Cold fusion, Why not? Options

[Zoloft]

Allusion and metaphor also help in this struggle for minimalism.

This is more to the point. You can be both more concise, and more persuasive, if you can find a way to communicate an idea rather than mere "information."

Abd needs to be a hummingbird in the rainforest, flitting from flower to flower, getting only the nectar, not a tapir crunching aimlessly through the underbrush of verbiage.

Also heartily approve of Elements of Style. The little book is a sharp tool.

[Subtle Bee]

Abd needs to be a hummingbird in the rainforest, flitting from flower to flower, getting only the nectar, not a tapir crunching aimlessly through the underbrush of verbiage.

You really think more sugar is the answer?

[Zoloft]

Abd needs to be a hummingbird in the rainforest, flitting from flower to flower, getting only the nectar, not a tapir crunching aimlessly through the underbrush of verbiage.

You really think more sugar is the answer?

Well, without free energy, things just tapir off.

[Milton Roe]

Abd needs to be a hummingbird in the rainforest, flitting from flower to flower, getting only the nectar, not a tapir crunching aimlessly through the underbrush of verbiage.

You really think more sugar is the answer?

Well, without free energy, things just tapir off.

[Abd]

Is this brief enough for Reviewers?. I helped to edit this, I'm credited. Small thing? Well, not for me! This is the journal that Einstein published in. The pseudo-skeptics on Wikipedia have continuously tried to claim that this is a "life sciences journal." There was even a mediation on this. Not. Multidisciplinary journal, Springer-Verlag's "flagship."

The abstract and introduction give a drastically different impression than the WP article, eh?

[GlassBeadGame]

Is this brief enough for Reviewers?. I helped to edit this, I'm credited. Small thing? Well, not for me! This is the journal that Einstein published in. The pseudo-skeptics on Wikipedia have continuously tried to claim that this is a "life sciences journal." There was even a mediation on this. Not. Multidisciplinary journal, Springer-Verlag's "flagship."

The abstract and introduction give a drastically different impression than the WP article, eh?

Not to say I agree with you, but this is serious publication and if you played a part you deserve to be proud.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

The pseudo-skeptics on Wikipedia have continuously tried to claim that this is a "life sciences journal."

Most likely due to a cretinous translation of "Naturwissenschaft."

[Milton Roe]

The pseudo-skeptics on Wikipedia have continuously tried to claim that this is a "life sciences journal."

Most likely due to a cretinous translation of "Naturwissenschaft."

Yes. It's natural sciences, not nature sciences.

Of course it gets worse. Wikipedia has a problem article on science itself, which many editors are not about to admit means simply "wissen," except historically. Sigh. I don't know if the German and historical meanings will survive.

[Abd]

The pseudo-skeptics on Wikipedia have continuously tried to claim that this is a "life sciences journal."

Most likely due to a cretinous translation of "Naturwissenschaft."

A year ago, they had an excuse. Springer manages it through their Life Sciences division. But that was all made clear back then, yet the same editor brings it up, and it always catches those new to this. "Yeah . Life Sciences. Says so right there!" One of the ways I recognize true POV pushers is that they won't help out the "other side."

[Abd]

Things have heated up at Energy Catalyzer which is really a cold fusion topic.

See TenOfAllTrades sparring with a Nobel laureate.

See TenOfAllTrades demonstrate his utter cluelessness Brian Josephson responded.

AndyTheGump is no better:

::Can you enlighten us as to what 'the science' is though. There has been no published information that provides sufficient information on this to determine whether this is 'cold fusion', a hoax, or heat produced by decaying Unicorn droppings - clearly the relevant science will differ in each case. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 15:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The "science" in this case is the evaluation of heat being generated and the comparison of that with what would be considered possible with chemistry. What the scientists are saying (well covered in the Italian television special that just aired) is that, from the level of heat, the reaction must be nuclear, but they also say that nobody knows what specific reaction or mechanism is involved. There is obvious suspicion of fusion of nickel with hydrogen to form copper (which would be exothermic, but all known reactions not only require high energy to happen, but would produce copious radiation -- this is the classic cold fusion dilemma. The scientists interviewed know this well, but they also know that the existence of an unknown nuclear reaction mechanism -- previously with palladium deuteride, i.e., what was announced in 1989 -- is established. The pseudo-skeptics remain in denial about this, even though the evidence has been conclusive since the middle 1990s. "It's impossible, violates all the laws of physics," which is simply ... not true.)

And that's a long story that they refuse to read. Why bother? After all, it's impossible, besides, "brew me a cup of tea with this if it's real. Hah! Betcha can't do it!"

Oops! These Rossi things appear to be producing 10-20 kW of power with a small reaction chamber. He's for real or this is an extremely sophisticated -- and difficult -- con. Defkalion, the Greek company, in the TV special, is claiming that they already have E-Cats in hand, that work, product, not demo units, and they are ramping up production.

This is the problem: the basic approach was already patented in the 1990s. Rossi is using a "secret ingredient," something that greatly amplifies the catalysis, probably, and it is possible, a patent lawyer opines, that Rossi can't get a patent for that reason. So he has to keep it secret. They are talking about leasing E-Cats, which, I'm sure, would come with non-disclosure agreements, etc.

If the thing produces 10 kW (which should handle all the hot water and heating requirements for a home, perhaps), for fuel that costs a few dollars every few months, do you care if you can't open it up and find out what is in it? You'll want to know about safety, I'm sure. And that's a huge problem, apparently some of the early units were, ah, "unstable." Like they blew up.

From the size of these things, it's been calculated, the densest forms of energy storage would be dead within an hour.

From what I've read, there are two ways to control these things: first, keep them cool, i.e., at the temperature where the reaction happens robustly, but not so hot that it runs away. And if it starts to run away, immediately fill the thing with nitrogen.

On the video, a Swedish physicist who actually sits on the Nobel Prize committee says that this would be worthy of a Nobel prize, he'd think. You'd think that the pseudo-skeptics would start to have a teeny bit of self-doubt. but self-doubt (i.e., self-skepticism) is precisely what pseudo-skeptics lack.

The other physicist evaluating is the President of the Swedish Skeptics Society.

I was extremely skeptical when I heard about this. I wrote to cold fusion researchers and cautioned them about making any statements at all about it, because if it turns out to be fraud, they'd have egg all over their faces, cold fusion research is already difficult enough.

Problem is, though, the evidence from the demonstrations just kept getting stronger, and possible fraud modes were being eliminated. Skeptical comment on this often focuses on the lack of radiation, but that is a known characteristic of most cold fusion reactions. Nobody knows how that happens, but there is nothing impossible about it in theory. The best theories I know of -- no theory is "proven" -- involve Bose Einstein Condensates happening in unexpected situations, and nobody knows what happens if fusion occurs within a BEC.

Rossi has his own theories, but, as Essen (one of the Swedes) says, Rossi is a "practical guy," and doesn't know physics, he was completely unimpressed by the theory. But very impressed by the heat.

And that's real science: theory can be wrong, very wrong. What are the experimental results? That's the question that real scientists ask. If they don't match theory, sure, check the results. And that is what happened with cold fusion; but the first "checks" were by people who had no clue how to set up the reaction -- it was really difficult! not simple at all --, it took the better part of a year before the confirmations started to pour in.

[Abd]

Whenever anyone would try to discuss cold fusion rather than the text of the article, the pseudoskeptics would clamp down, blocks and topic bans were frequently based on this. However, when the tide turns against them, discussing the topic is then the only way to prevail, they think.

TenOfAllTrades is, I think, a physicist. He should really know better. Here's his latest comment.

For a device that Rossi has claimed can operate continuously for months or years at a time (in his patent application, which you have striven to emphasize is based on preliminary work—and surely his technology shouldn't have regressed since then?), 18 hours as his ''best'' showing – and done only once, before a selected, limited audience – is very poor indeed. I stand by my characterization of it as a 'few' hours, as the device purportedly should be able to do 180, or 1800, or 18000 hours without difficulty.

He wrote "a few" and Brian Josephson properly whacked him with 18 hours. Given the economic context, an 18 hour demonstration is already difficult. Who monitors it continuously? Rossi claims that, indeed, these things have run for months, and Defkalion is downright lying if they haven't. But this isn't a science article, it's an article about a product, and TOAT is making an argument from Original Research. Whenever this kind of thing comes from the other side, they are all over it, seeking to ban the "POV pushers."

18 hours is already enough to totally blow the idea of ordinary chemical storage out totally out of the water, practically out of the atmosphere! An hour is actually enough, at the levels of heat being generated, to rule out chemistry. All that is left would be some mechanism for either fooling the instrumentation or supplying fuel or energy. Believe me, skeptics have been over this with a fine-tooth comb, since January, proposing fraud mechanisms, and the later demonstrations were often designed to address the possibilities raised. For example, if energy is measure by the quantity of water evaporated, what about wet steam? (which involves far less energy than complete evaporation). So the March demo used far higher water flow, so that the water temperature was only routinely raised by 5 degrees C. No steam at all, just a known flow rate for the water. And at one point, however the thing peaked at about a 30 degree rise. Over 100 kW, that works out to.

I'd be queasy being in the same room with one of these, given that. These things better be thoroughly tested before being used!

If this is a fraud, it is a very interesting one..

::Interestingly, the experiments which would "take into account what has been learnt, or has remained unclear" have not been performed, and Rossi has refused to allow them to be conducted. He has declined to allow additional, more precise measurements of gamma ray or neutron output from the device after the first negative report, and he has refused to provide any additional samples of his 'used' fuel for isotopic analysis by an independent laboratory. I accept that Rossi has conclusively demonstrated a black box which accepts cold water as one input and delivers hot water (or steam) as output, at least for a few hours (or 'less than a day', if you prefer). What he has failed to do (and has actively resisted efforts to investigate) is demonstrate that what goes on inside that black box is on the level. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 15:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades is responding as if the article were on Cold fusion. Nope, it's on the Energy Catalyzer. What TOAT has "accepted" is stunning. It's beyond chemistry.

What does "on the level" mean? The laws of thermodynamics deal with "black boxes." It is not known if the E-Cat produces any detectable radiation; there is a hint that it might, very unclear. Rossi is not "on the level" about what's inside the E-Cat, he's explicitly keeping it secret, beyond "Nickel and hydrogen and a secret ingredient." Yes, he's resisted efforts to investigate, and for disclosed and economically sensible reasons.

It's been impossible to patent anything related to Cold fusion, in the U.S., almost completely, because of the belief of people like TOAT that it's impossible, that it's like perpetual motion -- which it is not. It's merely based on an unknown reaction, not on an impossible one. The fuel and ash do, with prior cold fusion findings, correlate at the right level with the heat observed. No violation of physical laws, the only mystery being how the hell it's happening.

TOAT expects radiation if the origin of the heat is nuclear. That's an old, discredited claim. Most nuclear reactions would produce radiation, but not all, and lack of radiation is typical of Cold fusion though you would never get that from the WP article. Read Storms, Naturwissenschaften, "Status of Cold fusion (2010)" for the real view of a real scientist under real peer review. Notice that the preview includes a link to lenr-canr.org, which has a preprint of the paper that's the same as the published version. A link to that was, by the way, included as evidence of lack of copyvio in what was just revision-deleted at the WP Cold fusion article. They do *not* want readers to decide for themselves. I see why Josephson originally thought there was a conspiracy.

My opinion, though, is that it is just institutionalized stupidity.

So, what if it is not a nuclear reaction? What in the world is it, then? The article should not state that a nuclear reaction is involved, but it should cite the opinions of experts on that, attributing them. For cold fusion, the article should, in fact, state that a nuclear reaction is involved, because that is now consensus among those who know the research, the original objections have been answered, amply. A nuclear reaction that converts deuterium to helium (there really is no other plausible explanation for the effects and experimental results, and this is quantitatively verified), by an unknown mechanism. For the Rossi cell, experts who know the evidence are "puzzled." As they should be.

Rossi won't allow detailed examination, precisely because that examination would result in the disclosure of what he's been doing, and the patent situation could make that very costly for him. That's if it's real!

Some people detest puzzles. The same people love being Wikipedia administrators, because it allows them to ban anything that puzzles them.

[gomi]

[Modnote: Posts that argue the topic but don't even refer to the Wikipedia article have been moved to here.]