Cold Fusion is theoretically impossible, therefore impossible, in the sense that it might happen because the theory might be wrong, but won't because isn't. All the experimental results, including this study, are consistent with this appraisal: any success is isolated, questionable, partial, unsure, that is, exactly what one expects when trying to measure a very difficult to detect hypothetical phenomenon.

I don't see that assigning Cold Fusion resources to Hot Fusion would do any good, given the former are orders of magnitude smaller than the latter, but redirecting towards some equally cheap but not altogether worthless pursuit such as photovoltaic research would be a marginally +EV play.

Quote: Original post by Diodor
Cold Fusion is theoretically impossible, therefore impossible, in the sense that it might happen because the theory might be wrong, but won't because isn't.\

Maybe something is going astray in translation, but any Scientist that KNOWS he is right is no scientist at all, and knows nothing about what science really is.


The Sun, moon, stars and all the planets revolve around the Earth. We know this because the theories tell us this, the maps we have drawn show this, and when we look up in the sky we can see it plain as day, the sun, the moon, and the stars all move in the same direction around the Earth. Therefore the Earth is the center of the universe, and to say other wise is wrong because we all know that God made the Earth and that the Earth is the Center of the Universe.

Err wait,... That's wrong, and we know that is wrong because we discovered something we couldn't see before and was eventually proved correct, and thus changed theory and founded a newer, more modern science.


This however does NOT mean that cold fusion is impossible or not, only that it is impossible to say that 'cold fusion is impossible'. To say you know for a fact what is right and what is wrong, what is true and what is false, is to say that you know everything in the Universe. And you want to tell me that in less than 100 years on this earth you have learned every last detail there is to know about everything?


Then all I have to ask you is this.
"What is my favorite flavor of ice cream?"

Quote: Original post by Dmytry
A lot of things can go wrong with neutron-detection on plastics, though... the plastic is etched in acid, then pits (which are left where tracks leave plastic) are counted.
Since you're fond of finding links, perhaps you could find a source that indicates they did actually check unexposed plastic from same box, etched in same batch at same time?

to elaborate:
There is a plenty of very good reasons why cold fusion is very unlikely to be real, according to what we know and the model (quantum mechanics) that works, so far, perfectly in physics and chemistry.
Whereas, the probability of experimental error (like, use of plastic that has been irradiated during storage or delivery, some contaminations, and whatnot) is not very low. Historically, it is on order of several percent.
A lot of people do a lot of experiments,
"*It is among 30 papers on the topic that will be presented during a four-day symposium, "New Energy Technology," March 22-25, in conjunction with the 20th anniversary of the first description of cold fusion."
, so, a few positive results (among sea of negative results) are to be expected.
Furthermore, one can be brilliant experimental chemist, but miss something really obvious in physics (such as possibility that plastic was at some point stored near wean neutron source for prolonged period of time. It is a very sensitive detector, and weak neutron sources are not uncommon).

I've already provided enough links. If Johan Frenje's word isn't good enough for you, oh well. Otherwise, I pretty much agree with your remarks. There is plenty of reason for skepticism. Experimental error is a concern. Contamination is a concern. A few positive results in a sea of negative results is a reasonable expectation.

cold fusion IS theoretically impossible (under best most tested theories we've got here). It is of course possible for scientific theories to be wrong, but for a well tested theories, not by much.

Idea that earth is centre of universe was never a scientific theory to begin with. It was a philosophical view, neither based on observations nor making any prediction.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
I've already provided enough links. If Johan Frenje's word isn't good enough for you, oh well.

Depends to what "words". Those words that you quoted, certainly not enough, even if them came from multiple Nobel prize winners.

If words were describing proper experiment, like, with 2 pieces of plastic, from same box, one irradiated by cold fusion cell, other "irradiated" by cell with ordinary hydrogen (same chemistry, but no neutrons), etched in same batch of acid, then it would be enough even if words were from nobody but experimenters themselves (or some news source reputable enough to presume it is reporting correctly).

Quote:

Otherwise, I pretty much agree with your remarks. There is plenty of reason for skepticism. Experimental error is a concern. Contamination is a concern. A few positive results in a sea of negative results is a reasonable expectation.

Yep. A very well done experiment with controls has much lower error rate and would have to be taken very seriously.

Quote: Original post by Dmytry
Idea that earth is centre of universe was never a scientific theory to begin with. It was a philosophical view, neither based on observations nor making any prediction.

With your naked eye, go out tonight and map out proof that we orbit the sun. When you have no extra data, humans tend to do exactly what you are. Assume what we already believe is correct and don't go looking for other answers.

Quote: Original post by Talroth

Quote: Original post by Dmytry
Idea that earth is centre of universe was never a scientific theory to begin with. It was a philosophical view, neither based on observations nor making any prediction.

With your naked eye, go out tonight and map out proof that we orbit the sun. When you have no extra data, humans tend to do exactly what you are. Assume what we already believe is correct and don't go looking for other answers.

Think why its so. That's because geocentricism is not very wrong while you stay on earth. Most of practical navigation by stars and planets and sun is done in geocentric system. The observed difference between sun-orbits-earth hypothesis and earth-orbits-sun hypothesis is rather small. It is still merely a philosophical world-view to see earth as centre of universe, though. You could as well have heaven as centre of universe.

If someone comes and says that mercury or venus is going to crash into earth tomorrow... even geocentric model of solar system is sufficient to call that bullshit.

Quote: Original post by Dmytry

Quote: Original post by LessBread
I've already provided enough links. If Johan Frenje's word isn't good enough for you, oh well.

Depends to what "words". Those words that you quoted, certainly not enough, even if them came from multiple Nobel prize winners.

That's fair enough. [grin]

Quote: Original post by Dmytry
If words were describing proper experiment, like, with 2 pieces of plastic, from same box, one irradiated by cold fusion cell, other "irradiated" by cell with ordinary hydrogen (same chemistry, but no neutrons), etched in same batch of acid, then it would be enough even if words were from nobody but experimenters themselves (or some news source reputable enough to presume it is reporting correctly).

What's left to say but the paper was peer reviewed before publication.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
What's left to say but the paper was peer reviewed before publication.

Well, reviewers don't need to be convinced by experiment. All they check is that paper is not totally awful (not written in 1337sp334k for instance). Peer reviews often fail to detect well auto-generated nonsense.

edit: quick checks indicate that Mosier-Boss was involved in some of those calorimetry experiments with excess heat... in a reaction with several watts of input and output power.

If you looked into those experiments, the reported excess heat is on order of watts (anything less could not be detected because there are tens or hundreds of watts going in and out, masking any tiny excess heat).
Lets go much lower than that and suppose that there is 1 milliwatt of excess heat. You need neat 2*1010 deuterium-tritium fusions per minute to get 1 milliwatt of excess heat.
That would be very easy to detect. Each such fusion produces at least 1 gamma photon.
The cheap geiger counter (that my family got after chernobyl) has gamma detection probability 1% (there is 1% chance of click when gamma particle hits the tube). Suppose we position electrolytic cell at some distance from counter so that only ~1% of gamma rays hit the counter. That amounts >106 counts per minute. That counter only goes up to 99 99 counts, after which, it produces "run for your life" alarm. It means that "run for your life" alarm will sound in less than 0.6 seconds. (also, that counter averages 10 counts per minute for background)
Surely, that would impress even the most hardcore critic. You could bring electrolytic cell to the conference, ask critics to come with their geiger counters, and make critics literally *panic* when you power the cell.

That's why cold fusion looks like total baloney. They're claiming excess power at the edge of detectability, and radioactivity at the edge of detectability. But power output at the edge of detectability corresponds to quite huge radioactivity, to something detectable with any personal Geiger counter.

[Edited by - Dmytry on April 2, 2009 4:57:02 AM]

I think the key here is that theres a difference between "valid" and "likely".

Cold fusion is a valid hypothesis as to the cause of the tracks... but there is little evidence to suggest it is the most likely explanation (or likely at all, let alone most likely).

My reading of the Frenje quote basically led me to a conclusion saying - there wasnt anything in the experiment itself which ruled out cold fusion, and there wasnt anything in the experiment itself which ruled out other explanations. My understanding is that they havent really controlled for other possibilities, such as noise and error, and until they do Occam's Razor suggests cold fusion is a stretch.


I have to wince at the quote from Steven Krivit, though... New Scientist has a lot of great reporting, promoting new ideas etc, but they can be a little gullible at times. A quick trip to the New Energy Times website shows a few quotes that call Mr Krivit's objectivity into question. For example, from an editorial written by Krivit:

Quote: The Four Initial Problems with Cold Fusion
2. Hot fusion had failed to meet its promised expectations; cold fusion posed an imminent threat.

[...]
The Second Set of Problems with Cold Fusion
1. As the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer predicted for any new truth, cold fusion was met with violent opposition and outright hostility

Im given to be a little suspicious of anyone claiming "Its the truth, but scientists just cant handle it" or "we know the truth, but they are out to get us". Particularly when ask to believe their testimony as to how reliable a procedure was.