At 09:01 AM 3/21/2012, James Bowery wrote:
In a sense, the _scientific_ source of the cold fusion debacle was a
conflict over _interpretation_ of existing theory. When
establishment scientists repeated their catechisms that "it flies in
the face of theory", not only were they denying the cardinal rule of
science, which is that theory is subordinate to experiment, but they
were denying their own theories by imposing upon them simplifying
_interpretations_ from which they drew the unsound conclusion that
"it flies in the face of theory".
Exactly. Pons and Fleischmann reported anomalous heat from palladium
deuteride, under conditions that were not initially well-described.
They also reported neutrons, which confused the hell out of everyone.
Missed in the flap was that the neutron report was a far lower levels
than would have been expected from the source of the excess heat
being ordinary deuterium fusion. Pons and Fleischmann's actual
published report included the neutron findings because that would
have demonstrated that a nuclear reaction was occurring, but this was
almost dicta. When the neutron findings were debunked -- and they
*were* in error -- that still left the basic claim, and the need to
either confirm or replicate and demonstrate the source of any error.
The scientific community totally dropped the ball, and believed that
the game was over, based on what amounted to a set of gross
misunderstandings, such as the claim that the Pons and Fleischmann
experiments could not be replicated. It was reasonable for the very
early U.S. ERAB report to claim replication failure, for that's what
they had seen by that time. However, Miles, whose negative results
they noted, called them before they were finished to tall them he was
now seeing positive results. It was ignored, the call was not returned.
Later, Huizenga noted, with recognition of importance, that Miles was
reporting helium as the nuclear ash, with very good evidence.
Huizenga -- the co-chair of that ERAB panel, and highly skeptical --
wrote however, that it was likely that Miles would not be confirmed,
giving as his reason the lack of gammas.
However, if it is actually an "unknown nuclear reaction," predicting
gammas was based on .... nothing. Not all nuclear reactions, surely,
produce gamma rays!
Miles was confirmed. But the meme that "cold fusion results could not
be replicated" remained rampant, I've seen it in recent reports in the media.
In the peer-reviewed journals, though, the debate, for now, is over.
Cold fusion survived. What's dead is the highly skeptical position.
The reaction itself remains a mystery, with what Storms calls
"plausible theories," which means that people who understand them
aren't falling off their chairs laughing. But no theory is adequate,
so far, to predict the experimental data, beyond the "single
replicable experiment" that I've described before. I'm now seeing
work that may narrow down the experimental conditions, that's about it.
The single replicable experiment?
Set up the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect, in palladium deuteride,
using the state of the art, which will allow you to see the anomalous
heat, if you have followed the protocols, a good percentage of the
time. Do this with a series of cells, and report excess heat from all cells.
Measure helium in the effluent gases.
Does the helium correlate with the heat? Bonus question: At what Q
(heat/helium)?
