Business Week investigates earmarks, slaps US Navy's wrist

You wrote:

"Why not first bust lawmakers for continuing to earmark more than two-thirds of the navy's science and technology spending, including funds for examing cold fusion (cold fusion!!!!!) as a potential energy source?"

Why not? Because this would be an outrageous attack on academic freedom, and because cold fusion is one of the most promising energy-related discoveries in history. Cold fusion has been replicated by hundreds of world class laboratories, including several in the Navy, Los Alamos and national labs in the U.S., France, Italy, China and India, and at dozens of corporations in including Mitsubishi, Toyota and Amoco. Hundreds of peer-reviewed papers in mainstream journals have been published describing these replications. I suggest you read some of these papers before commenting on this research. You will find a bibliography of 3,000 papers, and the full text of more than 500 papers, including ones from the institutions listed above here:

http://lenr-canr.org/

- Jed Rothwell
Librarian, LENR-CANR.org

First time I've heard the argument that denying congressional earmarks is inconsistent with supporting academic freedom. Seems a little shrill, no?

I think even supporters of Cold Fusion would agree that the field remains classified as a pseudo-science, as Popper defined it.

As a supporter of cold fusion research, I can say unequivocally that cold fusion research is no longer pseudoscience in the context of Popper's definition, because experimental protocols have reached the state of being readily falsifiable. Results have reached a success rate such that only a small number of comparatively inexpensive experiments are necessary to demonstrate nuclear events from chemical means. This achievement is due in large part to work done by US Navy and national laboratory personnel, much of it at their own expense and on their own time. This is no less falsifiable than the electron slit interference experiment performed a few electrons at a time. This is a valid line of research with enormous potential for beneficial impact to society.

You wrote:

"I think even supporters of Cold Fusion would agree that the field remains classified as a pseudo-science, as Popper defined it."

Some people may classify it that way, but only if they know nothing about Popper and his definition, which is here:

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/critical_thinking/Science_pseudo_falsifiability.html

Cold fusion does not have a single one of attributes described in this paper. To enumerate:

This paper discusses theories. Cold fusion is a widely replicated experimental observation, not a theory.

This paper discusses the ability to falsify theories, in various ways that do not apply to experiments. Experiments can be falsified, of course, and it is obvious how you would falsify cold fusion experiments. All you have to do is prove that 2,000 professional scientists have made gross errors with instruments and techniques that were invented 160 years ago. Or you can show that the laws of thermodynamics have magically become inoperative and calorimeters no longer work. Also show why x-ray film, gamma detectors and mass spectrometers do not work. Good luck on that!

The essay does touch upon evidence in one section: "Astrology did not pass the test. Astrologers were greatly impressed, and misled, by what they believed to be confirming evidence -- so much so that they were quite unimpressed by any unfavourable evidence." There is very little unfavorable experimental evidence for cold fusion. Skeptics have presented many theoretical objections, but theory can never disprove experiment; it always works the other way around. Only about a dozen well-known negative experiments were published in 1989. Three of them turned out to be positive (they were false negatives, in other words). Many other experiments failed but in most cases the reasons they failed are now known, and most of the researchers who failed initially later succeeded.

In any case, the failure rate of an experiment has no bearing on whether the results are real or not. Cloning works in roughly 1 attempt per thousand, but when it works, it definitely does work. You can easily confirm that the animal is a clone. Cold fusion success rates vary from around 30% to 100%, depending on the technique, but when it works, it often works spectacularly well. There is no question whatever that it has worked; the signal to noise is high. It has produced, for example, over 100 watts of heat in some cases, macroscopic quantities of transmuted materials, and 10E7 times more tritium than the expected rate. See:

http://lenr-canr.org/Experiments.htm#AutoradiographsMSrinivasan

- Jed Rothwell
Librarian, LENR-CANR.org

I am not a scientist and have no way to measure the data you are providing me. But my opinion will remain deeply skeptical until a relative consensus of the scientific community embraces the concept and there is no need for cold fusion researchers to obtain earmarks as a funding mechanism.

You wrote:

"I am not a scientist and have no way to measure the data you are providing me. But my opinion will remain deeply skeptical . . ."

If you do not have enough scientific training to evaluate the data, then you have no business being deeply skeptical or, for that matter, believing that cold fusion is real. The only basis for accepting or rejecting experimental data is an evaluation of the instruments, techniques, and relevant principles (thermodynamics, in this case).

". . . until a relative consensus of the scientific community embraces the concept . . ."

A consensus in the scientific community is not now and never has been a valid basis to accept or reject experimental results. Hundreds of important experiments and discoveries have been rejected by the scientific community, sometimes for years or decades. Examples include hygiene (Semmelweis); the laws of thermodynamics; pasteurization; aviation; continental drift; masors; the fact that helicobacter causes stomach ulcers, and so on. I have communicated with dozens of scientists who expressed skeptical views about cold fusion, or who wrote articles or books attacking it. To my knowledge, none of these people have read any papers about cold fusion. I say this because:

1. Several leading skeptics, such as the editors of the Scientific American and Robert Park, bragged about the fact that they have not read any papers, in letters to me and public speeches. They say they are certain cold fusion is wrong without reading anything, a priori.

2. None of them cite any papers in their books and publications.

3. It is obvious from their comments that they know nothing about the subject.

Since these people know nothing about cold fusion, their views have no merit, and should be ignored.

In short, science is not a popularity contest.

In experimental science, when an effect is widely replicated at high signal to noise ratios, that makes it a fact. That settles the question. All the opinions in the world cannot alter that fact. If we base science on opinions or consensus instead of experiments, we will never reach a conclusion, never settle an argument, and never make progress.

- Jed Rothwell
Librarian, LENR-CANR.org

Look: I'm a layman, but I'm not incapable of identifying scientific claims that make me suspicious. I rely mostly on peer review and the acceptance of mainstream scientists to inform me. I admit it's not a perfect system, but it's a reasonable policy to not dismiss the collective wisdom of the scientific community when forming opinions. Until cold fusion returns to the scientific journals and not as a joke, then consider me a die-hard skeptic.

You wrote:

"I rely mostly on peer review and the acceptance of mainstream scientists to inform me."

If you rely on mainstream peer-review then you must accept that cold fusion is real, because hundreds of positive cold fusion experiments have been published in peer-reviewed journals, including some of the world's leading journals such as the Jap. J. Applied Physics and Naturwissenschaften, whereas only a handful of anti-cold fusion papers have been published.

"I admit it's not a perfect system . . ."

It is not a scientific system. Your method would be appropriate for deciding how to market a product, or what political policy is best, but science is based strictly on objective criteria and physical laws. The acceptance or rejection of data by any group of people has no relevance whatever to the validity of that data.

". . . but it's a reasonable policy to not dismiss the collective wisdom of the scientific community when forming opinions."

The collective wisdom can only includes the wisdom and opinions of scientists who have read the literature. Scientists who have not read the papers and who know nothing about the experiments can have no wisdom regarding the results. You cannot do science by ESP. I am sure that if you sample the group of scientists who are familiar with the literature you will find they overwhelmingly believe that cold fusion is real. I know this because hundreds of thousands of scientists have downloaded roughly 855,000 papers from my website. They come from universities, corporations and national laboratories worldwide. Many have communicated with me -- mainly asking for additional information. Not a single one has denigrated the subject or expressed doubts about the reality of cold fusion.

Furthermore, there have only been a few public opinion polls of researchers, one in the US and one in Japan, but both showed that scientists and engineers evenly split, or slightly inclined to believe that cold fusion is real. It is true that opponents of cold fusion are noisy, and many of them are powerful and will not allow papers to be published. Many of them denigrate cold fusion researchers in national magazines and newspapers. These people think that they are an overwhelming majority, but they are not.

"Until cold fusion returns to the scientific journals and not as a joke, then consider me a die-hard skeptic."

Cold fusion never left the scientific journals. As I said, hundreds of peer-reviewed papers have been published. You can find a list at LENR-CANR.org. You and some other people have the impression that cold fusion has been banished from journals and that it is a joke, but your impression is mistaken. Your diehard skepticism is based upon a misunderstanding, and lack of knowledge.

- Jed Rothwell
Librarian, LENR-CANR.org

I appreciate your dogged defense of so questionable a topic, but why should I believe you more so than any of cold fusion's many, many skeptics and critics. I admit I know little about cold fusion, but what I've been told -- by cold fusion supporters -- is it involves overturning Newton's laws of thermodynamics in order to make it work. Fusing atomic nuclei at room temperature is a pretty fantastic thing to think about, wouldn't you agree?

You wrote:

"I appreciate your dogged defense of so questionable a topic . . ."

I am not being dogged, and not a bit original. I am merely describing the fundamental principles of the scientific method, such as you will find in any textbook or popular book on science. The textbooks all agree that replicated experiments must overrule theory, and that science is based on instrument readings and the laws of physics, and not public opinion. If this discussion was not about cold fusion, no one would call me dogged or disagree with me.

". . . but why should I believe you more so than any of cold fusion's many, many skeptics and critics."

Because I can point to a list of 180 mainstream laboratories the replicated the excess heat at high signal to noise ratios (Storms, Table 2), and to more than 100 that replicated the tritium, and so on. I can point to experimental data in peer-reviewed papers. The skeptics cannot. The skeptics have not published papers refuting the experimental claims. They have not found a single error in any of the major laboratories. Therefore, by the rules of science and academic discourse, I win, and they lose.

"I admit I know little about cold fusion, but what I've been told -- by cold fusion supporters -- is it involves overturning Newton's laws of thermodynamics in order to make it work."

That is incorrect. Cold fusion is predicated upon the laws of thermodynamics. The principal signature of the reaction is excess heat, which is measured with calorimeters, which are based upon those laws. A variety of different calorimeter types have been used, such as static, flow and Seebeck, but all of them are based upon thermodynamics, and the only way they could be wrong would be if -- for example -- heat flowed from cooler bodies to hotter bodies.

Some theorists believe that cold fusion might overturn some laws of nuclear physics, but many other theorists feel that cold fusion can be accommodated by existing laws. In any case, the laws of thermodynamics predate those of nuclear physics and are more fundamental. So I suppose if laws must to be overturned the newer ones should go first.

"Fusing atomic nuclei at room temperature is a pretty fantastic thing to think about, wouldn't you agree?"

Yes, indeed. Many experimental results have been fantastic. People never imagined that telegraphs, x-rays, radiation, nuclear weapons, or antibiotics were possible. Even relatively prosaic things such as photographs, record players, electric lights, movies, airplanes and microprocessors seemed fantastic at first. In most cases these discoveries provoked hysterical opposition by skeptics -- especially skeptics who were being paid to develop competing technology. You should read the skeptical opposition to Edison and the Wright brothers. Three years after Kitty Hawk the Scientific American still insisted that the airplane was an impossible fraud and a joke. They used the same logic you do, pointing to the vast collective wisdom of the majority:

"It seems that these alleged experiments were made at Dayton, Ohio, a fairly large town, and that the newspapers of the United States, alert as they are, allowed these sensational performances to escape their notice. When it is considered that Langley never even successfully launched his man-carrying machine, that Langley's experimental model never flew more than a mile, and that Wright's mysterious aeroplane covered a reputed distance of 38 kilometers at the rate of one kilometer a minute, we have the right to exact further information before we place reliance on these French reports. . . . If such sensational and tremendously important experiments are being conducted in a not very remote part of the country, on a subject in which almost everybody feels the most profound interest, is it possible to believe that the enterprising American reporter, who, it is well known, comes down the chimney when the door is locked in his face -- even if he has to scale a fifteen- story sky-scraper to do so -- would not have ascertained all about them and published them broadcast long ago?"

The lesson from this is that you should read original sources written by experts, and not rely upon newspaper or magazines. The Wrights had published scientific papers, photos, and articles. Dozens of leading citizens of Dayton had watched them fly, and signed affidavits. The facts were available, but the Scientific American refused to look, just as today they refuse to look at hundreds of cold fusion experiments and thousands of papers. They insist that no peer-reviewed replication has been published, and their description of cold fusion is even more hopelessly garbled and relentlessly ignorant than their predecessors’ descriptions of airplanes were in 1905. See:

http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm#SciAmSlam

- Jed Rothwell
Librarian, LENR-CANR.org

Well, you've certainly overwhelmed any point of logic I can make with -- I must say -- a very well-stated case.

But I still won't believe you until -- possibly like Scientific American and the Wright Brothers -- I see it happen: extracting more energy from a reaction than it takes to produce the reaction.

If it's been proven in the lab, then so be it. It won't be long before you prove me wrong and the world will see that it works. Until then, I'm still a skeptic.

You wrote:

"Well, you've certainly overwhelmed any point of logic I can make with -- I must say -- a very well-stated case."

Thank you, but I can can take no credit for it. As I said, everything I wrote is straight out of the textbooks. To give credit where it is due, it is straight out of my third-grade science class conducted by Mrs. Allen, to whom I owe a lifelong debt of gratitude.

"But I still won't believe you until -- possibly like Scientific American and the Wright Brothers -- I see it happen . . ."

Do you mean you have to physically go to a laboratory and see a machine operate? You might not find that convincing. I have seen many of experiments produce excess heat, neutrons and so on. All you see are numbers on the screen from the instruments. It is not much different from reading papers. On rare occasions cells explode with far more energy than a chemical reaction can produce. That's dramatic but you don't want to see it. There are some photos of exploded cells at LENR-CANR.

". . . extracting more energy from a reaction than it takes to produce the reaction."

I don't follow this comment. All exothermic nuclear and chemical reactions generate more energy than it takes to produce the reaction. Some electrochemical cold fusion experiments require a lot of input power with only a small amount of excess power output, such as 53.1 Watts in 53.5 Watts out (made up numbers), but in other cases the ratio is more favorable, and with some techniques such as gas loading or heat after death there is no input power. The sample remains hot on its own, for extended periods.

Low or zero input power does simplify the calorimetry, making it easier to confirm there is heat.

"If it's been proven in the lab, then so be it. It won't be long before you prove me wrong . . ."

That remains to be seen. There are many instances in the history of science and technology in which promising discoveries have pushed aside for 30 to 50 years. Transistor research began in 1924 but little interest was shown and not much progress was made until 1948. Cold fusion was first reported in 1927, and definitely detected by Mizuno and others in the early 1980s, but no one paid attention until Fleischmann & Pons got serious about it.

For all anyone knows, there may have been promising discoveries that were lost altogether. If there were such things, we would not know about them since they are lost. Martin Fleischmann often says there are many lost gems published in Nature in the late 19th century. He found tangential evidence for cold fusion in papers published in the 1930s and 40s.

". . . and the world will see that it works. Until then, I'm still a skeptic."

If enough people remain harsh skeptics in defiance of logic and the rules of scientific discourse, and if funding continues to be denied because of a mythical "scientific consensus," then you may be sure that the world will never see how it works. Most cold fusion researchers are retired professors. Many are dead. The younger generation is so cowed by the prevailing atmosphere of conformity, they dare not try any unpopular experiment. As Fleischmann says: "People don't want progress; it makes them uncomfortable. They don't want it, and they shan't have it."

Let me offer some annoying, paternal old fogy advice, even though I have two adult children, so I know full well how futile this is . . . I recommend you take care not to jump to conclusions. Try not to form "die hard skeptical" opinions about groundbreaking research that you know nothing about. Reserved judgment and open-minded curiosity are more fruitful, and they are the traditional scientific attitude. You should not confuse "skepticism" with being closed-minded, or blind to the facts, mindlessly agreeing with the newspapers, or being unwilling to question your own beliefs or widely-held beliefs. This is not skepticism. It is conformism, and nothing good ever came of it.

- Jed Rothwell
Librarian, LENR-CANR.org

I would like to thank the editor of this blog, Stephen Trimble, for his willingness to engage in discussion of this subject.