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

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. I suggest Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann were treated very badly in pursuit of this principle and we have not learned from history.

I agree that this could be discussed. I don't have a settled view on the matter, except that their continued work for many years after the announcement and initial interest has not led to the validation of their initial claims.

I know F claims it has - but if you look at the tenuous nature of his later evidence, and the fact that when Mckubre replicated F his results, with better calorimetry, are equally tenuous with lower claimed excess, you can understand that not many share F's view.

Thomas, I agree with you the catch 22 situation of how to critiscize a paper on archivex without it being published there. Is it not better for science to take on 'dubious' papers so that they can be properly discussed? If they where uptaken into the 'real' science community then may be the authors would take part in the discussions. As the situation stands they refuse to answer your critiscism, I would not be surprised if they have som more information not yet shared.

Quote from Mats002

Thomas, I agree with you the catch 22 situation of how to critiscize a paper on archivex without it being published there. Is it not better for science to take on 'dubious' papers so that they can be properly discussed? If they where uptaken into the…

Scientists have limited time, and it is very helpful to have mechanisms that filter dross - of which there is always a lot. If every scientist had to read every badly written paper in their area it would be a difficult burden.

This is a special case because normally a paper not good enough to get onto arxiv would be of no interest. Because of Rossi's claims and their extraordinary nature this paper is of interest (to Rossi's investors etc). It is true that scientists do not need to look at it, because it is worthless from a science point of view, but others do not know this.

Eh? It took a while to compile that message. If I understood it right it says "Scientists are not interested in the Lugano report because a) their time is limited and b) Lugano report is badly written"

Because you obviously are interested in the Lugano report and spend a lot of time here it makes you a non scientist. I am not sure that is what you intended to say.

I'm afraid i don't know what in the context of this thread "Eh?" means.

How true!:
"The models/paradigms tend to develop a life of their own to the extent that they become regarded as a form of revealed truth to which nature is expected to conform. It becomes difficult (perhaps even impossible) to ask whether deviations from any predicted behavior may not be due to the use of an incorrect paradigm? We do not ask the question; what would be the consequences of using a different paradigm? In extreme situations we see attempts "to save the paradigm" (a well-known activity) with increasingly improbable special assumptions[7]. We also see the denial of the reality of experimental observations if these cannot be fitted into the generally accepted paradigm."

Claryifying:
"The matter rested there until the 1960's, at which time I came to realize that the Pd/H and Pd/D systems had to be modeled using Q.E.D. At that time we started a number of haphazard investigations of the Pd/H system. The question of whether one could induce nuclear reactions became more clearly-defined at the end of that decade.

Work on the isotopic separation of H and D showed that it was necessary to assume that the H and D present had to be modeled as many-body systems in order to explain the macroscopic behavior. I assembled equipment to start work on the putative nuclear processes on two occasions but each time decided that such research would be judged as being inconsistent with holding an Academic Appointment!"

On accepting a mystery:

"However, it is also important to accept and explain unusual results (provided these are at an adequately high level of statistical significance), rather than to ascribe them to unspecified errors (or to incorrect scenarios for imagined errors). One outcome of this research has been the demonstration that scientists have developed a blindness for accepting unusual results. No doubt this is due in part to an excessive faith in invalid paradigms. "

Interesting

"......We therefore had to disclose our results to the Administrative Authorities of the University of Utah, who, in turn, felt bound to apply for Patent Protection. It is important to recall that we had by that time reached specific rates of energy production roughly equal to those in gas cooled fission reactors. In turn, the Patent Applications became the driving force for future actions. "

No surprise:

" I fully expected that the majority of scientists would judge the results in terms of the application of the Q.M. paradigm to the fusion of two deuterons in a dilute plasma and would therefore conclude that our results had to be false (notable exceptions have been Schwinger, Preparata and Del Giudice, whose expertise, of course, was and is in Q.F.T. and Q.E.D.)."

"Those engaged in this critique also established the terminology of "skeptics" and "true believers" which de facto prevented any rational discussion of the results."

"Thus 1989 was a singularly unfortunate year for the disclosure of the new results: in the first place, it was the 50th anniversary of the discovery of nuclear fission, a discovery which had also been made by investigating the Chemistry involved. Furthermore, work on "Hot Fusion" was reaching a decisive stage, and further work on this topic would evidently require new funding. I had repeatedly warned that the holding of a Press Conference would create a wave of negative publicity and disinformation, matters which we were ill-equipped to counter at that stage. "

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

Oystla

Yes, very interesting and in-depth read on what Fleiscmann himself thought of the sociology of science. Much of what he says is still relevant I think, and particularly so in the context of Huw Price's comments, the forgotten catalyst for this thread I feel.

Thank you for that.

Here are some of his views which particularly impressed me:

Readers may wish to assess whether the real purpose of such critiques was not the spreading of disinformation. In this context it is important to understand that incorrect statements acquire "a life of their own". Third parties do not need to establish whether the critiques were justified; it is sufficient to quote them.

The rapid polarization of opinion naturally also affected the funding of further work on the topic.

What is at stake here is not so much a lack of communication between scientists and society at large, as the poor quality of that
communication.

Nevertheless, one must ask oneself the question: suppose that one would wish to frustrate research within a given field of
research, without wishing to admit that this is ones intent. Then would one not take the steps which have been illustrated by the example of "Cold Fusion"?

Been at the rum again Mary?

Quote

Eh? It took a while to compile that message. If I understood it right it says "Scientists are not interested in the Lugano report because a) their time is limited and b) Lugano report is badly written"Because you obviously are interested in the Lugano report and spend a lot of time here it makes you a non scientist. I am not sure that is what you intended to say.

It is not relevant, but no secret: indeed I am not a scientist, and have never claimed to be that.

But in any case I think you are guilty here of:
(a) generalisation - just because most scientists don't bother with lame ducks some may
(b) ad hom - you spend your time thinking about the character / motive / etc of the people posting here instead of addressing the arguments

So, is Professor Huw Price wrong then?

Tomas: I hope you will have a [lexicon]conversation[/lexicon] with the authors of Lugano report and other scientists about LENR, I am sure all parties can learn from that.

@frank

You think right / wrong applies to Sociology?

I think he is not evaluating the physics, and without that what he says is BS.

[PS - he's a philosopher. It is probably good philosophy and I don't actually dislike philosophy, just I prefer science which, where they overlap, trumps philosophy any day. Example would be epistomology and Objective Bayesian maths - the latter elucidates a number of issues previously subject to unresolved philosophical debate].

maryyugo

Mary: I will take your questions one at a time in separate posts, unfortunately I do not have unlimited time as you apparently do; trying to discredit Dr. Rossi.
Many if not all the “lies” and “dishonestly” you attribute to Rossi can be explained by simply putting what he said in context. But you already know this; you prey on the Achilles heel of a creator, his constant desire for new knowledge.

Rossi is first an entrepreneur/inventor; his first reaction to anyone getting close to his invention is to protect his IP. He has good reason to feel this way because he has been burned in the past by unscrupulous individuals. This you already know also, Dr Rossi is an Edisonian type inventor, trial and error, and he shares these trials and errors, within the bounds of his IP, on his web site. If we had a recording of Edison discussing the light bulb five or six years before his successful light, many things he would say about the light would be inaccurate (trial and error); you would call these statements lies and dishonesty. But you already know all the above, you have your own mischievous agenda. Anyone listening to you has to wonder; what is this person’s agenda?

On to your questions: The first: “1) Rossi heated an entire factory for more than a year in Italy in **2007** with an ecat substituting for the heating element in a boiler. That spectacular heater has never been witnesses in action, has never been displayed, and has not been duplicated by Rossi.”

Most of your posts start with Rossi is a liar and a cheat and is dishonest. In the next paragraph you state the above, Rossi says he heated his factory where is the proof. Apparently from this question you asked Rossi you believed he was creating steam from his E-Cat and you did not want to believe it:

“maryyugo
June 17th, 2011 at 1:08 PM

Dear Mr. Rossi,
I can understand your upset. But you could put the whole issue of testing to rest by allowing just one E-cat to be given to University of Upsala or any other major research center. They could test it as a “black box” using whatever method they thought best but protecting its secrets. An important part of the test would be that they have full control of both the input power and the output power measurement methods and that they provide the electrical power and water coolant. The test should be done in their lab (not yours). They should use only liquid water eliminating issues about what portion of the steam was dry vapor and what portion was liquid. If you could allow this independent testing, it would make it impossible for anyone to claim that the tests already done are in error.Best regards

,M. Y.”

As you know Rossi made several public tests, with what any reasonable person would say are qualified witnesses, only to be harassed by skeptics (Batteries under the floor, trick electrical plugs, unending ways to measure the “quality” of steam, etc., etc, etc. Much to my chagrin Rossi did as you requested above by turning over his E-Cat to the Lugano scientists for more tests. Guess what happened.

We all know you are out to discredit Rossi for some unknown reason, but you did think he was creating steam on June 17, 2011 with his E-Cat. So, why always with the question about heating his factory, you never heard of steam heat? So, after this first question we are back where we started, yes, I believe Rossi heated a lab with his E-Cat.

PS I saw the new Star Wars movie yesterday, all the bad guys had masks on, is maryyugo your real name or is it a mask? My name is Bernie Koppenhofer, I live in Fort Collins Colorado.

Thomas
BS? Would that be 'Brilliant Sociology? If so I agree, Price is a brilliant sociologist, making an important comment on the divisive nature of certain dishonourable and less than honest forms of criticism more 'troll' like in nature; which have a profound negative affect on the progress of science in general. Fleishmann said in his paper: The rapid polarization of opinion naturally also affected the funding of further work on the topic. Perhaps we have reached a tipping point now where funding is again available. We will see over the next few years where that leads us.
The one thing I will say in defence of aggressive criticism is that the science must step up a gear in response to this which cant be a bad thing I suppose. What is a bad thing is to draw science into a verbal back street brawl as a method of settling disagreements.

Thomas Clarke

Just had to respond to your Krivit summary, you said “He asked Rossi - politely - whether conditions could be tightened up a bit”. You have to be kidding; a very junior science reporter with a sixth grade science degree is telling Rossi how to perform an experiment.

Quote

Tomas: I hope you will have a [lexicon]conversation[/lexicon] with the authors of Lugano report and other scientists about LENR, I am sure all parties can learn from that.

I have been in e-mail communication with the Lugano authors at various points while writing my comment - so they well know its content. I've never received a reply.

Quote

Price is a brilliant sociologist

I don't think so. From his CV he looks like a promising philosopher.

Quote

Just had to respond to your Krivit summary, you said “He asked Rossi - politely - whether conditions could be tightened up a bit”. You have to be kidding; a very junior science reporter with a sixth grade science degree is telling Rossi how to perform an experiment.

Tut tut. You have perhaps been reading ECW for too long.

Your argument is that Rossi is a Great Man and therefore whatever he does must be accepted unquestioningly?

I agree that neither Rossi nor Krivit have stunning academic records. Is that how you are going to judge them? How about judging evidence on its merit, without arguments from authority which in this case are particularly bankrupt because Rossi is only a self-proclaimed authority.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Carl Sagan. Whilst the Trolls may delay this progress a little, the establishment are taking interest and have for some time, with some degree of expectation!

See http://fas.org/irp/dia/lenr.pdf Defense Intelligence Agency - Defense Analysis Report - Technology Forecast: Worldwide Research on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Increasing and Gaining Acceptance:

"And since the U.S. military is the largest user of liquid fuel for transportation, LENR power sources could produce the greatest transformation of the battlefield for U.S. forces since the transition from horsepower to gasoline power.

Half time score Trolls 1 LENR 2.