David Gould

I have not read that book. I will look out for it.

However, the description in the book alleging deliberate deceptions carried out by the two chemists had nothing to do with numbers. They had to do with double blind confirmation tests where the double blind part was broken by the two chemists so they could aline their results with those of the independent laboratories.

They had no legitimate results so they had to make them match.

They initially thought they had something huge.
They announced it to the media in an effort to beat others they thought might be close.
They soon realised they had nothing.
They spun it out for a long as possible, hoping that they would find something before they were totally discredited.
In desperation, they agreed to a double blind experiment while at the same time working out a way to circumvent it.
It wa to hard to do without people finding out and thus it became obvious that they were circumventing it.

Cold fusion may well be possible. Pons and Fleischman, however, did not manage it.

It is interesting how you deny that you are arguing for a conspiracy and then say that effectively there is one.

Amazing - all those millions of scientists Working Together To Hide The Truth Of Cold Fusion. They must be doing it in their breaks from working on the Evilutionist Conspiracy...

Corwin

No... the 'psudeo-conspiracy' is mostly one of apathy... most people just don't care enough to poke through the data. Of those few that do, most have some bias one way or the other. In general, the loudest bias is for 'traditional' science. (Maybe not the strongest bias.... but almost always the loudest.)

David Gould

This sounds ridiculous to me. Cold Fusion would be the biggest money spinner of the century if it was discovered. It is like all those people who talk about scientists ignoring free energy machines.

Guess what? They ignore them because they do not work. Like Pons and Fleishman's Cold Fusion.

Corwin

And to all the people who HAVE gotten positive results? What, they're all just delusional kooks?

Or are you willing to accept that there is something going on here that we don't yet understand well enough to replicate it?

David Gould

I am willing to accept that Cold Fusion may be possible and may be worked out one day.

I am not willing to accept that Pons and Fleischman acheived anything except a public relations disaster for science in general.

With regard to not being able to duplicate, do you realise how silly that sounds?

If I set up an experiment that does something and someone else sets up and experiment that doesn't, and further to that most people cannot duplicate it, is it more reasonable to conclude that:

1.) A small number of people are making errors or
2.) A large number of people are making errors?

When you add to that the fact that there is no sound theoretical basis for the work done (and thus no testable predictions except for the predictions of 'normal' physics - eg, neutron production), you have hardly any reason to call it science at all.

Scientific research depends on predictable, repeatable results. When you get the unpredicted, then you need to be able to repeat it to make sure you eliminate error.

If you cannot repeat it, the assumption should be that the result was due to error.

If you can repeat it over and over again (and, more importantly, if others can independantly repeat it) then you have the start of something.

Corwin

Error is one possibility.

Leaving out an unknown variable is another.

The theoretical basis for cold fusion isn't all that different from the theoretical basis for hot fusion when it comes down to it. How exactly do you think you get a Tokamak to work? Oh, that's right... high density. (Compression of hydrogen through either magnetic force or through laser entrapment.)

Cold fusion? High density saturation of electrodes made from a material known for being highly porous to hydrogen enabling low level hydrogen fusion? Hmmmm....

I agree it isn't a proof, but saying that there's no theoretical basis to it is patently false.

David Gould

If you do the experiment exactly as described, how is it possible to leave out an unknown variable? Sounds like pseudo science to me - "Oh, it didn't work for you because of some unknown thing that we always manage to get around".

As to the theorieticl basis, I was talking about the Pons Fleishmann one specifically. Their theoretical basis was a joke - if they had spoken to a physicist in their own university they would have known that and therefore known that the results they got were impossible. That would have saved them a lot of embarrassment.

As I said, cold fusion may be possible but not in the way that Pons did it and not in the way he said it can be done.

They fucked up big time. People should accept that and move on.

Corwin

Actually it's more along the lines of 'oh it didn't work for you... hmm... wonder why not? What did you miss or what did we miss and not tell you about?'

David Gould

Yes, and Pons insisted over and over and over again that his experiment was so simple that anyone could do it.

Uh huh.

All of the cold fusion claims that I have seen are very similar - simple, bench top science experiments that give fantastic results ... except when they fail, in which case there must be "something else". This is the exact claim made be free energy nuts. 'Cosmic background energy' is one of the most quoted reasons at the moment - "obviously, your lab shields it out too well while mine lets just enough in..."

Great pseudoscience. Fantastic. I can make up whatever I want and it is an invincible explanation. Just keep those research dollars rolling in...

Corwin

Oh yes.... all that money pouring into zero point energy and cold fusion research.... riiiiight.

Wake up and smell the maple nut crunch. Fifteen BILLION dollars for hot fusion research in this country alone. Do you honestly think the rest comes anywhere close?

Possibly you could show me a Tokamak reactor that's any more successful than ZPE or CF? Oops. Didn't think so.

The others have just as much theoretical basis, and work about as often. (Tokamaks frequently fail too...) but it's hot fusion that gets the money.

Why are you so obsessive about 'proving this wrong?' You have a research budget to protect? Or just an axe to grind?