Cold fusion, Why not? Options

[Abd]

I'll just start this with a whimper, not a bang. JzG, the big meanie, just removed Yet Another Link to lenr-canr.org from Cold fusion. Waaa! Teacher told him not to do that! I'm going to take my marbles home! Now that I'm banned, I get to whine all I want! It's kinda fun!

No discussion, he gave the same argument that was discussed to death at Martin Fleischmann (T-H-L-K-D), that was discussed to death at MediaWiki talk:Whitelist, and always, in the end, rejected.

Pure wikilawyering: there is zero legal risk to Wikipedia from linking to that paper, the web site claims permission for all that it hosts, and if there is a defect with a couple of pages, it's basically irrelevant. (Very different situation with newenergytimes.com, they host under a claim of fair use, which they can get away with as a nonprofit until the publisher squawks.) The specific paper he delinked was approved by Beetstra at the whitelist page, after all the objections had been raised about copyright.

Ban the cat, the place is overrun with mice. Kind of cute, aren't they?

Wikipedia, you traded Abd and WMC's bit for JzG and Hipocrite. Enjoy.

[Appleby]

Cold fusion is a spectacular example of the problems of NPOV. Virtually all experts reject cold fusion but a few WP editors seem determined to promote it using rather dubious references. Were there any proper editorial control or involvement of experts, these promoters would be shoved off.

[Abd]

Cold fusion is a spectacular example of the problems of NPOV. Virtually all experts reject cold fusion but a few WP editors seem determined to promote it using rather dubious references. Were there any proper editorial control or involvement of experts, these promoters would be shoved off.

Thanks, Appleby. You have made some claims here, some are time dependent, i.e., were true at one time, some are historical claims about Wikipedia. Since this thread is about the article, not the editors, I'll address only what relates to cold fusion itself, i.e., the topic, plus the "references."

Virtually all experts reject cold fusion. I really understand how you could think that. But it's a misleading statement. It is in the present tense, unsourced and probably unsourceable by WP standards. The statement would be more agreeable, a bit, if it was "By 1990, virtually all experts rejected cold fusion," though even that is POV, i.e., "virtually all" implies less acceptance of cold fusion than did exist and did persist through the rejection phase. I'd agree with "most," as to 1990 and for quite some time after that. But let's focus on the present.

Would you agree that we can generally assume that an established consensus continues until there is evidence to the contrary? As well, "Virtually all" implies very low difference of opinion. If no more than two-thirds of experts "reject" low energy nuclear reactions (nobody calls it "cold fusion" formally any more), would you agree that this is not "virtually all"?

A problem here is that there is no mechanism, ordinarily, for polling experts to find out if their opinions have changed, and opinions do change in science based on two factors: the availability of new evidence, and better analysis of old evidence. We have several mechanisms we can use:

(1) Peer-reviewed and academic secondary sources. What is found in reviews of the field, independently published by reputable publishers? Here, the more recent the secondary source, the more important it would be to assessing the present situation.

(2) Peer-reviewed primary sources. Are peer-reviewers approving articles? Here, if our task is understanding the status of the field, the quality of the publications may be important. Particularly relevant would be the availability of knowledgeable experts to review papers; but often this is largely speculative, we don't know who actually reviewed papers.

(3) Secondary reliable academic sources other than peer-reviewed, such as independently published monographs.

(4) Other formal reviews by independent bodies, an example would be the 2004 U.S. Department of Energy review panel, which can be compared with the 1989 review panel. Those panels represent a selection of experts, and what the panels concluded would be an indicator of expert opinion. Was there any change between 1989 and 2004?

(5) And least reliable, other reliable source, particularly media reports.

In addition, there is another problem. Who are the experts? A rough generalization of the problem with cold fusion is that the electrochemists, experts in calorimetry, said that the excess heat found (in very many experiments by very many groups) could not be chemistry, it must be nuclear physics, and the nuclear physicists, who knew well how to measure radiation but had little or no experience with calorimetry, said that it couldn't be nuclear physics, it must be chemistry. The field of condensed matter nuclear science is cross-disciplinary. And what experts think may very much depend on their exact expertise.

It may be important to recognize that many working in the field no longer claim that the "Fleischmann effect" is fusion. It may be something else. But there remain two basic questions:

(1) Is there excess heat, i.e., heat other than explainable through known chemical reactions that would be expected to take place in these experiments?

(2) If so, is the origin of this heat nuclear in nature? (We can assume that someone who does not accept that there is excess heat will not accept that the excess heat is nuclear in origin!)

Do we agree so far? (Anyone can answer, of course, but I'll attend to those who are willing explore these questions.)

This post has been edited by Abd: Mon 14th September 2009, 10:53pm

[Milton Roe]

It may be important to recognize that many working in the field no longer claim that the "Fleischmann effect" is fusion. It may be something else. But there remain two basic questions:

(1) Is there excess heat, i.e., heat other than explainable through known chemical reactions that would be expected to take place in these experiments?

(2) If so, is the origin of this heat nuclear in nature? (We can assume that someone who does not accept that there is excess heat will not accept that the excess heat is nuclear in origin!)

Do we agree so far? (Anyone can answer, of course, but I'll attend to those who are willing explore these questions.)

If there is this large isotope effect between deuterium and protium (H-2 vs. H-1) in the heat produced, as claimed, it can hardly be anything other than a nuclear effect. If it were chemical it would imply one-step complete electrochemical separation of the isotopes, which has never been seen in any other system. Yes, the isotopes do differ chemically, but the effects are subtle (polymerization of macromolecules in eukaryotes) and not gross, such as the idea that there is a system where one might freely participate in a highly exothermic chemical reaction releasing great free-energy, and other isotope, not at all. If that were so, one could use palladium disks as a one-shot production route to making heavy water. Or purifying out the last light water remnants in already purifed heavy water.

Perhaps everyone has their sights too high?

[Abd]

If there is this large isotope effect between deuterium and protium (H-2 vs. H-1) in the heat produced, as claimed, it can hardly be anything other than a nuclear effect. If it were chemical it would imply one-step complete electrochemical separation of the isotopes, which has never been seen in any other system. Yes, the isotopes do differ chemically, but the effects are subtle (polymerization of macromolecules in eukaryotes) and not gross, such as the idea that there is a system where one might freely participate in a highly exothermic chemical reaction releasing great free-energy, and other isotope, not at all. If that were so, one could use palladium disks as a one-shot production route to making heavy water. Or purifying out the last light water remnants in already purifed heavy water.

Perhaps everyone has their sights too high?

Yeah, you noticed.

Generally, in most experiments, use of light water as a control reduces the effect by more than three orders of magnitude. (Which, by the way, testifies to the sensitivity of the calorimetry....) Pons and Fleischmann, early on, were asked if they had done light water control experiments, and they were evasive. Later, they explained that they had done such experiments, and did not get the clean baseline they had expected. In the SPAWAR CR-39 detection of charged particle radiation, co-deposition shows charged particle radiation, at the far lower level, with light water, they speculate that this is due to the normal concentration of deuterium in light water.

Alternatives to "nuclear"? Let's start with the obvious:

(1) The calorimetry is bad. I can produce a whole pile of sources indicating differently. While there has been a lot of bad work published, the best of it has been done by world-class experts, starting with Fleischmann. Nevertheless, perhaps there is some effect that systematically throws off the calorimetry. However, it's speculation. Kirk shanahan has proposed a theory that basically punts: he suggests that there is an unknown effect which generates local heat that throws off the calibration of the calorimeter. Since this would be unlikely to affect all forms of calorimetry, it seems weak, and has gained little attention.

(2) Unexpected deuterium/oxygen recombination. (And this might be Shanahan's effect.) Again, this wouldn't explain that the effect still is found where all the deuterium and oxygen are accounted for. The magnitude of the effect in "heat after death" experiments would indicate much more energy storage than the chemistry could handle.

(3) Hydrino theory: the heat is the heat of hydrino formation. This hypothesis, of course, is more revolutionary than low energy nuclear reactions! It also wouldn't seem to explain the extremely high energy density found in some experiments. Palladium metal, immersed in heavy water is, on a very small scale, melted and vaporized. Tricky to explain that with anything other than nuclear.

Because there are other observed phenomena, most notably helium levels detected that correlate with the excess energy measured, there is validation of three things: the calorimetry and the helium measurements, on the one hand, because the usual explanations (calorimetry error for the heat, sloppy handling for the helium) don't explain the consistent correlation at about the right Q-value for d-d fusion. (That doesn't prove d-d fusion, there are other possible nuclear reactions that would do the same), and, on the other, since if helium is appearing where it didn't exist before, nuclear reaction is a strong conclusion.

But, back to the first question here: what is the mainstream view of low energy nuclear reactions? How would we know? I'll wait for an answer to the questions and issues I raised about "mainstream."

[Milton Roe]

If there is this large isotope effect between deuterium and protium (H-2 vs. H-1) in the heat produced, as claimed, it can hardly be anything other than a nuclear effect. If it were chemical it would imply one-step complete electrochemical separation of the isotopes, which has never been seen in any other system. Yes, the isotopes do differ chemically, but the effects are subtle (polymerization of macromolecules in eukaryotes) and not gross, such as the idea that there is a system where one might freely participate in a highly exothermic chemical reaction releasing great free-energy, and other isotope, not at all. If that were so, one could use palladium disks as a one-shot production route to making heavy water. Or purifying out the last light water remnants in already purifed heavy water.

Perhaps everyone has their sights too high?

Yeah, you noticed.

Generally, in most experiments, use of light water as a control reduces the effect by more than three orders of magnitude. (Which, by the way, testifies to the sensitivity of the calorimetry....) Pons and Fleischmann, early on, were asked if they had done light water control experiments, and they were evasive. Later, they explained that they had done such experiments, and did not get the clean baseline they had expected. In the SPAWAR CR-39 detection of charged particle radiation, co-deposition shows charged particle radiation, at the far lower level, with light water, they speculate that this is due to the normal concentration of deuterium in light water.

Well, D-depeted light water (less than 1% background) is freely available at prices far below the rest of the budget for this stuff, so why are these SPAWAR CR-39 people speculating about a control experiment they should already have done? Again I have this feeling I'm being bullshitted, just as 20 years ago when P&F would not discuss light water controls.

Alternatives to "nuclear"? Let's start with the obvious:

(1) The calorimetry is bad. I can produce a whole pile of sources indicating differently. While there has been a lot of bad work published, the best of it has been done by world-class experts, starting with Fleischmann. Nevertheless, perhaps there is some effect that systematically throws off the calorimetry. However, it's speculation. Kirk shanahan has proposed a theory that basically punts: he suggests that there is an unknown effect which generates local heat that throws off the calibration of the calorimeter. Since this would be unlikely to affect all forms of calorimetry, it seems weak, and has gained little attention.

Okay, this amounts to suggesting 20 years of experimental error. Sigh.

(2) Unexpected deuterium/oxygen recombination. (And this might be Shanahan's effect.) Again, this wouldn't explain that the effect still is found where all the deuterium and oxygen are accounted for. The magnitude of the effect in "heat after death" experiments would indicate much more energy storage than the chemistry could handle.

And doesn't explain the huge isotope effect everybody reports. Which for reasons above, cannot be chemistry, unless there's some VERY brand-new chemistry here with the largest chemical isotope effect of any chemical experiment ever. By many orders of magnitude.

(3) Hydrino theory: the heat is the heat of hydrino formation. This hypothesis, of course, is more revolutionary than low energy nuclear reactions! It also wouldn't seem to explain the extremely high energy density found in some experiments. Palladium metal, immersed in heavy water is, on a very small scale, melted and vaporized. Tricky to explain that with anything other than nuclear.

Hydrino = collapsed H atom. Doesn't explain He production. Worse still, you have to modify quantum mechanics all out of recognizability, to permit it (the uncertainty principle must go, or else the value of Planck's constant, or both). And where are these hydrinos in other real fusion experiments, where we should have noticed them a long time ago (by energy being bled off into some channel and product we can't see). Pauli inferred the neutrino that way 25 years or so before it was seen. And we've come a long way from Pauli.

Because there are other observed phenomena, most notably helium levels detected that correlate with the excess energy measured, there is validation of three things: the calorimetry and the helium measurements, on the one hand, because the usual explanations (calorimetry error for the heat, sloppy handling for the helium) don't explain the consistent correlation at about the right Q-value for d-d fusion. (That doesn't prove d-d fusion, there are other possible nuclear reactions that would do the same), and, on the other, since if helium is appearing where it didn't exist before, nuclear reaction is a strong conclusion.

Not really! We don't have anything near the known product production for D-D fusion, so you have to postulate that our physics is predicting the energy but not the reaction. That's cherry picking of the highest order. Extraordinary claims (nearly neutron-free D+D fusion) have to be backed by extraordinary evidence. And BTW the idea of a quadruple D collision is really off the wall. Nature needs to work. Hoyle predicted the rare triple He collision in supernovae but realized there needed to be an unknown C-12 energy resonance to support it. This was found. You now suggest a QUADRUPLE H-2 collision to Be-8 with NO such resonanane to capture and support it. Meh. Unlikeliness piled on unlikeliness.

But, back to the first question here: what is the mainstream view of low energy nuclear reactions? How would we know? I'll wait for an answer to the questions and issues I raised about "mainstream."

The mainstream view is "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." There's a several kV potential barrier to cross. Where's the energy? It's not that the mainsteam wasn't willinig to believe in anything but hot fusion: they believed in cold bubble fusion until not long ago. Now, THAT has come into disrepute. If you can't repeat your findings all the time in science, you're in trouble. You can whinge about impure palladium and deuterium contamination, only for so long. Then people expect you to be serious and produce something reproduceable and dramatic, or else zip it till you do.

[Moulton]

If you can't repeat your findings all the time in science, you're in trouble. You can whinge about impure palladium and deuterium contamination, only for so long. Then people expect you to be serious and produce something reproduceable and dramatic, or else zip it till you do.

Well said.