Alan J Fletcher <a...@well.com> wrote: There is no dispute that Edison produced light. > Nobody knew (or needed to know) the formula for his filaments, or > challenged their possibility. >
There was no dispute that Edison produced light, because Farmer and many others had been doing that for 20 years before Edison. The dispute was over two issues: 1. Whether his lights could be used in parallel circuits, not just in series. 2. Whether his lights would last longer than a few hours. That is, whether he had found a method to create a high vacuum and seal the bulbs. Lot of people challenged those two possibilities. The parallel with cold fusion breaks down somewhat. In 1989 F&P announced and within a years more than 100 labs replicated and published definitive proof. That part is similar to what happened in the 1850s. Here is where history diverges. In the 1850s, scientists still believed in primacy of experiments over theory, so they believed Farmer and the others. No one disputed the results. In a sane world, no one would have questioned the existence of cold fusion after 1990. Suppose, in a parallel universe, scientists in 1990 did science instead of treating theory as a form of religion. Imagine that 20 years later, unfortunately, there had been little progress towards practical cold fusion, just as there was little progress in incandescent lights for 20 years. Many people say the effect will forever remain an laboratory curiosity with no practical value. Then along comes Rossi, and he uses methods similar to Edison. That is to say, he plagiarizes the most promising results from others, the way Edison borrowed vacuum pump technology and various other things. Rossi, Edison and Steve Jobs had a wonderful ability to spot other people's good ideas, and to improve on them. After deciding that Arata nanoparticle gas loading plus Piantelli's Ni is the best approach, Rossi then does a whole series of Edisonian style experiments. That is: an inspired, intuitive kind of trial and error, informed by deep knowledge and experience. Then Rossi announces his results, and we are right back to 1879 with Edison. Many other people who have been struggling to make the thing practical denounce Rossi / Edison, saying there is no way this outsider -- this interloper! -- could have stolen the march on us professors. They said his tests prove nothing, which is actually true of Edison, but not Rossi. They complain that he will not let anyone examine the bulbs or do an independent test. They said his results clearly violate theory. They yell that he is committing a fraud on the public. Some of these critics are ignorant. Others are jealous rivals, including some erstwhile friends of Edison. Rossi / Edison ignore this circus because their goal is not to convince the professors. Their goal is to make money. Edison goes on to found the General Electric Company. Rossi goes on to . . . that chapter has not been written yet. There are many parallels. That is not a bit surprising. Read the history of most other important breakthroughs in the last 250 years and you will find that most of them pan out along those lines. You always get a large crowd of "skeptical" detractors who claim it is a fraud and lunacy. These people are invariably ignorant. Even when they are well educated and capable of reading the facts and understanding the claims, they *never read anything*. Frank Close, Robert Park and Mary Yugo are modern examples. You get a crowd of academic scientists who insist that the discovery is a violation of theory and therefore it cannot exist. You can do 10 replications or demonstrations, or 100, or ten thousand. These people will not be swayed. The only way to get them to shut up is to sell lots of machines. Finally, there is usually a small number of savvy investors and bankers who have enough sense to fund the research. They end up getting the gravy. Great crowds of people, including many scientists, opposed Edison, the Wrights, the laser, the telegraph, the telephone, Semmelweis's method of reducing disease, the germ theory, evolution, the MRI, and just about every other major breakthrough. They didn't just oppose these things; they were livid with anger at them. They worked tirelessly to prevent them. Without a shred of proof, they ranted and raved that the discoverer is a fraud. The scientists among them are well described by Bill Beaty, here: http://amasci.com/pathsk2.txt Some breakthroughs, such as the x-ray and anesthetics do not meet much opposition. You can predict in advance whether a breakthrough will meet a little opposition, or a lot. The metric is simple. It has nothing to do with whether the breakthrough supposedly violates theory, or how novel it is, or whether it is practical. Science embraces multi-universe theory and string theory with aplomb. The breakthrough might save millions of lives, or it might threaten annihilation; neither factor makes the slightest bit of difference. Here is the only thing that counts: If a large group of people, especially scientists, make a good living researching or selling a rival technology, there will be strong opposition. The opposition is proportional to the amount of money that other people stand to lose. Or, as Stan Szpak puts it, scientists believe whatever you pay them to believe. The more scientists you pay, and the higher the salaries, the more fervent the opposition will be. No one was invested in anything like the x-ray in 1895, so it sailed through without opposition. A century later, many people were selling x-rays machines, so they pulled out the stops to prevent the MRI. Harrison's chronometer would have been embraced and used universally 20 years earlier had it not been for the 18th century version of the plasma fusion program: lots of astronomers working on lunar navigation tables, a rival method. This was the biggest make-work project for scientists in history, continuing until 1911. They did all they could to prevent the chronometer, delaying it for decades, extracting a terrible toll of thousands of drowned mariners and lost ships and cargo. In every example you look at, this is about money and political power. Nothing else. It has been that way since the dawn of modern science and it will probably always be that way. This is not to suggest that all opponents are academic rivals. I do not suppose Mary Yugo works for the plasma fusion program. Park does not even like those people, last I checked. The plasma fusion program is the locus of opposition to cold fusion. They were the first out of the gate, calling up the newspapers within days, accusing F&P of fraud. Many other energy related researchers also oppose it. These people lead the opposition. Swarms of other people join in because they enjoy attacking people, or because they hate and fear any change, or any challenge to their world view. Their philosophy was summed up by Groucho Marx, aptly playing a professor: I don't know what they have to say, It makes no difference anyway -- Whatever it is, I'm against it! No matter what it is or who commenced it, I'm against it. Your proposition may be good But let's have one thing understood -- Whatever it is, I'm against it! And even when you've changed it or condensed it, I'm against it. I'm opposed to it -- On general principles I'm opposed to it! Chorus: He's opposed to it! In fact, in word, in deed, He's opposed to it! For months before my son was born, I used to yell from night till morn, Whatever it is, I'm against it! And I've kept yelling since I commenced it, I'm against it! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtMV44yoXZ0 - Jed
