At 02:22 PM 2/7/2011, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:
Recall the tragic PR mess that transpired when scientists (most of them physicists) in their initial curiosity attempted to independently replicate a chemistry experiment, for which most had little experience in executing, the Pons & Fleischmann 1989 "cold fusion" experiment. As we all know, the vast majority of those preliminary "independent replications" failed. The result was a tragic history lesson on how NOT to conduct independent replication, a lesson that has taken decades to turgidly work its constipated way through the alimentary canal of pseudo science accusations.
Yes, quite precisely. However, those "negative replications" actually were useful, if properly understood. Especially those that measured helium!
The rush to replicate was, indeed, extraordinarily foolish, mostly a waste of time. On the one hand, the would-be replicators seemed to assume that, if it worked, it would be simple; that was partly the result of the experiment having been presented as being simple, when it was far from simple, and Pons and Fleischmann knew it. It was more complex than even they knew, as they found out when they ran out of their original batch of palladium and they couldn't get cells to perform for a while.
(Huizenga notes this with Miles, with some apparent glee, not realizing that this actually was evidence for the reality of the effect, explaining the difficulty of replication. Aha! sensitive to unexpected details!)
Looking back on those events we can see that to a very large extent that "independent replication" was premature.
That's right. The first step is "internal" replication, where the originator runs the experiment multiple times, developing a protocol, and publishing it. It's common that the protocol is not entirely complete, and communication with the originator is necessary. Especially when replications fail to come up with the same results.
It was a total error to jump to the conclusion that Pons and Fleischmann's work was bogus based on replication failure. There is a far more common reason: inadequate specification of or adherence to the protocol. Properly, massive effort should have been put into identifying the actual artifact in the P-F work, instead of coming up with some vague generalities. Suppose, for example, the problem was some error in measuring input power, as the skeptical Barry Kort has proposed. An exact replication would, with this, come up with the same error, which would then, in fact, rather easily be identified. Same with Kort's other proposed artifact: misting, loss of electrolyte from open cells as mist, rather than as vapor, with a consequential incorrect adjustment for vapor, leading to a calculation showing excess heat. That would have, as well, been easy to replicate and then identfiy. "Hey, Ralph! What's this white stuff appearing around the cell vent? Did you forget to dust this thing off?"
It was premature because the necessary protocols were not yet sufficiently understood by P&F. If they didn't know all the crucial details, could they accurately tell others what they must do?
Of course not. But the fact is that replication did start coming in, reasonably quickly. Miles started getting results before the ERAB panel had completed their report. It was simply more difficult than the gung-ho physicists were expecting. Hubris, perhaps.
Exacerbating matters, physicists were attempting to perform delicate experiments within a field (chemistry) for which they were not trained in. JEE! WHAT COULD GO WRONG!!!!
Obviously, just as much as could go wrong with Fleischmann making neutron measurements, similarly.
There were too many unknowns and variables that tended to mess things up. The uncertainties P&F secretly harbored quickly came back to haunt them. Due to a collection of unique political circumstances of that time period P&F felt they had no choice but to come out of the closet, so to speak, and (prematurely) reveal what they suspected was probably occurring. IOW, they speculated. Due to their own lack of adequate knowledge pertaining of certain experimental factors some of their speculations turned out to be premature, as well as I gather inaccurate.
Well, they did make some errors, but the paper published actually did say "unknown nuclear reaction" rather than "fusion." Even though, it turns out, it was fusion, just a different kind of fusion than everyone was expecting. I find it weird: they expected that fusion was impossible, but if it was to be possible, it would have to be what they were used to seeing. It's as if some massive brain fault rained down in 1989, some sort of collective delusion.
Some of these unfounded speculations ended up skewering them in the light of the scientific community. They could see the rusty blade coming at them, skewering them in slow motion - and there wasn't a damned thing they could do about the ensuing circus. Timing is everything.
Hindsight is great, eh? As they say, "mistakes were made." Plenty to go around, on all sides. But some people just kept plugging away.
> If Rossi is real, he is comprehensively shooting himself > in the foot. Obviously, Abd's expressed concerns have already been articulated by many within the Vort Collective. Many, particularly Jed, have vehemently questioned the wisdom of Rossi's purported business plans. In the final analysis, however, we can sit here and wine all we want about how we think Rossi ought to be going about executing his business because many of us feel his plans all totally f*cked up, but in the final analysis we are not Rossi.
That's right. Rossi has the right to make his own mistakes, I'm just saying we should not fall all over ourselves speculating about what's inside that thing, and I'd like to make a radical and clear distinction: this is not the Fleischmann-Pons effect, it may have no connection at all with what we know as cold fusion, and may not be cold fusion at all. I don't want cold fusion to be taken down with this mess.
Under the circumstances, the best suggestion that I can think of is to continue to accumulate as much crucial information as we can pertaining to what is theorized to be happening so that if (and I sincerely mean "IF") something catastrophic happens to Rossi's business plan, resulting in his work becoming publicly discredited in pretty much the same fashion as what happened to P&F - there is at least a decent hope that independent research can proceed "untainted" at some obscure university or research facility where proper controls can be administered in a more controlled systematic way.
Rossi simply is not releasing enough information.
PS: I've said this before but I'll say it again. IMO, Rossi could use a good handler, a PR professional who can help minimize the damage that occasionally occurs when he puts his foot in his mouth. "Ahem... what Rossi really meant to say was..."
Sure. On the other hand, this sort of assumes that he's for real. I back up a step before that. Rossi may have an interest in mystification and quirkiness, it may produce a desired impression for a plan.
