/* Kaku one month ago: "Cold Fusion - I'm open about it", see 1:25 into this video:m.facebook.com/story.php?story…10153610046843527%2F&_rdr */
Hindsight is 20-20: After wit is every body's wit. In Czech we have a proverb: "After a battle everyone is a general." IMO Kaku is an actor, not a scientist.
Lomax wrote:
QuoteWell, I was an undergrad at Cal Tech, where I once saw the Scholastic Achievement tests of applications, the computer printout. On the Math test, 800 was a common score. That was my score. Perfect.
Congratulations. But as Edison said, genius is 99 % perspiration, and evidently, you didn't perspire enough to finish your degree.
QuoteHowever, his [Kaku's] originally expressed views remain very common among physicists. Those views change when the physicist involved has an opportunity to examine the evidence.
Considering both DOE panels had an opportunity to examine the evidence, and both were unanimous, or nearly unanimous that evidence for nuclear processes was not conclusive, I don't think that can be said as a general statement. Besides the panels, there is Morrison, who followed the field closely for more than a decade, and wrote skeptical newsletters about it, there is Frank Close, who wrote a book on the subject, and remained skeptical, there are recent critics like Pomp, Erickson, Thieberger, Ugo Bardi, Motl, Siegel, Faccinni et al, Ciuchi et al., Tennfors, and our own Ekstrom, who have all had an opportunity to examine the evidence, and all remain skeptics.
Other than Darden, do you have some examples of recent physicists who changed their views after examining the evidence?
Mats002 wrote:
QuoteI better repeat my post again, since the latest post scripters seams to ignore it perfectly:
Kaku one month ago: "Cold Fusion - I'm open about it",
I'm not sure how that changes anything. I'm open about it too. Show the right evidence and I'll embrace cold fusion in a heart beat. It's only the believers who have closed their minds to the possibility that they could be wrong... talking about facts and done deals and proof and so on.
But one can be open about it, and still be skeptical if the reported observations are far more plausibly attributed to ordinary artifacts, experimental errors, and confirmation bias than to unprecedented and inconceivable nuclear processes.
Kaku one month ago: "Cold Fusion - I'm open about it", see 1:25 into this video:
<a href="https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10153610046843527&id=46126453526&refsrc=https%3A%2F%2Fm.facebook.com%2FBigThinkdotcom%2Fvideos%2F10153610046843527%2F&_rdr" class="externalURL" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">m.facebook.com/story.php?story…10153610046843527%2F&_rdr</a>
Okay, I watched it. Kaku is far from completely dismissive, but doesn't show that he's fully informed. Absolutely, there are difficulties with reliability and he is completely correct that there are problems with the reliability of specific reactions, but what he states is misleading as to the science. There is a phenomenon, it is repeatable, at levels that vary, and with a certain lack of control. But it is testable and falsifiable, and he implies that it is not.
And what that shows is that he believes what has been repeated over and over as if it were fact. The statement from Carl Sagan, rest his soul, was far more to the point. It's not a vote, but, in fact, cold fusion was rejected on a vote from the APS, which is exactly what Sagan was talking about. Kaku is not familiar with the research. It is not easy to become familiar, there is so much misinformation out there. It can take quite a bit of study, and where does one begin? I expect this to shift noticeably within a year. The Rossi affair has been an enormous distraction.
Yes, there is still some long shot that Rossi will pull a rabbit out of a hat. But I wouldn't bet on it.
Levels of reality:
1. Low Energy Nuclear Reactions have been shown to occur.
2. Examples of LENR have been well-documented and published in second-rate journals.
3. Examples of LENR have been successfully reproduced.
4. Patents on LENR have been issued.
5. Examples of LENR have been successfully reproduced by well-respected scientists representing the reputation of large institutions such as universities.
6. LENR has been demonstrated that is practical in nature but requires a lot of 'care and feeding' (Such as Rossi with his stethoscope.)
7. Large money has entered the arena and is trying to corner the market by acquiring patent rights.
8. Scammers are being shown to have been scamming.
June 2016 status. Going forward...
9. Practical LENR has been replicated by experts using the information provided in patents.
10. Science and Nature start to accept articles on LENR.
11. Kits such as offered by Looking For Heat are actually able to create a practical amount of heat and generate net electricity.
12. The race is finally on and attracting big money.
The sequence may be incorrect.
dartin.
while I wish your list was true it's just not. Number 9 just is incorrect. Our whole problem is not that LENR exists. It' is "where the hell did it (the effect ) go now". Specifically the next time the experiment was run. It dissappeared.
If something is real. It doesn't matter if Rossi cooked the sample or fudged anything. It should exist independently regardless. We just need to NOT put all our eggs in one basket.
IH did not become LENRs enemy. Just Rossi's legal issue.
