Cambridge University Professor Huw Price on the ‘Reputation Trap’ of Cold Fusion (Update: Response in Popular Mechanics)

Shane,

Quote from Shane D.

If they were sure of their methodology, comfortable with their conclusions, then it would seem a waste of their time to try a Lugano do-over on their own dime and time? I can't help but feel that after their reading the critiques by Higgins/GSVIT (Thomas' came much later) maybe even Joshua's too, read the submitted questions, they realized they blew it.

Yes -- this sounds quite plausible.

Quote from Shane D.

But nonetheless, from a pure scientific standpoint, it is now null and void.

I agree. But I disagree that it was a scientific paper. It was more in the line of long-form technical journalism. The authors were permitted a peak at Rossi's device, no doubt under NDA, and reported what they were permitted to report, using the (surely flawed) techniques they used. I would not hold the Lugano report up as proof of anything, personally.

Quote from Shane D.

A useless piece of paper without the authors commitment to defend it.

I don't think it's useless, personally. It's got two interesting appendixes that describe very abnormal isotope ratios. Perhaps one wants to go along with the caution that Rossi was involved in the extraction. Then by all means one will want to fold that into the estimate of "interestingness." Perhaps one wants to discard the whole report entirely; that's also fine.

Quote from Mary Yugo

Any researchers with any personal integrity would only sign a REASONABLE NDA -- one which would prevent them from releasing any information on proprietary aspects of the device NOT related to the tests permitted.

Perhaps the Italian/Swedish team have no personal integrity.

Quote from Mary Yugo

The only reasonable explanation for their silence is that they have no appropriate response and don't wish to appear any dumber (incompetent and negligent to be technical) than they already do.

Maybe. Or maybe they are doing some tests and want to hold off on any further discussion until they have their facts sorted out.

Quote from Shane D.

It would be nice if the profs would speak up. If not that, then Lewan could shed a little light on the matter if he wanted.

Yes, I agree.

@Eric Den Hollander

Quote

It sounds like things have gotten personal.

Not in my case. I've never personally communicated with Rossi because he does not strike me as somone who uses words the same way I do - it would be pointless. Somone else asked him about my paper, and the reply was relayed to me (I don't read Rossi's blog. I did for a while only when it first appeared - it was amusing - but the technical content was zero.

I guess if I had even seen Rossi as an authoritative figure I might be miffed at his reaction. But I never have, and so was not.

Rossi's reaction to criticism was most clearly seen in the Krivit incident. You should go back to original data, but my summary:

(1) Krivit is a fan of Ni-H fusion and a capable LENR journalist.
(2) Rossi's claims were not too surprising to him - sort of a "the motheship has landed" moment.
(3) He arranged to come visit Rossi
(4) He was treated to the standard Rossi flawed demo
(5) He asked Rossi - politely - whether conditions could be tightened up a bit, seeing some obvious flaws that skeptics would pounce on. Remember - he has a strong initial wish that Rossi's stuff work, and that it be seen to work
(6) Rossi refuses any such elaboration, and gets angry
(7) Krivit writes a mildly negative factual piece about Rossi.
(7) Rossi calls Krivit a snake and says he wants to undermine Rossi.
(8) Krivit gets on his journalistic high horse - he sort of feels its his job to protect LENR from dishonesty - he spends a lot of time and effort investigating Rossi with not flattering (to Rossi) results.

Now, Krivit was against Rossi after having seen Rossi's demo and talked to him. But he was initially very positive. Krivit however is someone alert to the possibility of error/fraud, and not a natural yes-man.

Rossi's reaction to Krivit (as - in an attenuated form because I've only published my paper elsewhere, and not shoved it in Rossi's face - his reaction to that paper) was to meet polite and substantive critiques with dismissal.

That is strong meta-evidence, and also strong real evidence (from Krivit's inspection of the demo), that Rossi is not technically serious. People so unable to see mistakes in their own work seldom get very far.

As always, all meta-evidence is weak compared with...

Quote

then Lewan could shed a little light on the matter if he wanted

The Lewan line is to deflect questions of COP saying that even if there are issues with the power measurement the isotopic results prove LENR. Also, when pressed, Lewan says: "lets wait and see". It is a line that has served him well for the past 5 years and doubtless will continue to do so for the next 5 years. I hope that here I'm doing Mats an injustice, and he will show more critical engagement in the matter.

Actually, it is not true the isotopic results prove LENR.

If all the Ni is converted as shown in the isotopic analysis then there would be excess heat some 10X larger than measured. Not possible. And not spoofable.

If only part of the Ni - with the sample surface unrepresentative - then some fractionation mechanism would be a better bet than LENR to explain the results. Fits the COP=1 and while it would be unusual to find such a mechanism fractionation of weird types exists (though never anything like as complete). Still it is a lot less extraordinary than the nuclear conversion alternative.

Of course most likely, with historical precedent from Rossi's only previous sample given for isotopic testing,, would be contamination of the ash.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

The Lewan line is to deflect questions of COP saying that even if there are issues with the power measurement the isotopic results prove LENR.

I haven't heard Mats Lewan say this. Do you have a link somewhere?

Quote from Thomas Clarke

Actually, it is not true the isotopic results prove LENR.

I don't think anyone adopts this position, as it's too naive. Depending on the context and the setup of the experiment, isotope results are less or more suggestive that something non-chemical is going on.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

If all the Ni is converted as shown in the isotopic analysis then there would be excess heat some 10X larger than measured. Not possible. And not spoofable.

Do you have a calculation for this? Is this in your Lugano critique? There would need to be a lot of (possibly unwarranted) assumptions even to get to a calculation.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

If only part of the Ni - with the sample surface unrepresentative - then some fractionation mechanism would be a better bet than LENR to explain the results.

Fractionation to this degree seems quite implausible.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

Of course most likely, with historical precedent from Rossi's only previous sample given for isotopic testing,, would be contamination of the ash.

Yes -- this is one of the better possibilities. There are at least two other possibilities: link. Yet another possibility is that the fuel and ash samples were too small to be representative.

So; Price concludes 'that the whole field of cold fusion is stuck in a “reptutation trap”, that is very difficult to get out of since anyone touching it can quickly be tainted if they treat the field seriously'. It is seems to me that those of you who criticise the method, the theory, the science and particularly the honesty of the protagonists, can perhaps unwittingly (or maybe not) create the very conditions Price describes. I would be very interested to know how those of you who some responsibility for this would or could lend your expertise to foster conditions in which science such as this could be developed without genuine participants feeling 'tainted', if indeed they do?

Quote

So; Price concludes 'that the whole field of cold fusion is stuck in a “reptutation trap”, that is very difficult to get out of since anyone touching it can quickly be tainted if they treat the field seriously'. It is seems to me that those of you who criticise the method, the theory, the science and particularly the honesty of the protagonists, can perhaps unwittingly (or maybe not) create the very conditions Price describes. I would be very interested to know how those of you who some responsibility for this would or could lend your expertise to foster conditions in which science such as this could be developed without genuine participants feeling 'tainted', if indeed they do?

If you are saying this is a field of science that, to be taken seriously, must not be criticised is a contradiction in terms.

I've only criticised the honesty (in the limited sense of whether any of his statements about ecat claims can be considered accurate) of Rossi, and the propriety of the Lugano report authors. Any field of science, if it is to be taken seriously, must keep its house in order. It would normally be unnecessary to point these things out except that LENR us a special case where unusually, for science:
(1) Important scientific claims, central to the LENR field and of greater significance than any other claims, are determined by whether or not Rossi's unsupported statements are true.
(2) These claims are commonly (in the LENR community) considered true.
(3) These claims have altered LENR funding.

With such an extreme influence of one individual on a whole field of research, and such unusual reticence from most participants in pointing out the problematic nature of the claims, specific statements are surely helpful in the general endeavour of taking the LENR field seriously.

Were I an LENR researcher I'd want to distance myself from the various flaky LENR companies to ensure no taint - but particularly Rossi.

Thomas

My point is to express the same concerns that Price has presented and to ask what can be done to promote 'positive outcomes' without alienating the stakeholders, even if those positive outcomes result an objective and properly considered rejection of the science with balanced reasoning.

Thomas Clarke says - "If you are saying this is a field of science that, to be taken seriously, must not be criticised is a contradiction in terms"

This observation reveals interesting 'processes of logic'. I of course have said nothing of the sort but you have based quite a lengthy reply based on a false premise.

I rest my case.

Quote

It is seems to me that those of you who criticise the method, the theory, the science and particularly the honesty of the protagonists, can perhaps unwittingly (or maybe not) create the very conditions [being tainted if they treat the field seriously] Price describes.

Criticising the "method, theory, and science" is specifically what happens in any field of science that is taken seriously. I fail to see why this would cause any scientist to feel tainted.

Further, the reason LENR is not much taken seriously is exactly a lack of that normal process of criticism. More criticism is therefore good, not bad, for the LENR rep.

@Mary. No worries, the threads tend to merge into one in my mind too. Thanks for pointing out the other thread. Due to the Xmas flurry of posts, I had missed yours about the US military customer.

In fact I now agree with your interpretation (US military 'explicitly' named by Rossi). My previous understanding was that this (the US bit) was only hinted at, or interpolated by others. E.g. Personally I had assumed "NATO" really meant "US".

I found a cached copy that Joe Shea article that had some links to the reports he mentions. Unfortunately no confirmations, but again, it seems that this is Rossi's version of truth.

Quote

Avi
November 1st, 2012 at 11:29 AM
Dear Andrea Rossi
Some of the 1MW units are now in operation in military, So as i understand this, the US gonverment already aware of this revolutionary technology, right?

Warm Regards

---------------

Andrea Rossi
November 1st, 2012 at 8:58 AM
Dear Avi:
1. yes
2. because they signed a mammoth contract, giving the certainty of a solid future to our development.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Display More

Yes, it's a little bit "wooly" but when taken in context...

Edit: Your original question was about whether this is believable. I think they probably did buy one, because let's face it, the military would definitely be interested in this and they have plenty of spare cash. I think the other 12 that were supposedly "ordered", is likely a very rough and un-nuanced (slippery?) version of any actual contract.

Are company accounts public data in the US or Italy? Perhaps a more motivated person could check to see if there are any published company incomes that are large enough to be relevant.

Thomas

I agree " More criticism is therefore good, not bad, for the LENR rep" but that criticism must be 'positive' and 'constructive' and history must view it this way. I suggest Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann were treated very badly in pursuit of this principle and we have not learned from history. This I think is the view of Price and has not been discussed fully here, I think this thread has wandered off message in this respect except to show quite conclusively that Price has made a valid point which the scientific community needs to address in general not just in the LENR debate.

Quote

I agree " More criticism is therefore good, not bad, for the LENR rep" but that criticism must be 'positive' and 'constructive' and history must view it this way.

If criticism must be "positive" it is not criticism. In fact, all serious criticism is constructive. When skeptics criticise experiments for weak calorimetry, or unfounded assumptions, that gives the experimenters a chance to tighten up those areas. This (negative) criticism is exactly what is needed to do better LENR research.

Now: if LENR is not real, better LENR research will mean fewer positive results - with the outside chance of identifying interesting chemical anomalies in the behavior of H/D loaded metal lattices. If it is real, then better LENR research will mean clear strong evidence for LENR.

Trying to look good in retrospect is not good scientific practice. The proper thing is to pursue research with integrity. There is judgement - if you choose an area (perhaps like LENR) that in fact is chasing shadows history will see you as unimportant. But if you answered genuine research questions with integrity - identifying the shadows - you were doing valuable work - though less so, probably, than if you had chosen are more likely area.

That is as it should be.

Thomas

Yet again you miss my point. I use the term 'positive' not as a term indicating general agreement with claims which may not be rigorously tested, but as a 'constructive' principle as apposed to a 'destructive' approach. the aim must be for science to 'progress' in a 'positive way'. If this means the theory is to be disproved after objective and impartial enquiry, then that will be 'positive' since science will be well served by the process.

My point is that attacking personalities with innuendo's which cast serious doubt on their honour is not 'science' it is 'politics'. Is it so difficult to understand what Price is saying?

Even Einstein could not unify all natures forces in theory, but 'relativity' and 'quantum mechanics' have played a vital role in the invention of tools which work, even if those theories are replaced with something else as a result of 'positive approaches' to science.

Frank & Thomas,

why not read what Fleiscmann himself thought of the sociology of science. Interesting reflections.

ref. http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreflection.pdf

@frank

If the issue is attacking personalities then I agree with you. You will see on these pages that whereas some others approach a dialog by attacking the motives of others I don't. And the fact that LENR supporters sometimes couch scientific argument in terms of a need to counteract the bad motives or behaviour of other scientists is also unfortunate. Arguments stand for themselves independent of motive.

However, the episode of the Lugano test is serious, and must cast real doubt on all Rossi's technical statements since he still claims the tests show that his reactor worked. This is a matter of known incorrect public statements. Similarly the Lugano testers have put a document into the public domain which they must by now know to be highly misleading. That, in a scientific context, is problematic.

Normally it would not matter, and the natural scientific preference to ignore rather than highlight incorrect work would apply. They would publish (even on arxiv) and a refutation could be published in the same place. In this case they have been unable or unwilling to publish on arxiv and resorted to UoB repository where only a UoB researcher can publish a refutation. Those who look on lenr canr - where the Lugano report is also published - will find the related material. But I'm willing to bet that many do not do that.

Investors, or others attracted by Rossi's exciting claims, can look on UoB AMS directed by Rossi and be misled by a report that superficially appears to provide strong evidence Rossi's stuff works, but in reality provides strong evidence that it does not.

I suppose the best answer here is to publish on arxiv a reply. The problem is that if the original is not of sufficient quality even to be put onto arxiv it is difficult for editors there to justify a reply. Certainly I can't see any serious journal publishing a comment on a paper that has never been published except in pre-print form. Perhaps, though, in this case I am wrong.