Cold Fusion Back In The Limelight - Guest Speaker Dr. Brian Josephson

[Thetom]

What do you guys make of this??

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/17/nuclear-future-beyond-japan/

It says, and i quote:

The potential benefits are great enough that, despite past failures, the technology deserves a fair hearing from the scientific community this time.

Which makes me feel at least partly safe posting this on PF.

Any thoughts?

 

[MacLaddy]

What do you guys make of this??

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/17/nuclear-future-beyond-japan/

It says, and i quote:



Which makes me feel at least partly safe posting this on PF.

Any thoughts?

I was just asking the same question, and then you beat me to it.

[Edit by Ivan: Link deleted]

This subject has been locked in two other threads, but I think it may bear some scrutiny. Is this website I listed a legit source? [No ]

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Note that this topic qualifies for S&D only because there is evidence for a mystery as per the results of a 2004 conference. Evidence for cold fusion may be another matter entirely.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=425462&postcount=19

Very frustrating, only the aps link is working on that page. The rest are dead but the dates are referenced.

 

[MacLaddy]

Note that this qualifies for S&D only because there is evidence for a mystery. Evidence for cold fusion may be another matter entirely.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=425462&postcount=19

Thank you, Ivan, for letting this one shine in the light for a bit. Hopefully someone much more educated than I can give some feedback.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Note that legitimate scientific publications appropriate here are listed at the following link
http://scientific.thomson.com/index.html

If you have problems with the search feature, you can view the entire list here.
http://www.thomsonscientific.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jlresults.cgi?PC=MASTER

The claims of the Italian Scientists are only worthy of consideration if their work is published in an appropriate journal. MacLaddy, what you had linked was a blog, not a journal.

Do we have anything beyond an unsubstantiated, wild claim?

 

[MacLaddy]

Note that legitimate scientific publications appropriate here are listed at the following link
http://scientific.thomson.com/index.html

This is a great link, and no, I could not locate any information about this topic within the search feature.

If you have problems with the search feature, you can view the entire list here.
http://www.thomsonscientific.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jlresults.cgi?PC=MASTER

This link isn't working.
(edit: Now it is)

The claims of the Italian Scientists are only worthy of consideration if their work is published in an appropriate journal. MacLaddy, what you had linked was a blog, not a journal.
Do we have anything beyond an unsubstantiated and wild claim?

Apparently I am a sucker for a scientific name, my apologies.

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-01/italian-scientists-claim-dubious-cold-fusion-breakthrough]Based[/PLAIN] on this lack of even a theoretical basis for the device’s function, a patent application was rejected. Their credibility isn’t helped by the fact that Rossi apparently has something of a rap sheet, which allegedly includes illegally importing gold and tax fraud.

I'm still a bit green when it comes to appropriate researching, but it appears that we'll just have to wait until the big event in Greece to see if there is anything legit to this.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This is a great link, and no, I could not locate any information about this topic within the search feature.

This link isn't working.
(edit: Now it is)

Apparently I am a sucker for a scientific name, my apologies.

The link has been fixed. No problem; that's why we're here.

 

[Thetom]

The claims of the Italian Scientists are only worthy of consideration if their work is published in an appropriate journal.

It sounds like they claim to have already built one, but so far journals are refusing to publish.

Question: Wouldn't it be very easy to validate their claims seeing as they supposedly already have the device? And what happens when peers in the community do validate the findings but the journals continue to refuse to publish? Can that even happen?

The reason i ask is because it sounded like it has already been peer-review, at least superficially, by Giuseppe Levi.

A nuclear physicist associated with the Italian National Institute of Nuclear Physics, Giuseppe Levi, told reporters at the January demonstration that he was convinced the results were accurate

If he has investigated it thoroughly and is prepared to submit a paper attesting to the fact, aren't the journals duty bound to publish? See I'm not a scientist and not sure how it works (the peer-review process, not cold fusion )

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It sounds like they claim to have already built one, but so far journals are refusing to publish.

Question: Wouldn't it be very easy to validate their claims seeing as they supposedly already have the device? And what happens when peers in the community do validate the findings but the journals continue to refuse to publish? Can that even happen?

The reason i ask is because it sounded like it has already been peer-review, at least superficially, by Giuseppe Levi.

There is a process to science and it works. If there is anything to this claim, it will be published - you can bet on it. It would be earth-shaking news. There is no sense in guessing when we have journals to sort this out.

If he has investigated it thoroughly and is prepared to submit a paper attesting to the fact, aren't the journals duty bound to publish? See I'm not a scientist and not sure how it works (the peer-review process, not cold fusion )

"Prepared to submit" is not the same as "submitted and published". When a claim can't be tested directly, or at least not easily so, things get a little more dicey. But when a claim, like this one, can be tested directly, there is no need for speculation. There is no way the scientific community would let something like this slip through the cracks were it legit. It would be front-page news, beyond question, almost immediately.

Based on what I've seen, this is almost certainly a con job.

purportedly using 400 watts of power to generate 12,400 watts

Yeah, right. Trust me. If they can do this, there is no need to worry about informing the world, It will happen overnight. There would be no doubt.

 

[Thetom]

I understand. And yeah it sounds pretty spectacular.

I also just found this which answered my question in part:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=238709&page=2

Note to readers: When it comes to material that some claim should be published, or that would be published if not for bias, our position is that we do not buy into conspiracy theories, and that we allow the journals to do the debunking for us. If someone can't get published in an appropriate journal, there is no need to justify that here.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There is some irony in this in that Pons and Fleishman - the fathers of cold fusion - jumped to improper conclusions and then managed to get PBS News to put their story up front without publication. No one was lying, but it sure did embarrass a lot of people. I've been a PBS fan since almost the very start. I consider that rush to broadcast their single biggest mistake in the history of the network. I will never forget watching that report and thinking, my God... can this be true?! For a moment it seemed the world had been changed forever.

I was actually there when Ponds and Fleishman first presented their data to the American Electrochemical Society. It was really a very embarrassing evening for everyone. A number of speakers completely destroyed P&F's paper.

 

[Pengwuino]

If he has investigated it thoroughly and is prepared to submit a paper attesting to the fact, aren't the journals duty bound to publish? See I'm not a scientist and not sure how it works (the peer-review process, not cold fusion )

Journals will have what are called 'referees' look at the papers and look for flaws. Journals are under no requirement to publish anything. There are limited resources and journals have a standard to maintain. However, if this is legit, they would want to. Trust me, for a journal to be the ones who refused to publish something this earth-shattering if it were completely legit would be unbelievably counter-productive. They would lose a lot of standing and standing is something makes any journal great (and what sells subscriptions!).

There is tremendous financial incentive for people to just make up something this revolutionary. Ignoring all the psychological incentives such as fame and admiration and delusions of grandeur, there would be lots of money to be made for anyone corrupt enough to try to push a fake idea like this.

Of course, they may just have something wrong that they haven't found out yet. It happens. If they DO have something that spectacular, however, you have a world changing event.

 

[Thetom]

There is some irony in this in that Ponds and Fleishman - the fathers of cold fusion - jumped to improper conclusions and then managed to get PBS News to put their story up front without publication. No one was lying, but it sure did embarrass a lot of people. I've been a PBS fan since almost the very start. I consider that rush to broadcast their single biggest mistake in the history of the network. I will never forget watching that report and thinking, my God... can this be true?! For a moment it seemed the world had been changed forever.

I was actually there when Ponds and Fleishman first presented their data to the American Electrochemical Society. It was really a very embarrassing evening for everyone. A number of speakers completely destroyed P&F's paper.

Wow, i bet that was quite a night. I'm beginning to understand the gravity of these claims.

I've only seen a couple of things from PBS as I'm in the UK. Wasn't The Elegant Universe (string theory thing) done by PBS? I have to say, the Elegant Universe TV programme was very differnt to the book. I saw Brian Greene present it and thought he was so cheesy and probably didn't even understand the thing he was presenting, not realizing he was actually the author. How wrong I was. I've learned to love Mr.Greene's passionate delivery now.

There is tremendous financial incentive for people to just make up something this revolutionary.

Like selling the story to The Washington Times for a start!

And thanks for the answers

 

[russ_watters]

What do you guys make of this??

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/17/nuclear-future-beyond-japan/

It says, and i quote:

The potential benefits are great enough that, despite past failures, the technology deserves a fair hearing from the scientific community this time.

Which makes me feel at least partly safe posting this on PF.

Any thoughts?

The opinions of an op-ed editor of a local newspaper, who'se scientific credentials are unknown don't carry a lot of weight. To the quote specifically:

1. He implies that CF didn't get a fair hearing the first time. He's wrong - it did.
2. He implies that by not publishing the results of the Italian experiment, it isn't getting a fair hearing now. He's wrong again.

 

[Willowz]

I don't get it. Why aren't stars doing "cold fusion", if it exists as a "possibility". It's like talking about "square-circles". Nonsense.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't get it. Why aren't stars doing "cold fusion", if it exists as a "possibility". It's like talking about "square-circles". Nonsense.

Because they are doing hot fusion?

 

[Willowz]

Because they are doing hot fusion?

Maybe I was vague. Why can't we see evidence in nature backing the concept of having "cold fusion"... as an energy source worth seeking?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Maybe I was vague. Why can't we see evidence in nature backing the concept of having "cold fusion"... as an energy source worth seeking?

There was a scientific model being used to explain the results.

The key is that the claim was first based on experimental evidence. If one can prove something is happening, existence doesn't depend on our ability to explain it. And people still claim to be getting anomalous results.

Can you name any examples of naturally occurring fission? We know fission works.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Can you name any examples of naturally occurring fission? We know fission works.

Oklo.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Oklo.

Heh, I thought about that after making the post. But it was only discovered after we produced fission artificially. There were no examples in nature that drove the original research.

 

[Willowz]

If one can prove something is happening, existence doesn't depend on our ability to explain it.

I don't understand this. Existence is a prerequisite for proof. And so far there is little proof of cold fusion if any. Again it seems more like talking about square circles. "Appealing" as they may be, they don't exist (even as a possibility).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't understand this. Existence is a prerequisite for proof. And so far there is little proof of cold fusion if any. Again it seems more like talking about square circles. "Appealing" as they may be, they don't exist (even as a possibility).

You missed the point. Existence is required for proof, but we may or may not be able to predict something is possible. And we have no reason to believe that all things possible are possible under naturally occurring conditions.

 

[Borek]

Just to put cold fusion in perspective - F&P gave a bad meaning to a perfectly valid term:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Just to put cold fusion in perspective - F&P gave a bad meaning to a perfectly valid term:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion

Yes, thank you. I should have said that P&F were the fathers of cold fusion in the popular context. And I believe their paper assumed this model was in play. I know Steve Jones at Utah was talking about this at the time. [Jones claimed that P&F had stolen his work, or something like that]

 

[Willowz]

And we have no reason to believe that all things possible are possible under naturally occurring conditions(?).

I wonder what could "naturally occurring conditions" possibly mean?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I wonder what could "naturally occurring conditions" possibly mean?

Here is an example of conditions that are not naturally occurring: Highly purified materials of a specific type are held at a very specific temperature and pressure and radiated with a beam of photons having a specific frequency and intensity.

Just a random of example of the sorts of things scientists do every day. These are not conditions that one would find in nature - esp the part about highly purified materials.

"Naturally occurring" means just that: Conditions found somewhere in nature.

 

[Willowz]

My point is that there is a greater interest in projects such as ITER that seem more reasonable than alternatives such as cold fusion. You see the rationale?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

My point is that there is a greater interest in projects such as ITER that seem more reasonable than alternatives such as cold fusion. You see the rationale?

No matter. If someone can produce repeatable evidence for cold fusion, there may be no need for ITER. Not to mention that at the current rate of progress, fusion power is probably a century away.

I don't understand your goal here. Are you saying people should be banned from considering this issue? It sounds like you think it's all nonsense so no one should talk about it.

 

[Raphie]

I was just asking the same question, and then you beat me to it.

[Edit by Ivan: Link deleted]

This subject has been locked in two other threads, but I think it may bear some scrutiny. Is this website I listed a legit source? [No ]

Hi, MacLaddy, I guess we (the rest of us) will just have to take Ivan Seeking's word for it without any manner of justification whatsoever.

Props to Ivan, however, for transparent (as opposed to invisible...) censorship, which, without personal judgement, is what his actions constitute (IMHO). Props because at least the PF body politic has the opportunity to know what (or rather "that") they are not being allowed to judge for themselves. This is not always the case.

The irony, of course, is to be found in Ivan's own words...

I don't understand your goal here. Are you saying people should be banned from considering this issue? It sounds like you think it's all nonsense so no one should talk about it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Hi, MacLaddy, I guess we (the rest of us) will just have to take Ivan Seeking's word for it without any manner of justification whatsoever.

Props to Ivan, however, for transparent (as opposed to invisible...) censorship, which, without personal judgement, is what his actions constitute (IMHO). Props because at least the PF body politic has the opportunity to know what (or rather "that") they are not being allowed to judge for themselves. This is not always the case.

The irony, of course, is to be found in Ivan's own words...

First of all, the post was copied to the staff so the edit can be seen by them. Secondly, MacLaddy has his own link and knows what he posted - a blog -which I explained is not an acceptable source. Thirdly, the rules on this matter are clear - blogs are not proper references - so you clearly haven't bothered to read them. Why don't you start there.

 

[MacLaddy]

Hi, MacLaddy, I guess we (the rest of us) will just have to take Ivan Seeking's word for it without any manner of justification whatsoever.

Props to Ivan, however, for transparent (as opposed to invisible...) censorship, which, without personal judgement, is what his actions constitute (IMHO). Props because at least the PF body politic has the opportunity to know what (or rather "that") they are not being allowed to judge for themselves. This is not always the case.

The irony, of course, is to be found in Ivan's own words...

The website that I posted was questionable, which is exactly why I asked if it was legitimate. Ivan's actions were exactly what I expected to happen under the circumstances.

 

[Raphie]

Thirdly, the rules on this matter are clear - blogs are not proper references

Yes, the rules are quite clear. As such, I suggest, then, that, in the interests of consistency, forum moderators purge this forum of all links to the blogs of such physicists as John Baez, Peter Woit and Lubos Motl, amongst others.

Which is (obviously, I hope) a tongue-firmly-in-cheek statement.


Raphie

P.S. MacLaddy, thank you for the clarification. I am very sensitive to issues of censorship. And in regards to the issue of cold fusion, even Nobel Laureates such as Dr. Brian Josephson have felt its chilling effects.

Edit by Ivan: Inappropriate link deleted

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yes, the rules are quite clear. As such, I suggest, then, that, in the interests of consistency, forum moderators purge this forum of all links to the blogs of such physicists as John Baez, Peter Woit and Lubos Motl, amongst others.

Which is (obviously, I hope) a tongue-firmly-in-cheek statement.


Raphie

No tongue-in-cheek required. No blog may be used as an academic reference for claims of qualified experimental evidence. A published paper is always required.

 

[bjosephson]

Re the deleted link, it seems the moderators were within their rights at least to delete the link as not conforming to the rules. The official link to New Scientist's interview with me is

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225812.200-lone-voices-special-take-nobodys-word-for-it.html

This gets you the first part but you have to be a subscriber to get the complete interview. I'm sure however that with a little initiative people can find the full text elsewhere on the web. I'd like also to draw people's attention to the Wikipedia article on the page 'Rossi reactor', which provides many useful references.

Some points:

1. on the basis of the 2nd investigation by the U. of Bologna, where 15kW was generated continuously over a period of 18 hours, I have little doubt that the Rossi reactor is real and that over the next few months everyone will have to accept this.

2. why it is not published in the journals like any other scientific discovery? Ans.: it is normal for inventors to keep details of their inventions secret until they can get protection with patents. Rossi apparently put nearly all his own money into developing the reactor and naturally wants to get some of it back rather than competitors reaping all of the benefits.

I have heard that Rossi did not wish to go public till the 1MW reactor had been constructed, but his collaborator Forcadi publicised the initial demonstration.

Brian Josephson

 

[bjosephson]

People here seem to have a naive view of how peer review works in reality. There are many important discoveries of the past which could not get published at the time because people did not believe the claims. it is true that journals might be passing up the chance of enhanced reputation by not publishing such discoveries, but this has to be balanced against the possibility that a published item might be wrong, which would have the reverse effect.

And even I have to admit that until the time Rossi reactors are in common use (which, if it happened, would bypass the need for validation by journal publication), I could be wrong about the Rossi reactor, I just find that implausible taking everything into account (including the fact that I have seen clear evidence that LENR is real in labs I have visited), so I am prepared to stick my neck out.