At 05:53 PM 9/26/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Fleischmann and I disagree, for reasons I believe Lomax is familiar with.
Please don't recruit Fleischmann to your own personal cause.
It is more the other way around.
I'm not disagreeing with Fleischmann, he's acknowledged his error
in the original announcement.
Incorrect. He and many others say that that the heat alone is proof
this is a nuclear reaction, probably fusion. You may disagree, but
that is what they say. The error in his original announcement was
about the neutrons, as we all know. In other words, it turned out to
be almost completely a-neutronic fusion.
Evidence, I agree. Proof, no. Important difference. It's the
difference between circumstantial evidence and direct evidence. "It
couldn't be anything else" is always circumstantial evidence.
I do agree that the accumulated evidence on heat, considered all
together, became very strong. But it wasn't proof until heat/helium was found.
1. Heat beyond the limits of chemistry in a cell with no chemical
transformations can only be explained as a nuclear effect. No
other heat effect is known to science. Perhaps it is shrinking
hydrogen or some other exotic new thing, but I doubt it.
Anomaly means an unknown effect. An unknown effect must be due to
space aliens. No, Zero Point Energy. No, hydrinos. No, systematic
experimental error. No, damn it! nuclear reactions.
That's silly. Fleischmann did not believe it could be space aliens
or ZPE. He said that that most likely explanation was fusion. You
seem to be disputing that is what he thought, and that is what he said.
He was right, but it was touch and go for quite a while. He was wrong
about the reaction being in the bulk, and that was quite damaging, as
Pons and Fleischmann predicted that helium would be found in the
bulk. When it wasn't, it looked bad.
No, he thought it was fusion. The error was in announcing that it
might be fusion when the *specific evidence* for fusion was lacking,
specifically the ash. They knew quite well that they had not
identified the ash. Fleischmann, as I recall, specifically regretting
calling the effect "nuclear."
It is not that he was wrong. He was right. It's that it was
premature, and with a discovery of this magnitude, "premature" was
quite damaging, because it was *visibly* premature. Fleischmann was
confident of his calorimetry, others would not be so, no matter what.
The neutron error was devastating, it created (unfairly, but that's
the way the world is) an impression of incompetence.
Understand that I think they fully deserve the Nobel Prize for what
they discovered. They did not discover cold fusion by accident. They
were looking for a possible anomaly. What astonished them was how
large it was. They knew it was likely that the predictions of
"approximate quantum mechanics" for fusion rates in PdD were
inaccurate, but they did not expect such a large error. They thought
it would probably be below detection. But they looked anyway, and
that's why they deserve the prize.
And mistakes were made.
Look, you don't have to agree, but you should acknowledge this is a
normal, logical, valid argument. Since we only know for sure that
one other heat-generating phenomenon exists -- fusion -- that is the
best candidate. Space aliens probably do not exist. ZPE seems
problematic, as does shrinking hydrogen and the other candidates.
Hydrinos, if I didn't know about heat/helium, would look pretty
likely to me as a possible explanation. ZPE isn't impossible. Space
aliens -- what, probably don't exist? What in the world makes you
think that? What's quite unlikely would be that they would be
visiting us. It's a big universe, there is no particular basis for
thinking we are totally unique in it. But .... it's *big.* Travel
from the closest life location is very likely ridiculous.
But maybe there are things we don't know. And, in fact, there are
almost *certainly* lots of things we don't know.
The point is that argument by elimination is weak, and, in fact, the
"fusion" that was known was (1) probably impossible and (2) very much
unlike cold fusion. So concluding that, if there is anomalous heat,
it must be "fusion" was a huge red herring.
There was anomalous heat. Now what? The question would be to identify
the source, not imagine it from elimination. Obviously, one of the
places to look would be for possible ash. And helium was a great
candidate. As you know, there was a lot of search for tritium as
well, and tritium was found, but at levels way too low to explain the
heat if tritium was a major product. There shouldn't have been any
tritium, really, at the levels reported, but that work was never
strongly confirmed, there were, instead, a pile of anecdotal reports,
tantalizing.
I don't think the skeptics were stupid. There were plenty of reasons
to be and to remain skeptical. However, heat/helium. I really don't
understand how Britz manages to remain skeptical, because surely he
knows. Maybe he isn't really skeptical (on this point), not any more,
he's just accustomed to pretending he is.
I suppose a skeptic might want to hold out until heat/helium is known
to another decimal place. Storms estimates 25 +/- 5 MeV/He-4, but
that might be a bit subjective. It's surely in the deuterium fusion
region. It would be great if the work were done to nail it down.
That's pure research at this point, it isn't being done because those
who might do it already know that helium is the main product. Nothing
new to find here. This would be a great project for a grad student,
though, to determine heat/helium to higher accuracy. If it is close
enough to 23.8 MeV, it will blow Widom/Larsen out of the water.
You apparently think that other candidates are viable, or that we do
not even have enough evidence to rule in fusion.
No. I don't know of any viable candidate, but my lack of knowledge of
an alternative to something is not a proof of the something. Ever.
Argument from ignorance?
Fair enough. You have a right to that opinion. But do not denigrate
Fleischmann or I, and do not make fun our views by citing space
aliens and the like.
Fleischmann isn't upset. Why are you?
And don't tell me that is not what he thought. He told me that
himself on many occasions. I resent being told I am "recruiting" him.
Resentment clouds your mind, Jed.
*We don't know.*
Yeah, yeah, okay. But we sure as heck can make an educated guess.
- Jed
Actually, no. Not really. What we don't know is the mechanism.
Really. We don't know.
There are a number of "educated guesses," and all have some serious
problems. Those problems might be soluble, but resentment ain't gonna
solve them. Humor might help. Try it, Jed. You live in the South. Relax!
Seriously.
What we do know now, on strong preponderance of the evidence,
including all that heat stuff, but nailed down by heat/helium, is that
1. A nuclear process is in fact taking place.
2. It is highly likely to be some form of deuterium fusion.
So you can state that as a "theory," that the FPHE is a result of
deuterium fusion, but the danger is that people will assume that
fusion refers to specific mechanism (i.e., "d-d fusion" through
overcoming the Coulomb barrier) rather than to product. Helium is the
ash. That's known. There is no other candidate found in the requisite
quantities, there are only traces of other possible products.
