About "the pseudo-science" of cold fusion

SERGEY Tcvetkov : December 12, 2017, 10:00 - REGNUM Editorial preface. -Google translate.

Any fundamental discovery can be used both for profit and harm. The scientist sooner or later faces the need to answer the question: to open or not to open the Pandora's box, to publish or not to publish a potentially destructive discovery. But this is by no means the only moral problem that their authors have to face. Peskov told about the attempted attempt on Putin in St. Petersburg In Antarctica, found a frozen alien ship "Without Russia we die!": A riot began in Nikolayev.

NEWS OF PARTNERS There are more mundane but equally difficult obstacles to the authors of major discoveries on the way to universal recognition, related to the corporate ethics of the scientific community - unwritten rules of conduct, the violation of which is severely punishable, up to and including expulsion. Moreover, these rules are often used as an excuse for exerting pressure on scientists "too far" advanced in their studies and encroaching on the postulates of the modern scientific picture of the world. At first, they refuse to publish their work, then they blame them for violating the rules, then they put the stigma of pseudoscience. I recognized the scientist's answer. What is not for you - that and no. What is not in your hands - It is against the truths of science. What the scientist could not count - That delusion and forgery. About those who survive and win, later they say: "They are too ahead of their time." It was in this situation that Martin Fleischman and Stanley Pons found out the course of nuclear reactions during the "normal" electrolysis of a solution of deuterated lithium hydroxide in heavy water with a palladium cathode. Their discovery, called "cold nuclear fusion," has been exciting the scientific community for 30 years, divided into supporters and opponents of the cold fusion.

In a memorable year 1989, after the press conference of M. Fleischman and S. Pons, the reaction was quick and tough: they violated scientific ethics, promulgating unreliable results that were not even reviewed in a scientific journal. Behind the hype raised by the newsmen, no one paid any attention to the fact that by the time of the press conference the scientific article of M. Fleishman and S. Pons was reviewed and was accepted for publication in the American scientific journal The Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry. In this strange circumstance, dropped out of the field of view of the world scientific community, the circumstance draws attention in the article published below, Sergei Tsvetkov. But no less mysterious is the fact that Fleischmann and Pons themselves, as far as we know, never protested about their "slander" in violating scientific ethics. Why? Specific details are not known, but the conclusion suggests that the studies of cold nuclear fusion have been clandestine. Fleischmann and Pons are not the only scientists who were made cover up under the guise of pseudoscience. For example, a similar "spoiled" cold synthesis biography was invented for one of the world's most ranked physicists from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Peter Hagelstein (see the article in Wikipedia), the creator of the American X-ray laser in the framework of the SOI program.

It is in this sphere that the real scientific and technological race of the century unfolds. We are convinced that it is in the field of research of cold nuclear fusion (NSA) and low-energy nuclear reactions (NNEI) that new technologies will be created that are destined either to transform the world or open the "Pandora's box". * * * There is no use in what is known, One unknown is needed. I. Goethe. Faust. Introduction The history of the beginning and development of studies of cold nuclear fusion is tragic and instructive in its own way, and, like all history, it does not resemble anything and refers more to the experience of future generations. I would state my attitude to the cold nuclear fusion as follows: if there was no cold synthesis, it would be worthwhile to think of it. As a direct participant in many of the events described below, one must state the fact: the more time passes since the birth of cold nuclear fusion, the more the media and the Internet discover fantasies, myths, distortions of facts, deliberate forgery and mockery of the authors of the outstanding discovery. Sometimes comes to the blatant lies. We must do something about this! I advocate the restoration of historical justice and the establishment of truth, for is not the search and preservation of truth the main task of science? History usually stores several descriptions of an important event made by its immediate participants and external observers. Each of the descriptions has its drawbacks: some do not see the woods behind the trees, others are too shallow and tendentious, some are made winners, others are defeated. My description is a view from within a story that is far from complete.

Sorry, I blame Google - it has a habit of translating Rossi as Smith. And we are not related. Your by-line above has been amended.