Cold Fusion Continues

Via the Daily Tech, we learn of a new journal article (and talk video) on a zero-electronics measurement of nuclear particle emissions from a "cold fusion" device.  Apparently, previous measurements were criticized as due to electronic noise.

Using procedures that are commonly used in the area of nuclear physics, we have detected the emission of energetic particles during the electrolysis of heavy water on Pd electrodes prepared by codeposition in cells placed in either an external electric or magnetic field. Such energetic particles can only originate from nuclear reactions.

This would be a great topic for a disagreement case study, looking at the meta reasons people give for dismissing each others’ opinions here.   At least on the surface, this paper and the work it cites appear to be careful work, worthy of attention.

Added:  Cold fusion was the first topic of the 1989 corporate prediction market I helped create.  This reminds us to be wary of trying to settle bets too quickly – some disputes just take a long time to resolve.

Added 12May: I just now got my 5May New Scientist article on this in the mail.  Sigh.

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as:
Trackback URL:
  • http://amnap.blogspot.com/ Matthew C

    The reason for disagreement is pretty straightforward — the current physics models make LENR / cold fusion reactions appear to be impossible under the experimental conditions reported, and getting the experiments to work consistently has been a challenge because of the complexity of the electrodes and physico-chemical conditions needed.

    By the early 1990s, cold fusion was viewed as crackpotism, and even used as a preferred synonym for such, so getting people to consider the possibility of the phenomenon being real was very difficult. But the research has been ongoing for years with many labs involved and the apparent phenomenon has not gone away.

  • http://profile.typekey.com/robinhanson/ Robin Hanson

    Matthew, the conflict between known theory and the apparent phenomena cannot by itself explain the disagreement for the obvious reason that both sides are well aware of this conflict.

  • http://amnap.blogspot.com/ Matthew C

    Correct Robin, but the problem with nuclear physics theory in conjunction with the difficulties of replication made the “mainstream” decide that the initial claims were nothing but sloppy science and later research simple crackpotism.

    There is a decent history of the controversy about 1/2 down this page.

  • http://profile.typekey.com/robinhanson/ Robin Hanson

    Matthew, the question is what makes some reject the “mainstream” while others accept it, each knowing that the other side disagrees. How can they each reconcile their own view with the fact that smart expert people are on the other side?

  • http://amnap.blogspot.com/ Matthew C

    The Wikipedia article on cold fusion has a much better history of the controversy than the link I provided earlier.

    Robin, that is a very important question. My response is rapidly becoming too long for an OB comment and I need to get some other tasks completed. When I am finished I will post it to my blog and provide a link here.

  • http://profile.typekey.com/halfinney/ Hal Finney

    Going back to Kuhn we can see that science is almost willfully non-Bayesian in its acceptance of new information. It is extremely reluctant to accept updates that would throw it into a state of confusion, weakening the strength of available theories. If a new and stronger (more predictive and accurate) theory is offered it is much easier for science to accept than merely taking in evidence that leaves things more uncertain.

    Given the manifest success of science over the centuries it is interesting to speculate whether this policy is actually superior to Bayesianism as an institutional practice. A more open-minded science might find itself tossed about by the winds of change and seemingly revolutionary new discoveries that don’t go anywhere. Perhaps institutional scientific conservatism can be seen as a counter-bias to the overconfidence of individual scientists who are too aggressive in departing from the orthodoxy in search of glory, and who present their experimental results in a better light than they deserve.

  • http://profile.typekey.com/robinhanson/ Robin Hanson

    Hal, I see no reason to expect academia to be optimized for intellectual progress. The obvious explanation for academic overconfidence seems sufficient; profs are overconfident for the same reason docs are, because patients take uncertainty as a sign of incompetence.

  • http://profile.typekey.com/halfinney/ Hal Finney

    Okay, but given that academics are individually overconfident for a variety of reasons, how should science as an institution handle that? Refusing to accept new results at face value is an effective countermeasure. This may look to outsiders like irrational, stubborn conservatism.

  • http://www.iidb.org RBH

    I suspect science as a whole is (relatively) conservative with respect to novel results because the signal to noise ratio in seemingly novel results is so low. Granted, there are instances where a novel outcome is genuinely interesting, but there are many many more instances where they could be a waste of time, money, and career aspirations. Since we know that “results” are the product of a complex interplay of experimental conditions, extraneous noise, auxiliary assumptions about instrumentation, unexamined ceteris paribus clauses, and so on, counter-theoretical results in themselves are not dispositive evidence that the theory being contradicted is in fact wrong. There’s many a trap ‘twixt the meter reading and theory.

  • http://profile.typekey.com/robinhanson/ Robin Hanson

    Hal and RBH, those sound too me too much like generic excuses. Sure, maybe academia just happens to make exactly the right tradeoff between enthusiasm and skepticism, and any appearance to the contrary might just be due to our limited view. “Science moves in mysterious ways; who are we to question its wisdom?”

  • http://profile.typekey.com/sentience/ Eliezer Yudkowsky

    Going back to Kuhn we can see that science is almost willfully non-Bayesian in its acceptance of new information… A more open-minded science might find itself tossed about by the winds of change and seemingly revolutionary new discoveries that don’t go anywhere.

    Hal, that IS Bayesian reasoning – it attaches a smaller prior probability to newly proposed theories being true, or perhaps a larger prior probability to experimental results being artifactual. A good general principle is that when you hypothesize a state-of-the-world and a line of reasoning which works in it, that line of reasoning works because it is in some way Bayesian.

  • http://profile.typekey.com/halfinney/ Hal Finney

    Maybe you can come up with an interepretation in which Science is behaving in a Bayesian way, but I think it will require a substantial remapping of stated policies, procedures and beliefs. Science claims to be open to new ideas, and to be willing to falsify existing theories on the basis of contradictory evidence. The actual practice is more conservative. Now you can create a Bayesian story for this but you have to have Science hold its paradigms with a much higher degree of certainty than is actually stated. String theory can’t be merely the most plausible candidate for a theory of everything, it has to be more like 99% certain to be true. Cold fusion can’t be merely questionable, it has to be 99% certain not to work. I think those kinds of numbers, or even greater degrees of certainty, are necessary to explain Kuhnian phenomena in terms of Bayesian updating.

    This tension between what Science claims to believe and what it acts as though it believes can perhaps explain why mavericks are willing to hold to disagreement with the dominant paradigm. In the other direction, I am not sure how mainstream scientists justify their continued disagreement with outsiders, other than with standard maxims such as extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence.

  • albatross

    Perhaps some of the reluctance to accept new ideas involves the cost of accepting them, which may include spending a lot of time learning stuff you don’t know, and discarding a set of tools with which you’re an expert. Even if you are a selfless seeker of knowledge, it may be a better bet to stick with the old model, where you can still do useful work today, than burn a couple years of your professional life getting to the point where you can do useful work with the new model.

    And, of course, you’re not a selfless seeker of knowledge. You probably like the feeling of being an expert in your field, and aren’t necessarily too keen on being back at the bottom, trying to catch up to what a bunch of other people know all about. And if the old model, in which you spent your life working, is wrong, you also may lose some pride in your previous accomplishments, which may turn out now to be built on sand.

  • http://LENR-CANR.org Jed Rothwell

    I am the Librarian at LENR-CANR.org. I have followed the cold fusion controversy closely, and I spoken with many researchers and many prominent opponents of cold fusion such as Prof. Huizenga. I wrote a summary of the cold fusion controversy and the views of prominent scientists on both sides of the debate, here:

    http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/293wikipedia.html

    For example, in Huizenga’s book summary, in the last chapter, point number six states that we know a priori that all positive cold fusion excess heat results must be wrong:

    “Furthermore, if the claimed excess heat exceeds that possible by other conventional processes (chemical, mechanical, etc.), one must conclude that an error has been made in measuring the excess heat.”

    I agree that science is naturally conservative and slow to change. This is true of most mainstream institutions such as banking, education, medicine and engineering. This is a good thing; we would not want engineers to casually toss away safety standards without careful consideration. All new ideas meet with a degree of healthy skepticism, plus a measure of foolish opposition which only fades away as old scientists die. As Max Planck put it, progress in science occurs “funeral by funeral.” He explained: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” Breakthroughs such as manned flight and continental drift were famous opposed. Countless other findings, such as the discovery that AIDS in women progresses differently than it does in men, have also been opposed.

    However, I do not think this inherent conservatism explains the extreme opposition to cold fusion. The extent of this opposition is unprecedented in the history of modern science. I believe I know why, but to understand the reason, first consider a few recent radical breakthroughs and theories that have not met opposition, yet which share some of its characteristics. If conservatism alone caused opposition, these would be as despised as cold fusion is:

    * Multiuniverse and string theories – radical and unproven. Unlike cold fusion, based completely on hypothesis rather than experimental observation.

    * Cloning – far more difficult to replicate than cold fusion. The success rate is less than 1 per 1000 attempts, whereas many cold fusion experiments work between 60% and 100% of the time, such as the Iwamura (Mitsubishi)

    * High temperature superconducting.

    * The top quark – cannot be replicated by any laboratory other than Fermilab. Unlike cold fusion, the proof of the top quark is entirely statistical in nature.

    I believe the key difference between these discoveries and cold fusion is prosaic: it is a pocketbook issue. Cold fusion threatens the research funding of many powerful scientists, especially in plasma fusion. Plasma fusion scientists have taken a leading role in criticizing cold fusion. There was no large, well-funded group of established researchers doing work that competes with cloning, high temperature superconducting, or string theory, so there was no harsh opposition to these breakthroughs. Also, no prominent scientist went out on a limb denouncing there breakthroughs, so no one is in dangers of losing face, whereas dozens of prominent scientists have gone on record accusing cold fusion researchers of fraud, lunacy and so on.

    The opposition to cold fusion is likely to continue up until the moment cold fusion is funded. At that moment, many critics are likely to say they supported the research all along. This is born out by the fact that in 1989, several prominent physicists and chemists publicly excoriated cold fusion, they also privately applied to the program director at EPRI asking for research money to do cold fusion experiments. As cold fusion researcher Stanislaw Szpak (the principal author of the NRL paper) once explained to me: “scientists will believe whatever you pay them to believe.”

    Please note that I am not suggesting there is a conspiracy to oppose cold fusion, or anything like that. As William Beaty put it: “Do racists ‘conspire’ to suppress minorities? Do sexists ‘conspire’ to suppress woman employees? Of course not. If you pose a threat to the careers of a group of powerful people, they’ll never conspire together, yet each will *separately* try their best to discredit you.”

    – Jed Rothwell
    Librarian, LENR-CANR.org

  • http://profile.typekey.com/robinhanson/ Robin Hanson

    Jed, your thoughtful summary would make sense as a story that the pro side would use to justify their disagreement. But what story does the other side tell themselves, to justify their disagreement? Do they really tell themselves they oppose cold fusion because it threatens their funding?

  • http://LENR-CANR.org Jed Rothwell

    Robin Hanson asks:

    “But what story does the other side tell themselves, to justify their disagreement? Do they really tell themselves they oppose cold fusion because it threatens their funding?”

    I cannot speculate about what people tell themselves. However, leading opponents of cold fusion have told me they oppose cold fusion because it threatens their funding. They say things like: “cold fusion is garbage science, and if it is funded the money will be diverted from real energy research.” In 1989, Congress did, in fact, consider diverting some plasma fusion funding into cold fusion, so I think their fears are justified. They say that funding cold fusion would make a mockery of science, like funding creationism.

    As for what else they say publicly, as I mentioned, I summarized the arguments of some leading skeptics here:

    http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/293wikipedia.html

    Some of their statements are harsh and ad hominem, as you see, especially comments made by officials at the American Physical Society. In the article above I quoted F. Slakey, the Science Policy Administrator of the American Physical Society, who said that cold fusion scientists are “a cult of fervent half-wits” “While every result and conclusion they publish meets with overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, they resolutely pursue their illusion of fusing hydrogen in a mason jar. . . . And a few scientists, captivated by [Fleischmann and Pons’] fantasy . . . pursue cold fusion with Branch Davidian intensity.” In 2006, others published accusations in the Washington Post that cold fusion researchers are committing fraud.

    As far as I know, the leading skeptics such as Slakey, Robert Park, and the past and present editors of the Scientific American have not read the scientific literature. Robert Park and the editors of the Scientific American told me they have not read any papers, and I have no reason to doubt them. (See: http://lenr-canr.org/AppealandSciAm.pdf) So their opposition is not based on an analysis of the experimental data or technique, but rather on theory, or in some cases on what you might call science-by-vote. Their assertions about theory may or may not be correct; I cannot judge that issue, although many prominent theoreticians such as the late Julian Schwinger disagreed with them. But in my opinion, theory is moot in this case. It is fundamental to the scientific method that when theory conflicts with replicated experimental evidence, the experiment must be correct, and the theory must be wrong. Prominent opponents such as Huizenga disagree with me.

    Many of the statements made by opponents are factually incorrect. For example, they assert that no result has ever been replicated, and that no cold fusion research paper has ever been published in a mainstream, peer-reviewed paper. It is a matter of fact that roughly a thousand papers have been published in mainstream journals. You can verify this in a university library. (You can download a list of 3,500 papers from LENR-CANR to speed up your search, which includes about 1,000 from the journals, as I said.) An opponent might argue that all of these papers are wrong, but it makes no sense for him to deny that they exist.

    – Jed Rothwell

  • http://amnap.blogspot.com/ Matthew C

    Jed, you have written some great comments here.

    Here is my own response to Robin’s question, since it is too long for a comment.

  • http://newenergytimes.com Steven B. Krivit

    Hi Robin,

    Bennett Daviss’ article in New Scientist on May 3 is a follow-up piece to the in-depth article on the SPAWAR San Diego research by Steven Krivit and Daviss published in New Energy Times in November.

    Apparently, New Scientist chose to neglect the term “low energy nuclear reactions,” which those of us observing, and working in the field have now adopted.

    The term “cold fusion” was never chosen by Fleischmann and Pons; it was wished on them by the press. It was and is a poor descriptor for the phenomenon. The concept of fusion remains highly speculative, a variety of phenomena are clearly not fusion, and then there is the Widom-Larsen not-fusion theory. (http://www.newenergytimes.com/wltheory)

    Related New Energy Times stories:
    Report on the 2006 Naval Science and Technology Partnership Conference (Sept. 10, 2006) (http://newenergytimes.com/news/2006/NET18.htm#FROMED)
    Extraordinary Evidence (Nov. 10, 2006) (http://newenergytimes.com/news/2006/NET19.htm#ee)
    Extraordinary Courage: Report on Some LENR Presentations at the 2007 American Physical Society Meeting (March 16, 2007) (http://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET21.htm#apsreport)
    Charged Particles for Dummies: A Conversation With Lawrence P.G. Forsley (May 10, 2007) (http://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET22.htm)

    Lots more info on the subject at our site. Welcome!

    P.S. I am in full agreement with you about your idea about this subject as a case for a disagreement case study. I’ve spent the last 6 years investigating it (from a journalist’s perspective)talking to nearly every prominent proponent and opponent. The things I could tell you!

    Steven Krivit
    Editor, New Energy Times

  • Kirk Shanahan

    Unfortunately Jed and Steve keep missing the point when it comes to bias. That point is: the ‘cold fusioneers’ (their term) are just as biased against contrary theroies as the ‘pathological skeptics’. I say this because I have published 3 scientific papers describing how one can get apparent excess heat without ‘cold fusion’ and I have posted almost innumerable comments in sci.physics.fusion on supposed transmutation results and radiation detection, including one thread on the CR-39 detection results of Prof. Oriani (those comments apply directly to the Szpak, et al work). Yet, do you see _any_ mention of that in what Jed and Steve write? There is a section in the former Wikipedia article that Jed refers to that discusses this somewhat. I added that to the article. So, there are published and posted ‘mundane’ explanations for almost all the supposed cold fusion results, yet they are never mentioned. Why is that do you think? Can we spell b-i-a-s?

    Another case in point is the New Scientist article by Bennett Daviss. He wrote me asking me if I had any comments on the work, and I wrote back saying I did, that it probably could be explained mundanely by a couple of different hypotheses, which I enumerated briefly, and I pointed him to sci.physics.fusion also. Yet again, no mention of this in the article. When searching for bias, cross-conections are an important factor. It might be interesting to check the contributor list of the Nov. 2006 issue of New Energy Times (ed. Steve Krivit) at: http://www.newenergytimes.com/news/2006/NET19.htm

  • http://LENR-CANR.org Jed Rothwell

    Kirk Shanahan wrote:

    “Yet, do you see _any_ mention of that in what Jed and Steve write? . . . Can we spell b-i-a-s?”

    My messages are short, and do not include any technical details from Shanahan or anyone else. However, my web site, LENR-CANR.org, includes a paper contributed by Shanahan, as well as papers contributed by Jones and other prominent skeptics. I have told Huizenga, Taubes and other skeptics that we would be happy to upload their work. I asked Shanahan to give us copies of his two recent papers, but he declined to do so. So, the only bias at LENR-CANR.org is on his side: he refuses to let us publish his views.

    It should be noted that hundreds of world class experts in calorimetry and electrochemistry disagree with Shanahan. They do not think his prosaic explanation fits the facts or the principles of physics. I have not met a single one who is familiar with his work and who agrees with him. Yet none of these experts has asked me to remove Shanahan’s paper, and it is inconceivable that they would do so. On the contrary they agree with me that we should upload as many skeptical papers as the skeptics allow.

    Note that all papers at LENR-CANR are uploaded with permission of the author and/or publisher.

    – Jed Rothwell

  • http://profile.typekey.com/robinhanson/ Robin Hanson

    One thing we can already see from the comments by Jed, Steve, and Kirk is that people like to justify their disagreements by pointing to the fact that some people on the other side do not seem to be aware of or attend enough to certain relevant info.

  • http://LENR-CANR.org Jed Rothwell

    Robin Hanson wrote:

    “One thing we can already see from the comments by Jed, Steve, and Kirk is that people like to justify their disagreements by pointing to the fact that some people on the other side do not seem to be aware of or attend enough to certain relevant info.”

    I think that is odd thing to say, and it is especially odd that anyone would say it about me. This is not a “justification.” It is a first principle of science. Before you evaluate an experimental result, you must examine the data and techniques in detail. There are no short cuts. The results cannot be summarized in a few precise paragraphs, the way they can with theory or mathematics. Because the experimental results cannot yet be explained by theory, they cannot be encapsulated the way a theory can. Therefore, people who have not read the cold fusion literature in detail cannot judge the issue, and they cannot say whether the results are valid or invalid.

    It is odd that you would say that about me, because I did, in fact, include Shanahan’s views in the article I published and referenced above:

    http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/293wikipedia.html

    I quoted him verbatim, even though I think his hypothesis has no merit. Furthermore, as I noted above, I reprinted his paper. I also OCR’ed and made public over 500 other original source papers on cold fusion. No one has done more than I have to make technical information about cold fusion freely available to the public. I do this because I think it is important to read scientific papers before judging scientific claims. I give people every opportunity to do that. When people refuse to read papers, and when the editors of the Scientific American tell me it is “not their job” to read original source papers, of course I criticize them!

    Robin Hanson says that I am “justifying” my point of view, but as I see it, I am upholding fundamental standards of academic and scientific discourse. I think it appalling that leading opinion makers such as the editors of the Scientific American feel free to criticize, belittle and ridicule research about which they know nothing. They brag to me that they have read nothing! What can they be thinking?!? Science is based on facts and the laws of physics. People who do not know these facts cannot judge anything, or say anything. This is not a “justification” for “my” point of view, it is the bedrock basis of science, and it is common sense.

    – Jed Rothwell

  • http://profile.typekey.com/robinhanson/ Robin Hanson

    Jed, in the context of a disagreement, making sure to note that your side is better “upholding fundamental standards of academic and scientific discourse” sure looks like an attempt to justify your stance of disagreeing with the other side.

  • Kirk Shanahan

    In response to Robin:

    Lack of information regarding a subject is always a problem. With inadequate information, no good decision can be made. So, when someone makes claims, and it is apparent (perhaps to only a select few) that relevant information is not being considered, it is perfectly fair to point this out. At that point, the new info can be discussed and what to do with it can be decided.

    In response to Jed:

    I seriously doubt ‘hundreds’ of calorimetrists and electrochemists would disagree with me, except that the number of people working in CF may number a few hundred. They would probably agree, en masse, that I was wrong, but the question is, could they support their position technically. Most of them couldn’t. The papers I published stand unrebutted, thus I have proposed an explanation for excess heat that no expert has sucessfully challenged. It should be clear then, that Jed’s bias is forcing a conclusion, as opposed to the facts.

    To be clear, I claim to be a ‘middle-of-the-roader’ on CF. I state that there IS an effect, but it IS NOT nuclear in origin. This is in contrast to the other skeptics that Jed likes to cite. I agree with Jed that their resistance and objections are ill-founded. Mine however are well thought out and detailed in my publications, awaiting a cogent rebuttal.

    As to my participation in Jed’s library, why should I bother? My papers are in easily obtained journals, there for posterity.

  • http://amnap.blogspot.com/ Matthew C

    Jed, in the context of a disagreement, making sure to note that your side is better “upholding fundamental standards of academic and scientific discourse” sure looks like an attempt to justify your stance of disagreeing with the other side.

    If one side of the argument is conducting research and producing evidence and the other side is simply claiming that the research and evidence are wrong without examining them because, for instance, the “standard model” disallows the possibility of the research results, is that not sufficient for the people in the first camp to justify their disagreement with the second? I won’t try and argue why people in the “denier” camp are justified in their disagreement. . .

  • http://profile.typekey.com/robinhanson/ Robin Hanson

    I’m surprised by the reaction to my claim – perhaps I did not make myself clear. In a disagreement people usually try to say things that will get observers to respect them and take their side. Presumably on average people attempt to justify themselves by pointing to things that would in fact be seen as valid justifications. And yes, if in fact your side has attended better to relevant evidence that would in fact, all else equal, support your side. Clearer?

  • http://LENR-CANR.org Jed Rothwell

    Robin Hanson wrote:

    “. . . in the context of a disagreement, making sure to note that your side is better “upholding fundamental standards of academic and scientific discourse” sure looks like an attempt to justify your stance of disagreeing with the other side.”

    Please tell us: Do you or do you not agree that in order to evaluate an experimental claim one must first read the experimental literature? Are you saying this is not fundamental? Am I wrong?

    I expect you will find that any textbook on the scientific method agrees with me. If I am right, and if people must read the facts before judging an experiment, then why do you say I am merely “justifying my stance”? To put it another way, what better justification can there be? Do you think the editors of the Scientific American are justified when they print technically inaccurate statements about cold fusion, and when they ridicule it and brag that they have read nothing about it?! I think this is the extreme opposite of a fair, unbiased, scientific approach. What do you think?

    Kirk Shanahan wrote:

    “I seriously doubt ‘hundreds’ of calorimetrists and electrochemists would disagree with me, except that the number of people working in CF may number a few hundred.”

    I am sure they would all disagree, because Shanahan’s hypothesis contradicts the textbook fundamentals of calorimetry. If he is correct, no calorimeter will work reliably. All of the experts I know who have evaluated his paper have pointed this out.

    The number of people who have published cold fusion papers in the LENR-CANR database is 4,691. This includes a small number of journalists, some skeptics such as Huizenga, and a few researchers such as Shanahan who have published negative papers. I estimate the number of researchers who have published positive papers is at least 3,000. Many of these people are retired or dead.

    “They would probably agree, en masse, that I was wrong, but the question is, could they support their position technically.”

    Yes. With reference to the textbooks, as noted above.

    “As to my participation in Jed’s library, why should I bother? My papers are in easily obtained journals, there for posterity.”

    Journals are not easily available. They are expensive, and most are only available in university libraries, which are located in a few places in wealthy, first-world countries. This is why the PLOS organization has decided to publish serious scientific journals on the Internet. Since LENR-CANR.org began in October 2002, people have visited 1.2 million times, and they have downloaded ~786,000 copies of papers. We probably distribute more papers in a single week than the entire cumulative sales of all printed ICCF conferences proceedings. People have visited from all over the world, including places such as China, Russia, India and Iran, where a subscription to an academic journal costs more than a researcher’s annual income, and where there are few well-stocked university libraries. When an author makes his papers available in a printed academic journal only, he is effectively hiding his work from 99% of the educated public.

    – Jed Rothwell

  • http://LENR-CANR.org Jed Rothwell

    Robin Hanson wrote:

    “And yes, if in fact your side has attended better to relevant evidence that would in fact, all else equal, support your side. Clearer?”

    Yes, that is clearer. Thank you.

    It is a fact that our side has attended better to relevant evidence. You do not need to take my word for this. You can easily check, by two methods:

    Method 1. Many prominent skeptics have said they have not read the literature. As I mentioned, the editors of the Scientific American told me this, and I published their letter. (See: http://lenr-canr.org/AppealandSciAm.pdf) Look at the books written by Taubes and Hoffman. When these books were published there were hundreds of peer-reviewed papers, and thousands in conference proceedings. Yet these authors did not list any of these papers, and they did not address any of the data or claims made in these papers. (Hoffman did not list any about excess heat, which was the subject of most of his book.) Either the authors did read the papers, or they ignored them, which is just as bad.

    Method 2. You can compare the statements made by skeptics to the literature. You will see that the skeptics have no knowledge of the apparatus, methods, or claims, and that the assertions they make are not in evidence. For example, see the claims made by the Scientific American. (http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm#SciAmSlam) Here is an example:

    “Excess power was only a few percent more than the power applied, suggesting that measurement errors could account for the purported net energy.”

    My rebuttal:

    “Excess power has ranged up to 300% when input power was supplied. It has been measured at Sigma 90. In gas loaded cells and heat after death events, there is no input power, so any detectable output heat comes from cold fusion. There are – as noted above – no chemical changes in the cells, no chemical fuel, no energy deficit during electrolysis that would indicate that energy is being stored up, and no possible way a chemical reaction could produce even a small fraction of energy released during heat after death events.”

    – Jed Rothwell

  • http://LENR-CANR.org Jed Rothwell

    I wrote:

    “I am sure they would all disagree, because Shanahan’s hypothesis contradicts the textbook fundamentals of calorimetry. If he is correct, no calorimeter will work reliably.”

    That is inaccurate, and unfair to Shanahan. I should not say “no calorimeter” but only “no flow calorimeter.”

    Shanahan’s hypothesis applies only to flow calorimeters. If correct, he would prove that flow calorimeters do not work in cold fusion or in any other application. His critique does not apply to other types such as static isoperibolic ones, Seebeck, and bomb calorimeters, or direct methods of detecting heat such as IR cameras or the sense of touch. All of these methods have been used to confirm cold fusion heat. (Sometimes this is “excess heat” above input and sometimes it is the only heat evolving from the cell because there is no input.) Shanahan’s critique, if true, only casts doubt on a fraction of the heat claims. Of course it does nothing to disprove other proof of a nuclear reaction such as tritium, helium, gamma rays, transmutations, and so on.

    For example, at India’s premier nuclear research laboratory, BARC, they confirmed the excess heat when their cold fusion device melted. They confirmed tritium when by exposing hundreds of x-ray film to cathodes to make autoradiographs. (An example is here: http://lenr-canr.org/Experiments.htm#AutoradiographsMSrinivasan) Shanahan has not addressed this evidence in his papers, and he never claimed that he did.

    This is getting a little technical, and beyond the scope of the discussion.

    – Jed Rothwell

  • Kirk Shanahan

    With respect to the apparent goal of this blog, ‘Overcoming Bias’, I am not sure where all this is going. I believe it is clearly _demonstrating_ bias, but is that in the charter? Probably not. Therefore I will be terse. The readers need to check Jed’s replies for assertions vs. facts. You will find him long on the former and short on the latter. Citing publications stats doesn’t prove the point, as many papers are normally written by one author. Also, not all deal with calorimetry. So what is the real number? Probably closer to the hundreds. And again, most of them have not read my papers, or understood them. Honestly, the comment that led to my second paper was “Shanahan’s explanation is difficult to understand and therefore accept.” (from Szpak, et al, the same people who’s newest paper started this thread). So I explained it. Again. Some authors have claimed excess powers of 25,000% or more. That doesn’t make it so. It usually just indicates a different type of problem.

    And for the record, I have read ‘thousands’ of CF papers, and I have _studied_ them. That’s why I can propose a viable alternative. Also, the textbooks don’t have discussions of the problem I bring up to explain CF. They probably should, but they don’t. And no, the problem does not ‘kill’ all calorimetry, that a ‘Jed overreaction’. And finally if the hundreds of scientists can prove me completely wrong, why don’t they? I am published. The ‘challenge’ is there. Correct me. (By the way, one of the interesting aspects of the Wikipedia article is that a line was edited out. In the section where my work is discussed, the reader is left with the impression that Ed Storms’ attempted rebuttal stands. In fact I published my third paper in the field to address Ed’s paper. I rebutted his comments and showed why I was right. Ed’s turn now.)

    And also by the way, any serious scientist can get a journal article. In places where they have difficulties, the usual approach was to drop a request postcard (often a form!) to the publishing author asking for a reprint. Normally, people send them. I have. It’s called professional courtesy. These days it’s even easier with email.

    Unfortunately detecting the bias in the proCF position requires a lot of background knowledge that takes a good bit of time to obtain. It took me about 5 years of part-time study before I was ready to publish a rebuttal. It’s unlikely a newcomer will be able to do that easily, especially when the ‘pro’ crowd’ ignores the strongest ‘anti’ arguments.

  • http://profile.typekey.com/robinhanson/ Robin Hanson

    Kirk and Jed, we are not particular interested in here rehashing the details of your disagreement. We are, however, interested in using this as a case study, to learn what we can from this particular disagreement about the nature of disagreement in general. Yes, each side thinks that many on the other side have neglected important details. But each side must know that the other side makes this complaint about them. What makes each side so sure that their side has neglected less than the other side? Making lists of specific complaints doesn’t get very far into this issue, as you should be aware that the details you are aware of will come to mind more easily than the ones you are neglecting.

  • Kirk Shanahan

    To respond to Jed’s corrections:

    No, my hypothesis applies to _ANY_ calibrated method. That includes ANYTHING that is calibrated! That also includes all type of calorimeters. My hypothesis casts doubt on ALL apparent excess heat claims (which is why they try so desparately to ignore it). I have expressed this to Jed multiple times, and he simply refuses to process the information (bias maybe?).

    Yes, it does not impact nuclear ash claims (tritium, helium, etc.) However it does challenge the idea that there are correlations between nuclear ash and excess heat, since the latter is unlikely. My other postings in sci.physics.fusion go into a lot of detail on what I think is wrong with the nuclear ash claims in most cases, but I have not published those (yet). The BARC claims are dealt with in my spf posts in general. Their claims are not supportable, as again, ‘mundane’ explanations exist.

    And I agree, we are way outside the scope here. I will begin limiting my postings.

  • http://LENR-CANR.org Jed Rothwell

    Kirk Shanahan wrote:

    “No, my hypothesis applies to _ANY_ calibrated method. That includes ANYTHING that is calibrated!”

    Ah. Well, Fleischmann and others have used absolute methods that do not depend on calibrations, and of course the flow calorimeter lends itself to the absolute method, as pointed out by Hagelstein and others. And there is no calibration involved when the device melts. So your critique still does not cover all experiments.

    However, most authors do recommend calibration, and it is widely considered a basis — if not the exclusive basis — for measurements. So in essence you are saying that calorimetry itself does not work. That is quite a bold claim! You are saying that hundreds of thousands of results going back to the 1780s are wrong, or at least not trustworthy.

    If you are correct, and people come to believe you, you will win the Nobel prize in chemistry and physics, and you will overturn seminal work by Lavoisier, J. P. Joule and countless modern experts in calorimetry. It is surprising that so many people could be so wrong for 227 years, and they never noticed that their experiments give the wrong results. It is as if you had discovered that Ohm’s law is incorrect and yet nobody noticed. I admire your gumption. And people say that cold fusion researchers are bold & iconoclastic! They are timid compared to you. Cold fusion researchers claim they have discovered something new in an unexplored material (saturated deuterides). They never say that previous discoveries are wrong, or that plasma fusion experiments and physics are incorrect, or that that they have found a major flaw in chemistry and physics going back 227 years.

    But, frankly, I agree with the analysis by Storms and others, and I think you are mistaken. As always, I invite readers to review the papers and decide for themselves:

    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ShanahanKapossiblec.pdf

    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEcommentonp.pdf

    “That also includes all type of calorimeters. My hypothesis casts doubt on ALL apparent excess heat claims (which is why they try so desperately to ignore it). . .”

    That would be ALL claims in cold fusion and in conventional chemistry and nuclear physics going back to 1780. Heat is heat, and the heat from cold fusion is no different than from any other chemical or nuclear reaction.

    “I have expressed this to Jed multiple times, and he simply refuses to process the information (bias maybe?).”

    Sorry. You did mention that, but I forgot that your claim applies to all types because the paper I have discusses only flow calorimeters. Please forgive me for forgetting that you consider yourself Madam Curie reincarnated. I am not “desperately” trying to forget that, but I confess it does make me squirm when someone comes out of the woodwork saying he can prove J. P. Joule was wrong, calorimeters do not work, or he has invented a perpetual motion machine, or he can prove Einstein was wrong. (It is always a “he” never “she.”) This field does seem to attract such people, and they give me the creeps.

    – Jed Rothwell

  • http://LENR-CANR.org Jed Rothwell

    Robin Hanson wrote:

    “Kirk and Jed, we are not particular interested in here rehashing the details of your disagreement.”

    Yes, as I said, this is somewhat technical and beyond the scope of the discussion. But I am somewhat mystified by your next comments:

    “We are, however, interested in using this as a case study, to learn what we can from this particular disagreement about the nature of disagreement in general.”

    Well, the disagreement is not general or overarching in nature. It is a debate about specific facts and experiments, and what these facts signify.

    There is only one philosophical issue in the debate: When theory and replicated experiments conflict, do you assume the theory is right, or do you assume the experiments overrule theory? The textbooks all say the scientific method calls for the latter, but Huizenga disagrees. (Actually, I think this is moot question, because I do not agree that theory predicts cold fusion cannot exist.)

    “Yes, each side thinks that many on the other side have neglected important details. But each side must know that the other side makes this complaint about them. What makes each side so sure that their side has neglected less than the other side?”

    That determination can only be made by compiling a list of facts & arguments on both sides, and tallying up who has neglected what. I am sure that their side has neglected many facts because I have read 500 papers, I have written or co-authored about a dozen papers and one book, and I have edited and translated fifty or other papers and four books. So I have hundreds of facts at my fingertips, as it were. (Naturally I often forget small details or get things wrong.)

    In every case, this debate boils down to comparing specific, concrete assertions about experiments, such as whether the excess heat is “a few percent” as claimed by Scientific American, or whether it is 300% as claimed by SRI. This is not an abstract or theoretical debate. There are very few matters of opinion involved. It is about thermocouples, gamma ray detectors, autoradiographs, and thousands upon thousands of pages of data, from hundreds of different labs. One small detail after another!

    Of course we cannot carefully examine all of that data here. That task takes years. Edmund Storms recently compiled a list of important “neglected complaints” and important aspects of this research in a book. (http://lenr-canr.org/Introduction.html#StormsBook) It is 335 pages long and it includes 69 pages of references.

    Even though it is impossible to list the points at issue in this forum, making such a list is the only basis for determining who is right and who is mistaken. You are not going to pull the answer out of the air by thinking upon it, as you might with mathematics, for example.

    “Making lists of specific complaints doesn’t get very far into this issue . . .”

    On the contrary. As I said, this is experimental science, and making lists of specifics is all one can do. We have only specifics to work with, and nothing general. When a theory is developed, we can then “reduce to practice” all that mass of detail.

    “. . . as you should be aware that the details you are aware of will come to mind more easily than the ones you are neglecting.”

    Believe me, I have not neglected or overlooked any important aspect of this field. Details are what I do. Many of the papers are over my head, but I have read and reviewed them all. I have attended 10 conferences in English and Japanese, and spent weeks in laboratories. I went over every sentence in the books by Mallove, Storms, Beaudette and Mizuno. I know the skeptical arguments in detail, because I have discussed them with the editors of the Scientific American, Robert Park, Huizenga and others, and I have carefully read every book and most of the papers published by skeptics. (There are only 5 or 10 skeptical papers.) I may be wrong, and I am not a PhD scientist, but I have not “neglected” or overlooked anything.

    – Jed Rothwell

  • http://profile.typekey.com/sentience/ Eliezer Yudkowsky

    In persistent scientific disagreements, one side almost always insists the other side is Not Reading the Literature. I don’t see anything suspicious about this (apart from the basic rationalist anomaly of the disagreement itself). How else would you justify a persistent scientific disagreement?

  • http://profile.typekey.com/robinhanson/ Robin Hanson

    Eliezer, other persistent disagreements elsewhere in society are not typically justified this way, so it is worth noting this pattern about science.

  • http://LENR-CANR.org Jed Rothwell

    Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote:

    “In persistent scientific disagreements, one side almost always insists the other side is Not Reading the Literature.”

    In this case, both sides agree that the skeptics are not reading the literature. The skeptics at the Scientific American brag about that! They say they not need to read any papers. Other skeptics write books attacking cold fusion which do not discuss or even list any papers.

    “I don’t see anything suspicious about this . . .

    Well, it seems like bad form to me. Introductory textbooks about science agree that you are supposed to read about an experiment before critiquing it. But apparently that is old fashioned. Nowadays it is okay to claim that an experiment produced “a few percent” when the author says 300%, or that an effect was “close to the noise” when the author says the result was measured at sigma 90. That’s the standard applied at Scientific American, Nature and the New Scientist. Maybe they only do that with cold fusion. I do not know, but I wouldn’t trust them.

    “. . . (apart from the basic rationalist anomaly of the disagreement itself). How else would you justify a persistent scientific disagreement?”

    I believe that scientific disagreements are supposed to be settled on the basis of replicated experimental evidence. Once an effect has been observed by many laboratories, at very high signal to noise ratios, the disagreement is supposed to stop, and everyone is supposed to agree the effect is real. That often does happen, although the old scientists usually have to die before everyone agrees. In the early stages, there is room for opinion. For example, you might agree that an effect is real after 5 laboratories replicate, whereas I might hold out for 10. You might want to see 5 sigma data; I might hold out for 10 sigma. However, in the case of cold fusion, hundreds of laboratories have reported excess heat beyond the limits of chemistry, and tritium, and other nuclear effects. Never, in the history of modern science, has any effect been so widely confirmed yet still disputed.

    People sometimes claim that “polywater” or “N-rays” were like that, but that is wrong. Polywater was only claimed by one lab, with one other publishing tentative results that were soon retracted. There were never hundreds of unequivocal statements such as the ones published by researchers SRI, AMOCO, Los Alamos, BARC and others, such as:

    “The calorimetry conclusively shows excess energy was produced within the electrolytic cell over the period of the experiment. This amount, 50 kilojoules, is such that any chemical reaction would have had to been in near molar amounts to have produced the energy. Chemical analysis shows clearly that no such chemical reactions occurred. The tritium results show that some form of nuclear reactions occurred during the experiment. . . . The main point of the tritium in this experiment is then that there are some nuclear processes involved. . . ”

    Or:

    “In spite of my earlier conclusion, – and that of the majority of scientists, – that the phenomena reported by Fleischmann and Pons in 1989 depended either on measurement errors or were of chemical origin, there is now undoubtedly overwhelming indications that nuclear processes take place in the metal alloys.” (Gerischer)

    In my opinion, this is no longer “a persistent scientific disagreement.” After 1990, when the first solid replications were published, it was no longer scientific in any sense. Our side does research and publishes peer-reviewed experiments. We follow the rules. As Martin Fleischmann says, we are “painfully conventional” people. Their side spews out ad hominem attacks, inaccurate nonsense about the experiments, and Napoleonic delusions that they have overturned the laws of physics and calorimetry going back two centuries. The skeptics have never even tried to publish a serious book or paper challenging the experimental results. The closest thing to a technical debate was when Fleischmann crushed Morrison:

    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf

    – Jed Rothwell

  • Kirk Shanahan

    I agree, this would situation would make an excellent case study (probably several!). Do you have any specific questions you’d like addressed?

    You readers of this blog have been treated to the full Jed! You can see lots more of this type of behavior on spf. I’m sure you note the tactics in use. Just let me summarize by saying again, Jed doesn’t understand my technical publications, and I expect most of the CFers haven’t bothered to read them either (with the exception of E. Storms), as none of them have commented on it. Since I am claiming they are completely mislead in their interpretations, one would think they would comment if they knew I was making that claim. (So yes, I do claim they ‘haven”t read the literature’, but I base this on lack of evidence they have, and I admit I could be wrong, and I note E. Storms _has_ read and studied my work.)

    Ed Storms is an interesting case. My first publication in the field was one where I reanalyzed data he presented as ‘proving’ excess heat (i.e. cold fusion, which he has called ‘CANR’ and now ‘they’ call LENR). I dealt with Ed by email on my analysis for ~8 months before I wrote my manuscript and submitted it to a journal (not the one it was published in). Subsequently, we had a couple more years of discussion. Some of this spilled over into spf. In the end I was convinced Ed knew what I was saying as he repeated it back correctly. However, he just wouldn’t accept what I said. He couldn’t present a technical reason why my approach was wrong, he just wouldn’t accept it. As a man who wrote a paper called “My life with cold fusion as a reluctant mistress” (see papers listed at http://pw1.netcom.com/~storms2/bibliography.html ), I think the reason is more emotional than technical. He is committed to the ‘nuclear’ solution, in the face of all opposition. I essentially gave up trying to convince him once I realized that. And then there is a technical detail that allows the others to ignore me. They normally claim CF occurs with palladium, and Ed’s work was on platinum, ergo it “isn’t relevant”. It actually is, but it’s convenient for them to claim not.

    • TractorEngineer

      The biggest problem with CF: they’ve had 25 years and have yet to produce a generator that could power my desktop lava lamp.

      If I had that kind of job performance as an engineer, I would’ve been shown the door a long time ago. And I’d be lucky if the boss didn’t bounce my framed diploma off the back of my head on the way out.

  • http://profile.typekey.com/robinhanson/ Robin Hanson

    Kirk, I gave a link to a post with a list of questions to ask in a disagreement case study.

  • albatross

    I know nothing about cold fusion, but there are a couple of phenomena that may be happening here:

    a. A new field or subfield or whatever often spawns its own journals, conferences, and ultimately, its own literature. Once that separation happens, it’s easy to not read the literature in field X because you’re in closely related field Y.

    b. Once you’re in a field, the marginal work to get through one more paper is much lower than it is when you’re not in the field. By contrast, if you think the field may be nonsense, there’s a much lower benefit to reading one more paper.

    Along with this, I suspect that the drives that make you willing to be a scientist aren’t rational at an individual level. I think you have to be a bit obsessive, a bit consumed by your field, so you don’t give up and find something easier to do. That probably plays into allowing scientific disputes to develop into these intense rifts.

    And finally, there’s the psychological phenomenon by which, the more you’ve paid for something, the more you value it. If you know you’ve likely sacrificed a big chunk of your career for some position, you’re going to have a hard time evaluating that position rationally.

    • TractorEngineer

      I like that last paragraph and I’ve definitely seen it in action in my career. I’m no expert on cold fusion, either, but here’s my $0.02: the best way to shut the critics up is to produce something useful. Isn’t that what it’s really all about? We’re 25 years down the road and all we have are scientific papers to argue about. If cold fusion were a viable technology, it would be in use in industry.

      25 years down the road and nothing is working, so the cold fusion folks are reduced to whining about how people are biased and the scientific community won’t give them a fair shot. That’s all a lot of crap. If you have a good product, it will sell itself. Valid science doesn’t need some quasi-religious awakening in order for people to believe in it. If cold fusion is such a great thing, why hasn’t anybody built a building and used a cold-fusion reactor to completely power it off-the-grid. That would shut up the skeptics, why don’t they go do that?!?! Instead, I have to read a bunch of whining about how I’m so bad, mean, and ignorant for not believing in it like some cosmic Billy Burke.

  • Kirk Shanahan

    Albatross wrote:

    >I know nothing about cold fusion, but there are a couple of phenomena that >may be happening here:

    >a. A new field or subfield or whatever often spawns its own journals, >conferences, and ultimately, its own literature. Once that separation >happens, it’s easy to not read the literature in field X because you’re in >closely related field Y.

    This is true in normal situations. There the body of knowledge continues to grow and become more specialized, making it less interesting to those ‘outside’ the field. In the cold fusion case however, there is an additional reason. They routinly bemoan the suppression they supposedly experience from ‘the establishment’, so they ‘circle the wagons’ and shoot
    anyone who approaches who clearly isn’t one of them.

    >b. Once you’re in a field, the marginal work to get through one more paper >is much lower than it is when you’re not in the field. By contrast, if you >think the field may be nonsense, there’s a much lower benefit to reading >one more paper.

    Definitely the last one. Reading another paper in this particualr field has almost zero benefit. However, that doesn’t mean that I haven’t gleaned some interesting ideas from the field. I have. I just disagree with their end state.

    >Along with this, I suspect that the drives that make you willing to be a >scientist aren’t rational at an individual level. I think you have to be a >bit obsessive, a bit consumed by your field, so you don’t give up and find >something easier to do. That probably plays into allowing scientific >disputes to develop into these intense rifts.

    Yes, personality types who stick to it are dominant. But the irrational ones are the ones who quit with insufficeint information and jump to a conclusion, acting as if that conclusion is ‘golden’, when it is just wishful thinking. Note that I am describing those who do NOT stick to it.

    >And finally, there’s the psychological phenomenon by which, the more >you’ve paid for something, the more you value it. If you know you’ve >likely sacrificed a big chunk of your career for some position, you’re >going to have a hard time evaluating that position rationally.

    I think this is particularly true for the CFers. The polarization in the
    field that happened early on, due to bad actor on both sides, was
    extremely detrimental. For the record, the majority of non-involved
    scientist took a wait-and-see attitude in the beginning. It was the subsequent circus that turned the common opinion against CF, but note that
    that is not ‘scientific’ either. Lots of human frailty is displayed in the CF arena.

  • http://LENR-CANR.org Jed Rothwell

    Kirk Shanahan wrote:

    “Just let me summarize by saying again, Jed doesn’t understand my technical publications . . .”

    Storms and I feel that Shanahan is the one who does not understand. Let the reader decide! As I said, see:

    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ShanahanKapossiblec.pdf

    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEcommentonp.pdf

    Shanahan also wrote:

    “Reading another paper in this particular field has almost zero benefit.”

    Again, we are on opposite sides! I encourage people to read many papers, especially new ones. There is extreme hostility toward this field, so only a superlative pro-cold fusion paper will survive peer-review. (Anti-cold fusion papers such as Shanahan’s own pass through peer-review with barely a nod.) It is especially important to read anything you can find from people such as Szpak, McKubre or Iwamura. You always learn something new, even when you re-read a good paper the tenth time through.

    It is telling that people such as Shanahan who oppose cold fusion often say: “Don’t bother reading papers. There’s zero benefit. Take my word for it: there is nothing there. Don’t look behind that curtain!” I, on the other hand, have spent years preparing, translating, editing and distributing papers, and I want people to read LOTS of papers. I am not saying that Shanahan wants to censor the field, but I do get the sense that he and many other opponents want me to shut up, and he wants you — the reader — to skip original sources, stop thinking for yourself, and buy into his views. He seems miffed that anyone would question his expertise. He does not see the value of letting anyone anywhere in the world read his own papers, and I do not think he grasps why I am keen to reprint all points of view, including his or Huizenga’s.

    “Lots of human frailty is displayed in the CF arena.”

    On this we agree. Especially you find lots of egomania, such as exhibited by people who think that they know better than 3,000 experts, and people who claim they have discovered errors in calorimetric techniques that have been used successfully for 200 years.

    – Jed Rothwell

    • TractorEngineer

      Producing something useful would do a lot to turn opinion around. What have you people been doing for the last 25 years?

      I admit, I haven’t read a lot of papers on this but I read this one: http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/MosierBossinvestigat.pdf

      If you haven’t already, you should take a look at chapter 5.0 Conclusions. All it is is a summary of previous publications and presentations on the subject. In other words, it’s total garbage. Chapter 5 is supposed to tell me what it is I’m supposed to get out of the previous 4 chapters of this paper. Instead, I’m treated to “Look at the cornucopia of other media we’ve produced” as if sheer volume is going to win people over. Whoever put their name on this paper should be embarrassed.

  • http://www.midasoracle.org/2008/06/13/cold-fusion/ Midas Oracle .ORG

    InTrades sudden and puzzled interest in alchemy!!!

    Dr Aratas experiment on cold fusion to be replicated in peer-reviewed scientific journal on/before 31 Dec 2009
    This contract will settle (expire) at 100 ($10.00) if Dr Yoshiaki Aratas Cold Fusion experiment is replicated in a peer-reviewe…

  • TractorEngineer

    The best way to overcome bias is to actually produce something of value that is using the technology. You’ve had 25 years to work and perfect this technology, what exactly have you come up with? Something of scientific value shouldn’t require a person to have some sort of quasi-religious awakening to believe in it. You might also have better luck with reasoned discussion than name-calling and whining about bias.

    Want to shut up the skeptics and get the doubting scientific community off your back? Then PRODUCE SOMETHING USEFUL.