Freethought & Rationalism Archive

tronvillain · 03-05-2002, 07:03 PM

Jobar:

Quote:

And- Corwin, cold fusion is pseudoscience. The fact is, the only people saying that there is some useful science being covered up, are frauds attempting to sell 'cold fusion generators' to the gullible public.

Of course, there are those who are still attempting to produce cold fusion, and still failing.

David Gould · 03-05-2002, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Corwin:
<strong>Yeah it would be.... but then cold fusion was verified too.... didn't matter. Still got brushed under the carpet. (It works, sorta. It works well enough that any reasonable person would say 'look at it some more,' unfortunately when popular opinion has been crafted to say you're a nut it's tough to get funding.)</strong>

Cold Fusion was not verified. It was 'science by press conference'. If it worked, people would use it. The guys who first claimed it are not saying much now, are they?

I guess they are another victim of that conspiracy that all those scientists seem to be a part of...

graden1 · 03-05-2002, 07:59 PM

IIRC, Pons & Fleischman (the cold-fusion guys) reported neutrons were produced in their experiment, and subsequent tests could not reproduce their results; no neutrons.

So this latest story appears to be heading in the same direction. I'd love to hear that this works, for a great many reasons, but I won't be surprised if it's another non-starter.

Later,

Grady

Vorkosigan · 03-06-2002, 01:53 AM

Hi Corwin!

The Japanese spent buckets on cold fusion. Nothing. It was a total failure.

Michael

Bill · 03-06-2002, 03:07 AM

Did anybody pay any attention to the required ingredients? Acetone made with deuterium? Don't expect to see gallon bottles of that stuff at your local supermarket! It may have changed, of course, but then again (Sept. 11), it may have not. IIRC, anything with deuterium in it was handled as a "nuclear controlled substance." It also isn't anywhere near as common as ordinary hydrogen, so the "expense vs. useful benefit" tradeoff for this technology, even if proven to actually work, will make it probably not a consumer technology.

The real usefulness, of course, is for further research.....

== Bill

Corwin · 03-06-2002, 10:00 AM

Yes... cold fusion is a failure... oops... somebody better let the Navy know... (they're still working on it and, like most other researchers, have had partial success.)

The idea that cold fusion doesn't work came from attempts by researchers at MIT and Caltech to replicate the experiment. The Caltech attempt, (amazingly enough) has mathematical errors. MIT's results? Their process has been publically questioned... (this didn't get much press for some reason...)

It's very easy to just brush people off as crackpots and quacks. Especially when they're misrepresented. Look at what's happened here? Have I talked about some huge scientific and political conspiracy to suppress Nikola Tesla's invention of Cold Fusion?!?!?!?!? *foam dribbles from the corners of his mouth*

*melodrama off*

No. This is actually a very cautious, rational, and scientific response. There are some facts to look at here.
Fact: Cold fusion works. The cold fusion experiment HAS been replicated, but not reliably. Some people have decided that the fact that everyone can't do it every time means that the whole thing is bunk and should be written off. This is not the case. (More people have reported success than failure.) The scientific approach is to admit that there's something going on in cold fusion that we don't (yet) understand, and continue looking at it until we DO understand what's going on.

Is there an attempt to suppress it? Yes... in some circles. Egos run high in advanced physics... this is to be expected. These people have spent years of their lives studying this topic, and have a lot emotionally invested in their theories. Hot fusion is currently king. Let me ask you something.... is hot fusion 'real science?' If so, please explain the difference, considering that a Tokamak has roughly the same failure rate as cold fusion? (You can have it reliable, or you can have it efficient... can't have both.)

MortalWombat · 03-06-2002, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Fact: Cold fusion works. The cold fusion experiment HAS been replicated, but not reliably.

References, please.

Quote:

Is there an attempt to suppress it? Yes... in some circles.

I really don't want to get into conspiracy theories.

Corwin · 03-06-2002, 12:57 PM

<a href="http://www.mv.com/ipusers/zeropoint/IEHTML/keydata.html" target="_blank">http://www.mv.com/ipusers/zeropoint/IEHTML/keydata.html</a>

How's that for a start?

Again, the experiments aren't 100% successful... however, rather than simply brushing them off I'd suggest it might be a better idea to find out WHY it sometimes works, instead of the knee jerk 'oh you're just biased/wrong/crazy/don't know what you're doing' reaction.

There isn't a conspiracy exactly, but there might as well be. The thing is, hot fusion is where everything's at. People have a lot of time, money, energy, materiel, and ego invested in it. Now this comes along, disproves (in theory at least) several key theories involving atomic energy in general and fusion in particular... and they aren't even physicists? (Pons and Fleischmann are both chemists.) Add to this the early efforts of Steve Jones.... (a rival of Pons and Fleischmann) and you come up with a lot of time and energy directed against it.

David Gould · 03-06-2002, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Corwin:
<strong><a href="http://www.mv.com/ipusers/zeropoint/IEHTML/keydata.html" target="_blank">http://www.mv.com/ipusers/zeropoint/IEHTML/keydata.html</a>

How's that for a start?

Again, the experiments aren't 100% successful... however, rather than simply brushing them off I'd suggest it might be a better idea to find out WHY it sometimes works, instead of the knee jerk 'oh you're just biased/wrong/crazy/don't know what you're doing' reaction.

There isn't a conspiracy exactly, but there might as well be. The thing is, hot fusion is where everything's at. People have a lot of time, money, energy, materiel, and ego invested in it. Now this comes along, disproves (in theory at least) several key theories involving atomic energy in general and fusion in particular... and they aren't even physicists? (Pons and Fleischmann are both chemists.) Add to this the early efforts of Steve Jones.... (a rival of Pons and Fleischmann) and you come up with a lot of time and energy directed against it.</strong>

I recommend you read the book 'Cold Fusion: The scientific fiasco of the century'.

It provides details of exactly how Pons and Fleishmann deliberately fucked over the attempts to verify their results.

They did not attempt legal action over this book because they knew that the author had the proof that they had done so.

Corwin · 03-06-2002, 01:53 PM

How about you read Nuclear Transmutation: The Reality of Cold Fusion, by Dr. Tadahiko Mizuno? In it he describes the reality of the procedure, as well as the media feeding frenzy over the whole affair.

You can make numbers say anything you want. The same arguments that have been made against Pons and Fleishmann have also been made against MIT and Caltech, with at least as much backing behind the argument.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-05-2002, 07:59 PM	#13
graden1 Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Columbia, Maryland, USA Posts: 120	IIRC, Pons & Fleischman (the cold-fusion guys) reported neutrons were produced in their experiment, and subsequent tests could not reproduce their results; no neutrons. So this latest story appears to be heading in the same direction. I'd love to hear that this works, for a great many reasons, but I won't be surprised if it's another non-starter. Later, Grady

03-06-2002, 01:53 AM	#14
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Hi Corwin! The Japanese spent buckets on cold fusion. Nothing. It was a total failure. Michael

03-06-2002, 03:07 AM	#15
Bill Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Gatorville, Florida Posts: 4,334	Did anybody pay any attention to the required ingredients? Acetone made with *deuterium? Don't expect to see gallon bottles of that stuff at your local supermarket! It may have changed, of course, but then again (Sept. 11), it may have not. IIRC, anything with deuterium in it was handled as a "nuclear controlled substance." It also isn't anywhere near as common as ordinary hydrogen, so the "expense vs. useful benefit" tradeoff for this technology, even if proven to actually work, will make it probably not a consumer technology. The real* usefulness, of course, is for further research..... == Bill

03-06-2002, 10:00 AM	#16
Corwin Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 4,369	Yes... cold fusion is a failure... oops... somebody better let the Navy know... (they're still working on it and, like most other researchers, have had partial success.) The idea that cold fusion doesn't work came from attempts by researchers at MIT and Caltech to replicate the experiment. The Caltech attempt, (amazingly enough) has mathematical errors. MIT's results? Their process has been publically questioned... (this didn't get much press for some reason...) It's very easy to just brush people off as crackpots and quacks. Especially when they're misrepresented. Look at what's happened here? Have I talked about some huge scientific and political conspiracy to suppress Nikola Tesla's invention of Cold Fusion?!?!?!?!? foam dribbles from the corners of his mouth melodrama off No. This is actually a very cautious, rational, and scientific response. There are some facts to look at here. Fact: Cold fusion works. The cold fusion experiment HAS been replicated, but not reliably. Some people have decided that the fact that everyone can't do it every time means that the whole thing is bunk and should be written off. This is not the case. (More people have reported success than failure.) The scientific approach is to admit that there's something going on in cold fusion that we don't (yet) understand, and continue looking at it until we DO understand what's going on. Is there an attempt to suppress it? Yes... in some circles. Egos run high in advanced physics... this is to be expected. These people have spent years of their lives studying this topic, and have a lot emotionally invested in their theories. Hot fusion is currently king. Let me ask you something.... is hot fusion 'real science?' If so, please explain the difference, considering that a Tokamak has roughly the same failure rate as cold fusion? (You can have it reliable, or you can have it efficient... can't have both.)

03-06-2002, 12:57 PM	#18
Corwin Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 4,369	<a href="http://www.mv.com/ipusers/zeropoint/IEHTML/keydata.html" target="_blank">http://www.mv.com/ipusers/zeropoint/IEHTML/keydata.html</a> How's that for a start? Again, the experiments aren't 100% successful... however, rather than simply brushing them off I'd suggest it might be a better idea to find out WHY it sometimes works, instead of the knee jerk 'oh you're just biased/wrong/crazy/don't know what you're doing' reaction. There isn't a conspiracy exactly, but there might as well be. The thing is, hot fusion is where everything's at. People have a lot of time, money, energy, materiel, and ego invested in it. Now this comes along, disproves (in theory at least) several key theories involving atomic energy in general and fusion in particular... and they aren't even physicists? (Pons and Fleischmann are both chemists.) Add to this the early efforts of Steve Jones.... (a rival of Pons and Fleischmann) and you come up with a lot of time and energy directed against it.

03-06-2002, 01:53 PM	#20
Corwin Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 4,369	How about you read Nuclear Transmutation: The Reality of Cold Fusion, by Dr. Tadahiko Mizuno? In it he describes the reality of the procedure, as well as the media feeding frenzy over the whole affair. You can make numbers say anything you want. The same arguments that have been made against Pons and Fleishmann have also been made against MIT and Caltech, with at least as much backing behind the argument.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.