papers, a few score at least, trying to focus on the “best” and “most compelling” papers. The major problem is that the researchers calibrated their equipment under one set of conditions, and then use that calibration to infer heat generation under different contitions where the calibration doesn’t hold. They don’t appreciate that this is what they are doing. In particular they use unsilvered dewars to limit heat transfer to only thermal radiation. But they don’t properly account for the heat transfer between partially transparent objects. They use a single lumped-parameter for heat transfer at different temperatures and that is simply not appropriate for non-black bodies where emissivity is a function of wavelength. Radiation heat transfer goes as temperature to the fourth power, so calibration with a single lumped parameter at one temperature produces large errors at other temperatures.
Sorry to divert this thread into the details of cold fusion. I see the cold fusion community as quite different than the anti-vax community. The cold fusion community isn’t issuing death threats and isn’t putting people in danger. The cold fusion is mistaken (I believe), but it is not being lead by cynical fraudulent exploiters of deluded followers the way that the anti-vax community is. The cold fusion community hasn’t hijacked a lot of hot fusion research and funding the way the anti-vax community has hijacked autism research funding into anti-vax directions.
The cold fusion people are doing experiments on inanimate equipment, not human beings. There is a big difference, a difference that Wakefield doesn’t appreciate.
daedalus2u wrote:
“The major problem is that the researchers calibrated their equipment under one set of conditions, and then use that calibration to infer heat generation under different contitions where the calibration doesn’t hold. They don’t appreciate that this is what they are doing. In particular they use unsilvered dewars to limit heat transfer to only thermal radiation.”
I disagree with this assertion about the Dewar calorimeters. However, even it were valid, it would only disprove a small fraction of the experiments. Cold fusion researchers have reported thousands of positive experimental runs with other types of calorimeters including flow calorimeters, Seebeck, ice calorimeters and bomb-type calorimeters. These range from conventional instruments (with a range from 10 to 1000 mW) to the micro-calorimeters used at Tsinghua U., the NRL and elsewhere. Therefore, the results cannot be an artifact of the half-silvered Dewar cells.
Other criticisms also apply to only a fraction of experiments, and therefore cannot be valid. For example, on “60 Minutes” Garwin asserted that input is close to output and the results may be caused by measuring input power incorrectly. In some experiments, input electric power is close to the output thermal power, but in others it is far lower, and in still others there is no input electric power, so this cannot explain the results. For example in the experiments observed by Duncan, input electricity was 50 times lower than output at times, and for long period the electric input was turned of, but output continued.
(Note that Garwin was previously tasked by the Pentagon to examine the experiment in question. He spent several days at the site. His report says “We have found no specific experimental artifact responsible for the finding of excess heat . . .” Evidently he changed his mind, but he was right the first time.)
The other nuclear effects of cold fusion, such as x-rays, tritium, helium and neutrons, have also been measured with a wide range of different instrument types. The same samples have been tested in blind tests in different labs. This was done deliberately, in order to rule out systematic artifacts, and human bias.
People offering critiques of the experiments should first check the data to be sure their hypotheses are not ruled out.
Getting back the thread topic, cold fusion in no way resembles Wakefield’s results, or polywater (as has sometimes been claimed) because it has been independently replicated thousands of times at high s/n ratios, in hundreds of labs, using a wide range of conventional, proven instruments. Wakefield was never replicated. One partial replication of polywater was claimed, and then retracted. In experimental science any effect that is widely replicated is real, by definition. There is no other standard of truth. People who reject widely replicated results are practicing some form of faith-based religion, not science. It is fundamental to the scientific method that experiments trump theory, and replicated experiments compel belief.
Jed Rothwell,
Actually your discussion here directly parallels that of many who support Dr. Wakefield. I’m sure you have an answer for every critique, one that will, to the layman, seem quite valid. You have a website full of peer-reviewed papers that “prove” your point.
The fact of the matter is that Pons and Fleischman created a big news conference that completely overstated the value of the data they had at hand. If you don’t see the parallel, that is understandable. My guess is that Dr. Wakefield’s supprters don’t either. My guess is they don’t like the comparison either.
Jed Rothwell,
you don’t have any idea what I know or don’t know about cold fusion. For all you know, I could be one of the people who reviewed that DoD report.
You are moving further and further into the being exactly like a Wakefield supporter. You are welcome to return to the scientific method yourself.
abcxyz wrote:
“The report from the US Defence Intelligence Agency, which is also recommended, includes the rather lukewarm statement “This body of research has produced evidence that nuclear reactions may be occurring under conditions not previously believed possible.” And this report is seemingly from a single person within the DIA, apparently advised by a cabal of CF believers.”
First, six authors are listed, not one. Second, why would a cabal of believers write a report with a lukewarm statement? Why wouldn’t they write an unambiguously supportive statement?
In point of fact, the review was critiqued for several months by nearly a hundred researchers, most of them in various U.S. military research establishments. Some are in favor of the research and some are opposed, which is why the report includes some lukewarm statements.
A “cabal” is defined as “a clique (often secret) that seeks power usually through intrigue; [a group of people who] engage in plotting or enter into a conspiracy . . .” I am not aware of anyone in the cold fusion field who intrigues or conspires. Most of the researchers are distinguished, tenured professors, Nobel laureates, Fellow of China Lake, Fellow of the Royal Society and so on. They all act openly and publish in journals, and the conferences are sponsored by organizations such as the American Chemical Society and the Italian Physical Society. The field is top-heavy in distinguished professors because there is academic political opposition to the research, and only tenured, big-gun professors can get funded.
Incidentally, you should think twice before declaring that results confirmed by roughly 2,000 distinguished professors are a mistake, or artifacts. You should not read a few papers then to jump conclusions about half-silvered Dewars, and then blithely assume those conclusions also apply to Seebeck calorimeters. That is hubris, and it is sloppy. It is not likely you will so easily find a mistake that these people have not found in 20 years of research. Bear in mind that in the history of experimental science, no widely replicated result has ever been shown wrong. The implications of results have sometimes changed, and sometimes results are shown to be limited, special case. But if thousands of researchers could observe an effect roughly 17,000 times, often at high s/n ratios, and yet that result was still wrong, I do not think the experimental method would work. I think science itself would not work in that case, and we would still be living in caves.
As Prof. Duncan says: “The Scientific Method is a wonderful thing. Use it always, no exceptions!”
Duncan and I find it odd that some people — such as the author here — who claim they support the science method and oppose things like the anti-vaccination hysteria and creationism are also so quick to dismiss cold fusion, often without knowing anything about it.
Rothwell wrote: “But if thousands of researchers could observe an effect roughly 17,000 times, often at high s/n ratios, and yet that result was still wrong, I do not think the experimental method would work.”
Your standard of replication is like that of Loch Ness Monster photographers. The problem is that 17000 blurry photographs of the monster would make its existence less believable, not more, because one might expect that, just by chance, one of the pictures might be clear. Unfortunately, the better the experiments, the smaller the effect, and in the best experiments, there is no effect at all. When you can *show* the public you’re getting heat from water, without using an expert to tell them that’s what’s happening, then I’ll pay attention. (You wouldn’t need Duncan to show that you can get heat from gasoline, even though the chemical energy density is million times lower.)
Rothwell wrote: “abcxyz wrote: “And this report is seemingly from a single person within the DIA, apparently advised by a cabal of CF believers.”
“First, six authors are listed, not one. Second, why would a cabal of believers write a report with a lukewarm statement? Why wouldn’t they write an unambiguously supportive statement?” ”
According to the report, it is “prepared by” one person within the DIA “with contributions from” 5 others, whose indicated affiliations do not include the DIA. Presumably the reason it is not unambiguously supportive, is because the 5 contributors were unable to completely hoodwink the DIA person who prepared it.
“Most of the researchers are distinguished, tenured professors, Nobel laureates, Fellow of China Lake, Fellow of the Royal Society and so on.[…] The field is top-heavy in distinguished professors because there is academic political opposition to the research, and only tenured, big-gun professors can get funded.”
The field is top-heavy with old and senile academics, who have long since blown their wad, because they are the only ones no longer sharp enough to see the folly of it. By the way, which Nobel Laureates are currently active researchers in the field?
abcxyz wrote:
“Unfortunately, the better the experiments, the smaller the effect, and in the best experiments, there is no effect at all.”
That assertion is not in evidence. The best calorimeters, at SRI, the ENEA, the NRL, Toyota and elsewhere, have consistently shown the largest and clearest effects. Some of these instruments cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, so they are very good indeed. It does not take an expensive instrument to measure this effect; a relatively simple calorimeter will do, and in some cases the heat is palpable, with no input energy, but when expensive calorimeters have been used they have produced definitive results in every case I know of.
Regarding your suggestion that a simple, easy public demonstration is called for: Would you also demand that from the Tokamak plasma fusion researchers? Would you demand that an apparent promising breakthrough in cancer first be used to cure human patients before it is funded? I do not think it is a good idea to subject scientific breakthroughs to a strictly practical, commercial standard, or to demand they be made understandable to laymen. In any case, public demonstrations of cold fusion have been done, at Osaka U. and elsewhere. They were much easier to understand than a Tokamak reactor run, and much closer to being a practical source of energy.
” “If CF were real, one good demonstration is all it would take.”
Thousands of good demonstrations have been performed and published. That is why experts such as Prof. Duncan are completely convinced as soon as they look at the data.”
See, by a “good demonstration”, I mean one that convinces anyone. Water in, heat out. Why do you need an expert to prove it. I can prove “gasoline in, heat out”, to anyone.
abcxyz wrote:
“The field is top-heavy with old and senile academics, who have long since blown their wad . . .”
I suggest you refrain from ad hominem attacks against distinguished scientists you know nothing about. It makes you look bad, and it is a logical fallacy.
I also suggest you read the literature before commenting on it. When you say things such as: “. . . the better the experiments, the smaller the effect, and in the best experiments, there is no effect at all” you reveal that you know nothing about the experiments. That also makes you look bad.
abcxyz wrote:
“See, by a ‘good demonstration’, I mean one that convinces anyone. Water in, heat out.”
That is how cold fusion experiments work. Heavy water or deuterium gas goes in (and in some cases electricity is needed) and heat comes out. Also, tritium, helium, x-rays and neutrons. It is fundamentally simple, although the technical papers describe the events in ways that a layman might have difficulty understanding. Many of the calorimeter designs were developed between 1780 (such as the Shell Oil ice calorimeter) and 1840 (Toyota, AMOCO), and are extremely reliable and very well understood. As I mentioned, some experiments produce palpable heat. That obviates the need for instruments. I have seen some that melted ceramic devices with microwatts of input power, which is dramatic proof. At least 6 cells have exploded, producing far more energy than the available chemical fuel could have produced.
Let me put it this way: I do not know why anyone would not be convinced by these results. I do not know why you are not convinced. But I also cannot read people’s minds. I do not know where you are getting your information. I can only evaluate an actual written paper or specific assertion. Melich and I wrote a 40-page evaluation of the 2004 DoE reviewer’s comments. If you would like to prepare a technical review, formal or informal, send it to me and if I find any errors I will be happy to point them out. For example, I can point out that your assertion about “. . . the better the experiments, the smaller the effect” is wrong, and cite some examples.
“Why do you need an expert to prove it.”
We do not need an expert to prove it, although I should say that I learned a great deal from Duncan’s presentations. I know some talented high school students who did good experiments, and attended the ICCF-10 conference. They understood the technical claims perfectly. Non-experts have read the papers at LENR-CANR.org, and it is clear from their correspondence to me that they understand the papers. Perhaps the difficulty of understanding the experiments has been exaggerated.
“A few months after the “60 Minutes” broadcast, Duncan held a seminar for other experts at U. Missouri. You can watch the video on line (see our News section). None of these experts was aware of the status of the research before the seminar. None believed in cold fusion. At the close of the seminar, a speaker asked how many were convinced. Every one of them raised his hand. […] That is why experts such as Prof. Duncan are completely convinced as soon as they look at the data.”
I don’t know who these experts were, or the actual question asked, or the accuracy of the claim of unanimity in that seminar setting. But the last sentence is simply not true. Of a panel of experts hired specifically to evaluate the evidence, only half found the evidence for excess heat compelling, and only one found evidence for nuclear reactions compelling. Even Duncan himself is more cautious than you suggest. I didn’t listen to his talk, but I scanned his slides, and two of them contain the statement: “Excess heat appears to be real.” That doesn’t sound like he’s completely convinced.
abcxyz wrote:
“Of a panel of experts hired specifically to evaluate the evidence, only half found the evidence for excess heat compelling, and only one found evidence for nuclear reactions compelling.”
If you are referring to the 2004 DoE panel, I do not consider them experts, for the reasons spelled out in the paper by Melich and me. It is rather long, involved and not published yet but I can send you a copy if you are interested.
“Even Duncan himself is more cautious than you suggest. I didn’t listen to his talk, but I scanned his slides, and two of them contain the statement: ‘Excess heat appears to be real.’ That doesn’t sound like he’s completely convinced.”
I do not know which slides you refer to. Duncan’s most recent slides, from October 2009, are here:
Click to access S1_O2_Duncan.pdf
Slide 13 is titled:
“Excess Heat Effect IS REAL” [underlined in original]
That sounds unequivocal to me. Bear in mind that academics tend to understate their conclusions.
His lecture was also quite positive. But there were some highly convincing results announced at the conference, from the NRL, Nagoya U. and elsewhere, so that’s not surprising. He has been following this work. His colleagues in the nanoparticle lab at U. Missouri took part in both projects, as noted in the NRL slides. See also Kitamura et al., Phys. Lett. A, 2009. 273(35): p. 3109-3112. (The publisher gave me permission to add this one to our library despite copyright restrictions.) The NRL stuff will soon be published, I hope.
“That assertion is not in evidence. The best calorimeters, at SRI, the ENEA, the NRL, Toyota and elsewhere, have consistently shown the largest and clearest effects.”
Could you provide a reference for the largest and clearest effects? You have often referred to experiments in 1996 where ~ 100 W excess power were observed, and hundreds of MJ heat produced. But the paper you referred to a few posts ago, and the one in this post show a watt or less of power. That sounds like a smaller effect to me. Back in 1995 you reported a demonstration of a 1 kW cold fusion reactor. That has never been heard about since. As time passes, presumably the experiments get better, and yet the output power decreases.
“Regarding your suggestion that a simple, easy public demonstration is called for: Would you also demand that from the Tokamak plasma fusion researchers?”
They’ve already got two: the sun, and the H-bomb. The principle of plasma fusion has never been questioned. It is clearly demonstrated. That’s what’s lacking in cold fusion. Most nuclear physicists don’t believe it is possible.
“I do not think it is a good idea to subject scientific breakthroughs to a strictly practical, commercial standard, or to demand they be made understandable to laymen.”
Obviously not, in general. Some concepts are complicated, and best left to experts. But some things are simple. If someone claims heavier-than-air flight, they should be able to convince anyone. If someone claims conversion of water into heat, they should be able to demonstrate it to anyone, at least after 20 years of trying, and while they are simultaneously claiming it can power the planet.
“Let me put it this way: I do not know why anyone would not be convinced by these results. I do not know why you are not convinced.”
Because in one breath you tell me the reaction produces one million times more energy per molecule than chemical reactions like combustion, and in the next you tell me they can’t scale it up beyond a watt or so of output power.
“If you are referring to the 2004 DoE panel, I do not consider them experts,”
That makes sense if your criterion is that an expert is one who agrees with you. I don’t consider the attendees at that seminar experts. Big deal.
The DOE considered the panel members to be experts. That’s good enough for me.
Mr. Rothwell complains:
Actually, given the problems they’ve had, if the folks researching the Tokamak fusion reactors were to claim that they had a net production of energy, I would expect a simple, easy public demonstration.
The perseveration of Mr. Rothwell is a perfect parallel to the perseveration of the supporters of Dr. Wakefield. Despite a persistent lack of evidence and in the face of mounting evidence that any “effect” was either error or fraud, the “true believers” will not (or cannot) let go of the fantasy.
As for cold fusion – we know it exists, so that’s not the problem. The problem is that nobody can set up a cold fusion reactor that clearly demonstrates a positive net yield of energy.
And even if the best calorimeters in the world can show an infinitesimal net production of energy, what use is that? Will it be practical to have a house-sized cold fusion reactor that can produce enough energy to light a small compact fluorescent bulb?
Pons and Fleischmann “discovered” cold fusion in 1989. It is now 2010. In the intervening 20 years, nobody has found a way to make cold fusion unambiguously produce energy. I maintain an open mind about cold fusion – I’m always open to data, including data showing that it is indistinguishable from “no fusion”.
Prometheus
abcxyz wrote:
“Could you provide a reference for the largest and clearest effects?”
That’s a bit complicated because the largest effects are not always the clearest ones. For example, 20 W output with zero input and an excellent calorimeter (Energetics Tech.) is clearer than 30 W input 100 W output, and a somewhat less accurate but robust high temperature calorimeter (Toyota). Both are clear though. Energetics is shown in papers by Dardik and in the ENEA slides by Duncan (listed above), and the Toyota high temp stuff is here:
Click to access RouletteTresultsofi.pdf
It gets even more complicated because the Energetics Tech cathode is less than 1 g whereas the Toyota ones were 3 or 4 g, and the ZrO-Pd gas loading nanoparticle powder materials have only a small amount of Pd and weigh a fraction of a gram, yet they produce several watts.
“You have often referred to experiments in 1996 where ~ 100 W excess power were observed, and hundreds of MJ heat produced.”
See Roulette. People have not been trying to produce high power in the last 10 years because it is dangerous. The cells tend to explode. Better to produce less than 10 W and use a more precise calorimeter.
“But the paper you referred to a few posts ago, and the one in this post show a watt or less of power.”
I believe that was McKubre. The peak was about 28% of input power (p. 21) which would be about 3 W. That’s what it showed in other papers.
“That sounds like a smaller effect to me. Back in 1995 you reported a demonstration of a 1 kW cold fusion reactor. That has never been heard about since.”
That was probably Patterson’s device. A very large cathode. Patterson’s co-worker and grandson Reding died of a stroke soon after that, very young, and Patterson stopped working. He himself died a few years later.
Other attempts to scale up, by Mizuno and some Chinese workers, have resulted in explosions. See the photos of destroyed cells here:
http://lenr-canr.org/Experiments.htm#PhotosAccidents
I think it is unwise to scale up before complete control is established.
“As time passes, presumably the experiments get better, and yet the output power decreases.”
That is incorrect. The instruments are far better than they used to be but the output power is higher; it is produced more reliably and easily, with close to 100% reproducibility in some labs; input power has been reduced or eliminated; the ratio of heat to metal has been reduced by a factor of 100; and start up time has been reduced from 2 weeks to 20 minutes or so (depending on the technique). The only thing left to achieve is better control over the reaction, to avoid explosions.
I am unable to post here for some reason . . . perhaps because the message has hyperlinks. Here is a version without any.
abcxyz wrote:
“Could you provide a reference for the largest and clearest effects?”
That’s a bit complicated because the largest effects are not always the clearest ones. For example, 20 W output with zero input and an excellent calorimeter (Energetics Tech.) is clearer than 30 W input 100 W output, and a somewhat less accurate but robust high temperature calorimeter (Toyota). Both are clear though. Energetics is shown in papers by Dardik and in the ENEA slides by Duncan (listed above), and the Toyota high temp stuff is by Roulette (see).
It gets even more complicated because the Energetics Tech cathode is less than 1 g whereas the Toyota ones were 3 or 4 g, and the ZrO-Pd gas loading nanoparticle powder materials have only a small amount of Pd and weigh a fraction of a gram, yet they produce several watts.
“You have often referred to experiments in 1996 where ~ 100 W excess power were observed, and hundreds of MJ heat produced.”
See Roulette. People have not been trying to produce high power in the last 10 years because it is dangerous. The cells tend to explode. Better to produce less than 10 W and use a more precise calorimeter.
“But the paper you referred to a few posts ago, and the one in this post show a watt or less of power.”
I believe that was McKubre. The peak was about 28% of input power (p. 21) which would be about 3 W. That’s what it showed in other papers.
“That sounds like a smaller effect to me. Back in 1995 you reported a demonstration of a 1 kW cold fusion reactor. That has never been heard about since.”
That was probably Patterson’s device. A very large cathode. Patterson’s co-worker and grandson Reding died of a stroke soon after that, very young, and Patterson stopped working. He himself died a few years later.
Other attempts to scale up, by Mizuno and some Chinese workers, have resulted in explosions. There are some photos of exploded cells at LENR-CANR.org. I think it is unwise to scale up before complete control is established.
“As time passes, presumably the experiments get better, and yet the output power decreases.”
That is incorrect. The instruments are far better than they used to be, but the output power is higher; it is produced far more reliably and easily; reproducibility is greatly improved; input power has been greatly reduced or eliminated; the ratio of heat to metal has been reduced by a factor of 100; and start up time has been reduced from 2 weeks to 20 minutes or so (depending on the technique).
I am unable to post here for some reason. Anyone who has serious questions or would like me to address the issues raised above should please contact me via LENR-CANR dot org.
Here is part of a message I drafted that I cannot upload. I am tired of trying . . . if abcxyz wants to see the rest, please contact me.
abcxyz wrote:
“Could you provide a reference for the largest and clearest effects?”
That’s a bit complicated because the largest effects are not always the clearest ones. For example, 20 W output with zero input and an excellent calorimeter (Energetics Tech.) is clearer than 30 W input 100 W output, and a somewhat less accurate but robust high temperature calorimeter (Toyota). Both are clear though. Energetics is shown in papers by Dardik and in the ENEA slides by Duncan (listed above), and the Toyota high temp stuff is by Roulette (see).
It gets even more complicated because the Energetics Tech cathode is less than 1 g whereas the Toyota ones were 3 or 4 g, and the ZrO-Pd gas loading nanoparticle powder materials have only a small amount of Pd and weigh a fraction of a gram, yet they produce several watts. . . .
Here is part of a response I cannot upload. If you wish to see the rest, contact me.
abcxyz wrote:
“Could you provide a reference for the largest and clearest effects?”
That’s a bit complicated because the largest effects are not always the clearest ones. For example, 20 W output with zero input and an excellent calorimeter (Energetics Tech.) is clearer than 30 W input 100 W output, and a somewhat less accurate but robust high temperature calorimeter (Toyota). . . . Energetics is shown in papers by Dardik and in the ENEA slides by Duncan (listed above), and the Toyota high temp stuff is by Roulette (see).
It gets even more complicated because the Energetics Tech cathode is less than 1 g whereas the Toyota ones were 3 or 4 g . . .
Most messages fail to post. Must be a glitch. Sayonara.
Jed Rothwell,
I count 17 posts by you out of a total of 36 (including this one). I think it fair to claim that you have had your say.
I am willing to give some leeway to those who may have a single topic that consumes much of their time. But I think that is done.
What you have missed is the one great difference between Cold Fusion/Wakefield’s work and Wakefield’s follwers/yourself. Namely, you are not a danger to public health or my kid’s health.
“That’s a bit complicated because the largest effects are not always the clearest ones.”
Isn’t that what abcxyz said? The clearer results show a smaller effect.
You mention some names, but the only specific reference you give for a large effect is to a non-refereed paper from 1996. That also seems to confirm that the recent effects are smaller.
“People have not been trying to produce high power in the last 10 years because it is dangerous. The cells tend to explode. Better to produce less than 10 W and use a more precise calorimeter.”
This is an explicit confirmation of the claim. The more recent, better experiments show smaller effects. Whether they’re trying or not, the effect is smaller. And most people would probably agree that if they could produce a bigger effect, whether it’s an explosion or not, they most certainly would. (And chemical explosions don’t count; hydrogen is explosive, after all.) ”
” ” Back in 1995 you reported a demonstration of a 1 kW cold fusion reactor. That has never been heard about since.” That was probably Patterson’s device. A very large cathode. Patterson’s co-worker and grandson Reding died of a stroke soon after that, very young, and Patterson stopped working. He himself died a few years later.”
Newton died too. We still have F=ma.
” “As time passes, presumably the experiments get better, and yet the output power decreases.” That is incorrect. The instruments are far better than they used to be, but the output power is higher;…”
But above you verified that the output power is getting lower! The highest claims of output power (> 100 watts) were clearly in the 90s. In the last decade, you said the output has been less than 10 watts, and the recent, oh-so-promising gas-loading experiments, like the 2009 Kitamura paper you recommended, show only a fraction of a watt. Smaller and smaller. It is a defining characteristic of pathological science.
Compare that to a discovery that is real, like high temperature superconductivity, where they seem to break the temperature record every year, the most recent at about -20C in Jan 2010.
dionysus wrote:
“‘That’s a bit complicated because the largest effects are not always the clearest ones.’
Isn’t that what abcxyz said? The clearer results show a smaller effect.”
abcxyz said this is a rule; I said it is true sometimes, for some experiments, for specific reasons. In general, however, the best instruments have shown both the largest effects and also by far the largest signal to noise ratios. Also, as I said, input power is lower or absent, which makes it easier to measure output.
“You mention some names, but the only specific reference you give for a large effect is to a non-refereed paper from 1996.”
Most items in the LENR-CANR library are not peer-reviewed, because of copyright restrictions.
“That also seems to confirm that the recent effects are smaller.”
Only when people deliberately scale down.
“And most people would probably agree that if they could produce a bigger effect, whether it’s an explosion or not, they most certainly would.”
In that case, most people would be wrong. I think you would be crazy to run a cold fusion experiment larger than 10 or 20 W. I wouldn’t want to be in the room when you do it. Any fool who wants to risk his life for no reason can use 100 g of material and get a huge reaction, but sensible people use a fraction of a gram instead.
“(And chemical explosions don’t count; hydrogen is explosive, after all.)”
Of course they do not count, but there is not enough free hydrogen in these cells to cause more than a tiny pop.
“‘As time passes, presumably the experiments get better, and yet the output power decreases.” That is incorrect. The instruments are far better than they used to be, but the output power is higher;…’
But above you verified that the output power is getting lower!”
No, I said it is getting higher in most experiments. In the mid 1990s most reactions were 0.1 W to 3.0 W, which was at most ~30% of input. Now they are 10 or 20 W. However, people are not trying to get 100 to 1,000 W with giant cathodes, as Fleischmann, Mizuno, Patterson and others were doing some years ago. They have reduced the cathode size by a factor of ~50, and by a factor of several hundred in Kitamura’s experiment.
“The highest claims of output power (> 100 watts) were clearly in the 90s. In the last decade, you said the output has been less than 10 watts, and the recent, oh-so-promising gas-loading experiments, like the 2009 Kitamura paper you recommended, show only a fraction of a watt. Smaller and smaller.”
Larger and larger, compared to the mass of reactant, input power, and s/n ratio of the instruments. The absolute power is not important. Kitamura et al. have room to fit much more powder in the cell. After publishing that paper I believe they tested a larger sample and the reaction scaled up proportionally even more than the increase in mass. It also works every time, which is a huge improvement over the 1990s.
The NRL ran that experiment hundreds of times in a row, with automated equipment, and it worked every time. This happens to be a very small reaction from a few milligrams of material. But again, there is a reason. A small sample is used because it can be completely degassed and the experiment restarted from scratch quickly, within hours, rather than days. Also, the microcalorimeter can only measure small power levels. The purpose is to analyze the reaction, not to produce impressive levels of power. As McKubre said on “60 Minutes,” “we could have boiled tea years ago.” But DARPA is not paying him to boil tea: they are paying him to understand and control the reaction, and make it more reproducible.
” “’That’s a bit complicated because the largest effects are not always the clearest ones.’
Isn’t that what abcxyz said? The clearer results show a smaller effect.”
abcxyz said this is a rule; I said it is true sometimes, for some experiments, for specific reasons. In general, however, the best instruments have shown both the largest effects and also by far the largest signal to noise ratios. ”
Then it should not be complicated to provide a reference for both the largest and the clearest effect. Did the 1 kW heater use the best instruments? Why was it never formally published?
“Also, as I said, input power is lower or absent, which makes it easier to measure output.”
Exactly. An experiment with no input power represents a better experiment. But the net output power is lower. Better experiment, smaller effect.
“Most items in the LENR-CANR library are not peer-reviewed, because of copyright restrictions.”
Just give the reference. Your LENR-CANR library is not the only resource on the planet.
““That also seems to confirm that the recent effects are smaller.” Only when people deliberately scale down.”
Which is what you say they are doing. Better, scaled down experiment, smaller effect.
“I think you would be crazy to run a cold fusion experiment larger than 10 or 20 W. I wouldn’t want to be in the room when you do it. Any fool who wants to risk his life for no reason can use 100 g of material and get a huge reaction, but sensible people use a fraction of a gram instead.”
So, there’s no middle ground between “too hot to handle”, and “too small to convince”? I don’t believe it. There is all sorts of technology to handle high power output. I believe any of the CF people would kill to be able to set up an explosion that could be conclusively attributed to fusion.
“No, I said it is getting higher in most experiments. In the mid 1990s most reactions were 0.1 W to 3.0 W, which was at most ~30% of input. Now they are 10 or 20 W. ”
Could you provide a reference for a 20 W CF experiment since 2000? The only reference you have provided was below 1 W. In any case, the highest reported output in the 90s was much higher than the highest reported since 2000.
“However, people are not trying to get 100 to 1,000 W with giant cathodes, as Fleischmann, Mizuno, Patterson and others were doing some years ago. ”
That’s because they are not able to do so, when the experiment is carefully designed.
“They have reduced the cathode size by a factor of ~50, and by a factor of several hundred in Kitamura’s experiment.”
And as a result the claimed output powers are lower. Better experiments. Lower power.
“Larger and larger, compared to the mass of reactant, input power, and s/n ratio of the instruments. ”
But still: a smaller and smaller effect. The easiest way to make a systematic error seem like a bigger effect, is to artificially reduce your expectations.
“The absolute power is not important. ”
Of course it’s important. What’s the use of an energy source that can’t power a single light on your Christmas tree? If you claim vast power resources, a hundred watts should not be too much to ask. And progressively lower outputs really looks bad.
“Kitamura et al. have room to fit much more powder in the cell. After publishing that paper I believe they tested a larger sample and the reaction scaled up proportionally even more than the increase in mass.”
I’m not impressed by what you believe. If it scales up, I’m sure it will be trumpeted from the rooftops. I’m not holding my breath.
“The purpose is to analyze the reaction, not to produce impressive levels of power. ”
Your first purpose should be to make it convincing. An impressive power level is needed for that.
dionysus,
This discussion is over. You are welcome to hold it via email with Jed Rothwell.
As much as I hate to keep feeding the monomaniacal obsessions of Mr. Rothwell, I did some “back of the envelope” calculations to see what cold fusion would look like. Since nuclear fusion is not my field, I apologise for any mistakes I might make.
Cold fusion – so far as I can find – involves the fusion of “heavy water” (deuterium oxide), and so must be D-D (deuterium-deuterium) fusion, which uses two atoms of deuterium to produce one atom of helium-3 and one neutron or one atom of tritium and one proton.
Just doing simple conversions (and ignoring the difficulty of capturing energy from neutrons), this reaction should yield about 2.93 X 10^-19 joules per atom of deuterium fused.
To produce 1 watt (1 joule per second) of power, the reactor would have to (if it were 100% efficient and no energy was lost to the momentum of the neutron) fuse 3.42 X 10^18 atoms of deuterium per second, producing 8.6 X 10^17 neutrons per second. That’s almost one quintillion neutrons per second for one watt of power at 100% efficiency.
That’s part of my confusion – I can’t see how that many neutrons would be missed. Maybe D-D fusion in an electrochemical cell doesn’t produce neutrons, but nobody has shown that yet.
The other part of my confusion is the issue – raised by Mr. Rothwell – of the larger reactors “exploding”. One joule of energy will raise the temperature of a gram of water about 4.2 degrees C, thus one watt (joule per second) of power (if completely dissipated in the heavy water) would raise one gram of water by 4.2 degrees per second.
Even if the reactor only contained a gram of water, it would take 19 seconds to bring it boiling temperature from room temperature and it would take another 38 minutes to get it to actually boil (assuming no heat loss by radiation or conduction). Multiply that (38 minutes per gram of heavy water) by the actual amount of heavy water in the reactor and divide by the number of watts produced and you get (roughly) the time it would take to reach boiling temperature.
I can’t see legitimate researchers being surprised by this and having their equipment explode. After all, if a lowly biologist can figure it out, why can’t the chemists and physicists supposedly doing these experiments? Something seems screwy to me.
Prometheus
Ooops! My bad – I forgot to convert MeV to eV, so the numbers should read:
Sorry about that!
Prometheus