Dear Dr. Spears,
I read your exchange with Jed and would like to add a few comments from
the perspective of a conventional scientist who not only has published
many conventional papers, but a fair number in the cold fusion field as
well.
I agree with you, the original F-P paper was poorly written and based on
inadequate study. However, this is irrelevant to whether cold fusion is
real or not, or to its sad history. I also agree that other bad papers
have been published on the subject. If this situation were important,
most fields of science would suffer similar rejection. So, what is
important in accepting the reality of cold fusion?
The usual criteria are reproducibility and an accepted explanation. The
claims of F-P not only have been replicated hundreds of times
world-wide, but at least 5 other methods have been successful. The
successful methods all show common features with respect to producing
the anomalous effects. In other words, not only have the claims been
reproduced, but the patterns of behavior have been duplicated as well.
In addition, the relationship between energy production and nuclear
product has been demonstrated at least 5 times. Several of the claims
are now being explored at SRI and NRL, with government support. How much
more evidence do you need?
As for an explanation, dozens of models have been published, some of
which are being seriously debated by "conventional" scientists, a
treatment not unlike that applied to many "accepted" theories in
science. What has not yet happened is the discovery of a demonstrated
method to make large amounts of energy and/or nuclear products.
Nevertheless, several of the methods have been so carefully studied that
little doubt remains about anomalous power and nuclear products being
produced. You do not have to take my word for this because the papers
can be easily obtained at www.LENR-CANR.org. At the very least, the
data are sufficiently good to warrant serious debate rather than
outright rejection.
Now let me discuss hot fusion. Billions of dollars have been spent
trying to develop several methods. While energy and nuclear products
are obviously produced, the methods have not been successful in reaching
the stated goal. In addition, once the physics problems have been
solved, some very difficult engineering problems remain. It is still
not clear if materials having a suitable lifetime for the first wall can
be manufactured. In addition, the need to harvest energy from the
neutron flux forces use of circulating liquid metals, a very dangerous
condition. Frankly, I do not see this method of energy production ever
being used because by the time these problems are solved, if possible,
other simpler methods will be developed. What is your reaction to this
problem? Would not the possibility of CF being real be a good backup?
Regards,
Ed Storms
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: I suggest you read the literature before commenting on
Fleischmann and Pons
Dear Dr. Spears,
Frank Znidarsic forwarded a comment you made regarding cold fusion:
"After all, it was through that route that the poor experimentation that
led Fleischmann and Pons to go public rather than publish scientifically
were made fools of in the end."
Whether the experimentation was poor or good is a matter of opinion, but
your statements are incorrect as a matter of fact. A paper by
Fleischmann & Pons was accepted for publication before the University of
Utah went public with their work. After the paper was published, the
effects they observed were widely replicated, often at very high signal
to noise ratios. Excess heat has been measured at Sigma 90 and above,
and tritium has been observed at rates ranging from 50 times to several
million times background. By September 1990, the effect had been
replicated by over 80 institutions including China Lake, Los Alamos, Oak
Ridge, BARC India, Brookhaven and so on. In the years since then,
although there has been extreme opposition to the subject from
mainstream institutions, several hundred peer-reviewed papers describing
positive replications have been published in leading journals of
chemistry and electrochemistry, and in some physics journals including
the Japanese Journal of Applied Physics. Approximately two thousand
other papers have been published in conference proceedings.
To be blunt, the extreme opposition to the subject comes mainly from
people like you, who make foolish and unwarranted comments about cold
fusion without first reading the literature. I suggest you review some
of the papers. Our web site features full text copies of over 400 of
these papers. See:
http://lenr-canr.org/
Sincerely,
Jed Rothwell
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From: Bill Spears <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I suggest you read the literature before commenting on
Fleischmann and Pons
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 23:31:48 +0200
To: Jed Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Dear Jed,
I stick by my statement that it was the lack of proper peer review of
the Fleischmann/Pons paper that let them down in the end. There were so
many flaws in reasoning and explanation in their paper that if it hadn't
been so astounding a conclusion and from one (Fleischmann) such eminent
scientist (FRS) I'm sure it would never have been accepted.
Many then claimed to have replicated their results, a natural humann
failing (the I told you so syndrome) and many claimed they were not
replicable, and those who did the latter were more reputable labs with
better equipment and more careful experimenters, so their results won
out in the end. But it is clear that also bad science gets published so
the peer review process isn't perfect. But without it there is nothing,
so it is better than that.
The fact that there are loads of papers written about cold fusion
doesn't make it real. There are loads of books written about astrology
but that doesn't make it real either. There is clearly something going
on (same probably with astrology), but there are also some very bad
experimentalists out there, and poor reviewers, and its easy to baffle
people with science - so few really understand it. There is usually a
simpler explanation. Even the US DOE has decided to put some more funds
aside to see whether they can nail down the phenomena at work, but so
far one has to say the jury's out. Not yet proven either way.
Meanwhile, we have to go with something a bit less esoteric, which you
can see might actually work, but we can stop as soon as something
alternate is really proven beyond doubt.
This is not 19th century science - the establishment versus the rest.
Those days are long past. This is good scientific method against bad.
Bill
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bill Spears wrote:
I stick by my statement that it was the lack of proper peer review of
the Fleischmann/Pons paper that let them down in the end.
The paper was peer-reviewed, and all subsequent papers on the subject
have been peer-reviewed. The review these papers are subjected to been
far harsher and exacting than most papers undergo, because there is
strong opposition to the subject.
Many then claimed to have replicated their results, a natural humann
failing (the I told you so syndrome) and many claimed they were not
replicable, and those who did the latter were more reputable labs with
better equipment and more careful experimenters, so their results won
out in the end.
As far as I know, that is not in evidence. Only three reputable labs
published negative results -- Cal Tech, Harwell and MIT. The results at
Cal Tech and Harwell were later re-examined by experts and shown to be
positive. The negative results from MIT were fraudulent: the original
data showed excess heat, but the data points were moved down.
I realize there are many rumors that "good" labs failed to see results
in 1989, but as far as I know these experiments were never published,
and some appear to be mere rumors. If you can cite other reputable labs
that actually published peer-reviewed experiments, please let me know. I
know of hundreds of positive papers from highly reputable labs. Many of
these labs use the best equipment money can buy, such as the Mitsubishi
experiment which costs roughly $20 million; the University of Osaka
particle beam; and SRI's flow calorimeters, which are the most accurate
and precise ever constructed. The people performing these experiments
such as Miles, Bockris and Oriani, are considered the world's leading
electrochemists, because they wrote widely used, multi-volume textbooks,
and they are Distinguished Fellows and Distinguished Professors.
But it is clear that also bad science gets published so the peer
review process isn't perfect. But without it there is nothing, so it
is better than that.
I agree. If you believe that, then you should accept positive cold
fusion results, because they have all been rigorously peer-reviewed,
unlike the negative results. You should, at least, refrain from
criticizing them until you have read them carefully, and you should not
characterize research conducted by dozens of Distinguished Professors as
sloppy.
The fact that there are loads of papers written about cold fusion
doesn't make it real.
Peer-reviewed, high-sigma replicated data *does* make it real, or
nothing in science is real, there are no standards, and no dispute can
ever be resolved.
There is clearly something going on (same probably with astrology),
but there are also some very bad experimentalists out there, and poor
reviewers, and its easy to baffle people with science - so few really
understand it.
Who do you refer to? Bockris? Oriani? McKubre, Mizuno, Iwamura, Storms,
Claytor? Please be specific. You are making general comments about
unnamed researchers that you think are "bad." This is not a falsifiable
argument. Who are these people? Where did they publish? Why do you think
they are bad? Your arguments must be held to the same level of rigor as
the published papers you are denigrating. You do not get a free pass,
just because you hold the majority view.
There is usually a simpler explanation. Even the US DOE has decided
to put some more funds aside to see whether they can nail down the
phenomena at work, but so far one has to say the jury's out.
I suggest you review the documents here:
http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/DoeReview.htm
I think you will find that the critiques offered by the negative
reviewers, such as #7, have no merit.
This is not 19th century science - the establishment versus the rest.
Those days are long past. This is good scientific method against bad.
In my opinion, scientists in the 19th century were generally more fair,
objective and open minded. See the book book "Excess Heat" by C. G.
Beaudette. There are hundreds of examples unrelated to cold fusion. For
example, here is a quote describing bigotry and closed-minded attitudes
in AIDS research, from M. Sandmaier "Vessels of Infection," New York
Times Book Review, 11/15/92:
"The reason women with AIDS have been virtually invisible, Ms. Corea
contends, is that the medical establishment has persistently refused to
recognize that AIDS in women doesn't always look like AIDS in men. As
early as 1983, a number of female doctors and other health workers
around the country began to notice a strong link between severe,
recurring gynecological abnormalities and the presence of H.I.V.
infection in women. But when they submitted research proposals to
investigate this connection, she says, both government and private
funding agencies repeatedly turned them down. And when the doctors
conducted the research on their own time, medical journals and
scientific conferences consistently rejected their papers.
Sometimes this official chorus of 'nos' has reflected mere lack of
interest, at other times hostility. Ms. Corea reports that Judith Cohen,
an epidemiologist at the School of Public Health at the University of
California, Berkeley, was told by the chairman of her department that if
she continued to waste time studying AIDS in women, 'she had better find
another job.'"
- Jed
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
