Gene Mallove and I used to say that if we only had a demonstration kit we could persuade the world that cold fusion is real. I think Rossi has shown we were wrong. Even a good demonstration does not persuade the world, at least not overnight. But there is no denying that commercial cells will eventually persuade most sane people it is real.
Self-appointed experts will agree the machine is real but they will say it has no significance. These people do not matter. I remember in 1964 the day after the Chinese detonated their first atomic bomb. Our fourth grade teacher told the class about it during current events. She seemed upset. One of the students said, "Don't worry. My dad says it is nothing. Hardly big enough to blow up someone's backyard." "Do you think so?" the teacher said, seemingly relieved. That was a U-235 bomb with a 22-kiloton yield. (China today boasts that it was the third country to make a bomb. They forgot England and France. See: http://www.chinaculture.org/gb/en_aboutchina/2003-09/24/content_26054.htm) I have been looking over the objections to cold fusion. I find only a handful will survive that event. Most are predicated on the notion that cold fusion does not exist or that it will never become practical, such as the ones I listed here: http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/293wikipedia.html There are a few other categories. At the "60 Minutes" someone said that we have already given cold fusion plenty of funding, it had its chance and is no longer deserves attention. That was a novel objection. The Wikipedia Cold Fusion article consists of many incorrect technical assertions, such as the idea that recombination may explain many of the results, or that cold fusion might be a chemical reaction. In the Energy Catalyzer article someone asserts the machine does not work because the Patent Office rejected the patent. Another novel objection! Many say that it cannot be real because Nature and other major journals refuse to print articles on it. I suspect most of these objections will go away even before Nature prints something. There are some specific objections to Rossi which will soon go away, especially the idea that he is probably a scammer. (Unless he really is a scammer, in which case he will soon go away!) Someone in the Rossi article on Wikipedia states boldly, as if it were a matter of settled fact: "The excess energy can be explained as error or fraud." Can it indeed? As far as I know no one has actually explained how this could be error or fraud. These people confuse the act of making an assertion: "I can explain X" with the act of actually explaining X. Saying does not make it so. The models presented by Alan Fletcher are so unrealistic they can be dismissed in my opinion. For example, any form of fluid combustion calls for regulators and burners, which cannot fit in ~1 liter. Anyway, these will vanish if customers report the machines work as advertised. People object presently because there have been no independent replications of this particular nickel catalyst. There have been other nickel catalysts but they did not produce such dramatic results. This objection has merit in my opinion, but it is a minor problem given the quality of the verifications and the magnitude of the reaction. It is a bit like quibbling that the atomic bomb might not be real in 1945, when only the US could make one. Here at Vortex, I suppose Beene will eventually give up the notion that calorimetry can fail by a factor of 1000 or 10, 5, 76 or whatever number has popped into his head most recently. In any case, he is never pointed to any specific reason why it can fail by this factor. That is, he has not show which of the four parameters are wrong by this factor (or what combination of parameters). He points only to a theory proposed by his invisible expert. If this theory is correct the calorimetry must have failed, and the theory must be right so it must have failed. This turns the scientific method upside down. There are many similar upside-down arguments. If there is continued resistance after cold fusion is commercialized, I suppose it will be based upon a smaller number of arguments. That's good. It means we will have fewer targets, and we will need fewer counter-arguments. As I said, I predict most arguments will be an appeal to fear: Fear of the unknown. Cold fusion may be dangerous. It is untested. All forms of nuclear energy are inherently dangerous. (The fact that other sources of energy are also dangerous is not considered, because people tend to discount the dangers of existing technology and exaggerate the dangers of new technology.) Fear of economic change and technological progress. People will lose jobs. The stock market may fall. Our economy cannot survive such large changes. "Senator, we may not be able to pick up the tab for your reelection campaign." Fear of cold fusion's capabilities. It might be used for a bomb. It is too powerful to be used responsibly; i.e., "giving humanity cold fusion is like giving a machine gun to a baby." (Rifkin) Fear of other countries. If the Chinese get this they will rule us. (I've heard this proposed as a reason to prevent R&D, as if we can stop the Chinese by not developing it ourselves.) A strange modern fear of using machines that experts do not fully understand. "There is no theory to explain how it works, so it might stop working or explode." (Actually, the experts do not fully understand how anything works, but they don't admit that to the public.) Fear that cold fusion may make things worse. I share this fear. See chapter 19 of my book. The fact that something might be misused is seldom a good reason not to use it at all. Usually, advantages outweigh disadvantages. (Some new weapon systems, and some unstable, dangerous and unreliable machines cause more harm than good.) Fear of authority, and science. This is fashionable these days, with campaigns against vaccinations and global warming. A few other objections can be anticipated: It will cost too much. We cannot afford to replace all automobiles and heaters. It will take too long. It will be too little, too late. By the time we implement it global warming will be upon us. (This is Bjorn Lomborg's one-size-fits all argument against all solutions to all technical problems. He always ends up recommending we sit and do nothing.) I cannot think of many others. The others I have thought of are so preposterous, I suppose even the fossil fuel industry will not have the chutzpah to peddle them. I predict we will be dealing with a new group of people. The academic hacks presently campaigning against cold fusion such as Robert Park will fold up their tents and steal away. The attack will be led by new people, especially industry shills such as Lomberg and environmental extremists such as Rifkin. Rifkin attacked cold fusion in 1989. See Mallove's book, and mine (quoting Mallove) chapter 19. I hope the opposition is impotent and swiftly vanishes, as some people have predicted here. I have recommended to Rossi that he begin thinking about public relations (PR). I and others volunteered to put together a package of ideas and web pages to accompany the roll-out, anticipating these objections and preparing to meet them. Mainly we proposed to emphasize the benefits, because no matter how good a new product is, you still have to tell the customer about the benefits. I well remember in the 1980s trying to persuade people that word processing was a better way to write than using a typewriter or pen. Rossi politely rejected our offer of help, and he rejected the idea that a campaign will be needed. He thinks that selling actual machines and satisfying customers will take care of all problems. That is largely true. As I said above, actual sales will eliminate nearly all opposing arguments. On the other hand, companies that sell real product still have PR problems. Rossi's own webpage does more harm than good from a PR point of view. - Jed
