- #1
- 8,143
- 1,761
http://www.springerlink.com/content/75p4572645025112/Abstract: Almost two decades ago, Fleischmann and Pons reported excess enthalpy generation in the negatively polarized Pd/D-D2O system, which they attributed to nuclear reactions. In the months and years that followed, other manifestations of nuclear activities in this system were observed, viz. tritium and helium production and transmutation of elements. In this report, we present additional evidence, namely, the emission of highly energetic charged particles emitted from the Pd/D electrode when this system is placed in either an external electrostatic or magnetostatic field. The density of tracks registered by a CR-39 detector was found to be of a magnitude that provides undisputable evidence of their nuclear origin. The experiments were reproducible. A model based upon electron capture is proposed to explain the reaction products observed in the Pd/D-D2O system.
Some more links:Abstract:
Almost two decades ago, Fleischmann and Pons reported excess enthalpy generation in the negatively polarized Pd/D-D2O system, which they attributed to nuclear reactions. In the months and years that followed, other manifestations of nuclear activities in this system were observed, viz. tritium and helium production and transmutation of elements. In this report, we present additional evidence, namely, the emission of highly energetic charged particles emitted from the Pd/D electrode when this system is placed in either an external electrostatic or magnetostatic field. The density of tracks registered by a CR-39 detector was found to be of a magnitude that provides undisputable evidence of their nuclear origin. The experiments were reproducible. A model based upon electron capture is proposed to explain the reaction products observed in the Pd/D-D2O system.
The density of tracks registered by a CR-39 detector was found to be of a magnitude that provides undisputable evidence of their nuclear origin.
russ_watters said:Well, the fact that they seem to think P&F actually found something doesn't inspire confidence in their research.
Where do they say that?
Abstract: Almost two decades ago, Fleischmann and Pons reported excess enthalpy generation in the negatively polarized Pd/D-D2O system, which they attributed to nuclear reactions. ... we present additional evidence,
Though I have little doubt that at least initially they believed in what they found, P&F were essentially complete frauds. Pretty much everything they claimed was a lie or deception and in the end whether it was pathological or intentional is immaterial.Ivan Seeking said:P&F made a number of claims. IIRC, some [key to claims of a nulcear reaction] were attributed to contamination.
russ_watters said:Though I have little doubt that at least initially they believed in what they found, P&F were essentially complete frauds. Pretty much everything they claimed was a lie or deception and in the end whether it was pathological or intentional is immaterial.
Their first deception was in releasing their paper before a date agreed-upon in advance by them and another researcher on a similar project.Ivan Seeking said:This was not my take at all. Do you have any evidence to support your accusations? They certainly appeared to have screwed up, but I was never aware of any intent to deceive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusionwik said:In mid-March, both teams were ready to publish, and Fleischmann and Jones had agreed to meet at the airport on the 24th to send their papers at the exact same time to Nature by FedEx. However Fleischmann and Pons broke that apparent agreement - they submitted a paper to the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry on the 11th, and they disclosed their work in the press conference the day before. Jones, apparently furious at being "scooped", faxed in his paper to Nature as soon as he saw the press announcements.[48]
Is ignorance a legitimate defense for such basic errors and radical claims? Perhaps stupidity is the alternate explanation for their actions, but I have trouble accepting that they are that stupid.What I remember is that they didn't know how to use a neutron counter, they didn't fully understand their data...
Really stretching here for recall, but when P&F presented their data, Cal Tech made it abundantly clear that they didn't recognize a key signature in their data that I believe was referred to as the Compton Bulge - the overall impression was that these guys were out of their league but not that they were frauds. And years later they certainly weren't mentioned as such in nuclear physics classes.
...and...wik said:Dr. Steven E. Koonin of Caltech called the Utah report a result of "the incompetence and delusion of Pons and Fleischmann".
To me, the distinction between lying to/misleading others due to self-delusion (pathological science) and actual conscious fraud is mostly just hairsplitting (afterall - a pathological liar is still a liar regardless of if they can control their lies), but the "road from foolishness to fraud" eventually gets to fraud because of the magnitude of self-delusion required to make so many massive "mistakes" for so long. That's the sub-title of Voodoo Science, in which P&F are the test-case. And the reason is:wik said:Dr. Douglas R. O. Morrison, a physicist representing CERN, called the entire episode an example of pathological science.
Everyone makes mistakes, but when you pile mistakes on top of sabbotage/bypass/cheating of a process designed to catch and mitigate them, that is not acceptable for people who have an ethical responsibility to do better. That's essentially the same as your criticism of Bush for thinking he's above the law and able to do illegal things if he thinks they are necessary for a higher purpose.There is nothing wrong with being wrong...
Isn't attempting to bypass/cheat the scientific process the worst possible sin a scientist can commit against science? Does ethics not apply to scientists?...AFAIK their only offense was in going public for fear of losing what they believed were the rights to the most important energy source since oil.
Ivan Seeking said:The biggest difference that I noticed here is that P&F never even claimed that their results could be duplicated reliably.
Well, my main point in all of this is that the standards by which they measure their research are from P&F's example - the process or the quality - that doesn't inspire confidence in it.If this group is reliably detecting a known signature of nuclear events, that would be quite a different situation than that of P&F.
For years, skeptics have used cold fusion as the exemplar of the worst aspects of pseudoscience. "That's why we need to be skeptical," they tell us, "so the public won't be hoodwinked by scams like cold fusion." The very term cold fusion has become synonymous with harebrained schemes to delude the scientific community.
But wait ...
Now there's news that the U.S. Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center has achieved cold fusion.
Building on the techniques first reported by Fleischmann and Pons - two of the most reviled, ridiculed, and ostracized figures in the recent history of science, dismissed as frauds and quacks, vilified around the world, deprived of funding and made the butt of countless jokes - yes, building on the work of these two men, the Navy's researchers have apparently found a way to produce low energy nuclear reactions that can be "replicated and verified."
continued
russ_watters said:If you can't verify your own results, then you have nothing to report. When is it acceptable in science to publish results that can't be reliably duplicated? That's the #1 requirement/purpose of scientific testing!
Well, my main point in all of this is that the standards by which they measure their research are from P&F's example - the process or the quality - that doesn't inspire confidence in it.
Cold fusion is a type of nuclear reaction that occurs at or near room temperature, rather than the extremely high temperatures required for traditional nuclear reactions. It involves the fusion of atomic nuclei, similar to the process that powers the sun, but at much lower temperatures.
There have been a few controversial claims of successful cold fusion experiments, but they have not been widely accepted by the scientific community. The concept of cold fusion is still considered to be a highly speculative and unproven area of research.
Cold fusion, if successfully achieved, could potentially provide a nearly limitless source of clean energy. This would have major implications for our current reliance on fossil fuels and the impact it has on the environment.
The main challenge in achieving cold fusion is being able to control the nuclear reactions at such low temperatures. The conditions required for fusion to occur are difficult to create and maintain, and the reactions are highly complex and unpredictable.
There have been some recent advancements in cold fusion research, such as the use of new materials and techniques to potentially achieve fusion at lower temperatures. However, there is still a long way to go before cold fusion can be considered a viable source of energy.