ERAB panel & evidence denial

Quote from Rob Christian

And because there was 22 of them – many of them high ranking and respected – the rest of the scientific community trusted that they acted honestly.

I think many people honestly commits huge mistakes because of belief in reputation and authority. I also think some of these Respected authorities also believe they are right because they don't know better. It's a huge conundrum.

But I also think some respected authorities are well aware of what they are doing and do it on purpose. I think Huizenga and others were victims of their own ego.

Quote from Rob Christian

EDIT:

I think another way to strengthen this explanation will be to show a similarity of the form of argumentation used by cold fusion deniers, and deniers from other scientific revolutions.

I assume you are familiar with "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn. This is the kind of paradigm shifts he referred to, which causes violent oposition, and that's why he talks of Scientific Revolutions, because none has been quietly accepted by the defendants of the paradigm being replaced.

The Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism was once the preferred explanation for how the sun generated its heat and light. The arguments over whether the sun's energy was nuclear in origin raged for many years longer than it should have, given the available evidence.

There used to be a good account of the controversy on wikipedia, which described the mechanism as an obsolete theory.

However...

Since it has been established (via space probe measurements) that the large outer planets of the solar system radiate more heat than can possibly reach them from the sun, the Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism has been resurrected, dusted-off, and proclaimed as the explanation for this Gas Giant heat anomaly. This is because astronomers dare not propose any form of independent nuclear-derived heat production within a planet - or their careers would be destroyed...

Quote from Rob Christian

I have trouble buying into the notion that hot fusion proponents had something to lose by cold fusion succeeding.

They sure did have a lot to lose! That is why they attacked cold fusion within days of the announcement, claiming that F&P were criminals and frauds who should be arrested. That is what they told the Boston newspapers. They got in some trouble for doing that. Not much trouble. Mallove documented it.

Quote from Rob Christian

I see no reason that the hot fusion crowd could not have simply switched gears and begun applying their skills to develop LENR-based systems.

That is out of the question. They are no more qualified to do cold fusion than electrochemists are to build a tokamak fusion reactor. It is a completely different set of skills. You can tell they were unqualified from the inept experiments they did. In Japan, some of them mixed up the anode and cathode, and made all kinds of other mistakes.

Quote from Rob Christian

I think what happened is that Garwin and friends were confronted with irrefutable evidence, they had already stated an opposing position and made some professional/emotional investment, and so, when they were facing this irrefutable evidence, they all experienced a type of fear and insecurity that pushed them into denial.

I think it was about money. Funding. I do not think you need to look for a deeper explanation.

Quote from Curbina

I also think some of these Respected authorities also believe they are right because they don't know better.

I am sure they believe they are right.

I have met those people, and read what they wrote. I cannot read minds, but I do not have to, because they made themselves clear. Abundantly clear! They never took cold fusion seriously. Not for one minute. They never looked at the data or read any papers. They dismissed it out of hand and never thought twice about it again. It is not as if they did a careful analysis and after consideration determined that it was probably wrong. They dismissed it as quickly as I dismiss Creationism, the Flat Earth hypothesis, or the claim that an mRNA vaccine changes your DNA. I would say: "That's impossible. Completely out of the question. Not worth spending five minutes on. Anyone who believes that does not know the first thing about high school science." That is what the plasma fusion scientists said about cold fusion, and what they say to this day. It never occurred to them to look at the data. They do not think the experiments were ever replicated.

Here are some of the things they said. Their attitudes are clear. They never hid their contempt for cold fusion, or pretended to seriously evaluate it:

https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MalloveEclassicnas.pdf

Quote from Frogfall

The Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism was once the preferred explanation for how the sun generated its heat and light. The arguments over whether the sun's energy was nuclear in origin raged for many years longer than it should have, given the available evidence.

There used to be a good account of the controversy on wikipedia, which described the mechanism as an obsolete theory.

However...

Since it has been established (via space probe measurements) that the large outer planets of the solar system radiate more heat than can possibly reach them from the sun, the Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism has been resurrected, dusted-off, and proclaimed as the explanation for this Gas Giant heat anomaly. This is because astronomers dare not propose any form of independent nuclear-derived heat production within a planet - or their careers would be destroyed...

Display More

I have been following the development of the so called "Electric Universe" ideas in its most radical form, or "Plasma Cosmology" in the less conflicting variant, and you may be aware of the SAFIRE project (SAFIRE stands for Stellar Atmospheric Function In Regulation Experiment) which was said to have demonstrated at lab scale that is possible to replicate all the phenomena observed in the Sun considering it as part of an electrical circuit in the space, thus proving that "the Electric Universe" is at least plaussible.

This is another entirely "outrageous" set of claims that has been gathering evidence for he past 30 years or so (much more if you consider the historic basis since Birkeland).

Quote from JedRothwell

They dismissed it as quickly as I dismiss Creationism, the Flat Earth hypothesis, or the claim that an mRNA vaccine changes your DNA.

Good examples, I have devoted time to try to understand why some people believe the Earth to be flat (which is outrageous, and absolutely illogic), and found it to be a matter of disbelief on authority. On the other hand, the mRNA to DNA stuff is more complex, but I agree with you it doesn't change nuclear DNA, but can affect transiently a cell's DNA.

Quote from Curbina

BG;/dj8~ a probablement plus à dire sur Tandberg, l'un de ses livres traite des affirmations liées à la "Fusion froide" d'avant 1989. Il a fait un corpus exhaustif de recherches sur cet aspect.

Edit à ajouter : en effet couvert le travail allemand de 1927, mais pas Tandberg, dans ce livre :

https://www.amazon.com/Steven-…ven+Krivit&s=books&sr=1-3

Excellent book. One day, I will tell you the story of my great-uncle Ange Andrieux in earl Zeppelin's secret laboratory near Friedrichaffen lake during the First World War. Even Krivits don't know the story.

Quote from Curbina

Probably BG;/dj8~ has more to say about Tandberg, one of his books deals with pre 1989 “Cold Fusion” related claims. He has done an exhaustive body of research about this aspect.

Edit to add: indeed covered the German Work of 1927, but not Tandberg, in this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Steven-…ven+Krivit&s=books&sr=1-3

Quote from fabrice DAVID

Excellent book. One day, I will tell you the story of my great-uncle Ange Andrieux in earl Zeppelin's secret laboratory near Friedrichaffen lake during the First World War. Even Krivits don't know the story.

That's not fair, now that you picked our curiosity you have to tell us the story!!!

Quote from JedRothwell

They never took cold fusion seriously. Not for one minute. They never looked at the data or read any papers. They dismissed it out of hand and never thought twice about it again.

Except for Huizenga, to give credit where it is due. He wrote a book about cold fusion. It has a lot of in-depth technical information, and it is worth reading. You have to watch out for the illogical minefields, and his final conclusions are outrageous.

Robert Park was aware of progress in the field. He made a show of not reading the papers. Not even touching a paper in one memorable encounter with me. I think he wanted "plausible deniability" when he went around saying cold fusion was never replicated. He knew better though. Perhaps he sincerely believed that all replications were mistakes, but he knew that many replications were published. Dave Nagel and Scott Chubb kept him informed. I have a photo of them having lunch in 2008. He looks uncomfortable to me. Left to right, Dave Nagel, Robert Park, Scott Chubb:

Quote from JedRothwell

He looks uncomfortable to me. Left to right, Dave Nagel, Robert Park, Scott Chubb:

He certainly looks not happy, in contrast to Nagel and Chubb.

Quote from Alan Smith

It was alleged by someone who attended the hearing that the MIT guys also lied to Congress, some kind of enquiry? You might know better than me. That was a direct statement btw, not third hand.

The War Against Cold Fusion / What's really behind it? (sfgate.com)

In a telling interview, former Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) executive Tom Passell says that at least some of those involved in the campaign to debunk cold fusion intentionally misled congressional investigators and the public.

EPRI is the Palo Alto-based consortium of utility companies that conducts research into power generation and distribution technologies. Besides his professional credentials, Passell has an excellent reputation as a longtime, well-known, Palo Alto civic volunteer.

Passell says that shortly after the ERAB panel persuasively denounced cold fusion as junk science in congressional testimony, some of the members of that panel quietly came to EPRI seeking money so they could study the phenomena themselves. Apparently, cold fusion research was only worthless if someone else was getting the money to do it.

If Passell's charge is true, it means some members of the ERAB panel intentionally lied to Congress, offering scientific testimony that cold fusion was unworthy of further study, testimony which they knew to be false. In non-scientific language, that's called perjury. "The search for money, for research funds, is a big thing," Passell says, "and sometimes takes precedence over the search for what we call truth."

Note from Curbina : I copied this comment by Shane D. from Ascoli's thread here because it fits the ongoing discussion.

Quote from Rob Christian

This is not true for Garwin:

True. He did know a thing or two. There are some others who did their homework, such as Hoffman. But most skeptics I have read in the mass media or heard from know nothing. People such as Bill Nye, the infuriating Science Guy. (Ref. 38, https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreviewofth.pdf) and Carl Sagan (https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MalloveEcarlsagana.pdf) They are not actually skeptics. You have to do your homework and know the facts before you qualify as a skeptic. People who denounce experiments they know nothing about are nudnicks, not skeptics.

I have the impression these so-called popularizers such as Nye and Sagan often mouth off about research they know nothing about. Perhaps they begin to believe the public perception that they are Experts in Everything.

People who make up ridiculous reasons to dismiss experiments -- such as heavy water and light water magically affecting calorimetry outside the cell -- are also not skeptics. They are certified idiots. Or trolls, I guess.

Quote from JedRothwell

They dismissed it as quickly as I dismiss Creationism, the Flat Earth hypothesis, or the claim that an mRNA vaccine changes your DNA.

Let me point out a gigantic difference between Them and Me. The DoE did not appoint me to a panel to evaluate cold fusion. I was not called before a Congressional investigation to render an opinion on cold fusion, or invited to write an editorial in the Washington Post, the New York Times, or Nature. I am not a professional scientist. I have no professional obligation to do my homework and be sure my judgement of cold fusion is grounded in a careful reading of the literature and an objective evaluation, whereas these people did have that obligation.

If it turns out I am wrong about mRNA vaccines affecting your DNA, that would cause no harm to anyone, because the CDC and other experts do not come to me asking about this. I am not a doctor or a public health official.

As an amateur, I could cause harm with misinformation. I could edit Wikipedia, except the trolls in charge of it will not let me, which is probably a blessing. In the 21st century, with the Internet, Wikipedia, Facebook and other social media, amateurs can cause much more harm than they used to.

Quote from fabrice DAVID

One day, I will tell you the story of my great-uncle Ange Andrieux in earl Zeppelin's secret laboratory near Friedrichaffen lake during the First World War.

Please do. I have on of those uncles too, Harry Hodgekins, known in the family as 'Atom Bomb Harry) worked at the Cavendish before WW2 and he would tell everybody in the family 'we are building an atom bomb that will end wars forever'.

Quote from Rob Christian

JedRothwell so in the case of Huizenga, do you think the denial explanation makes sense?

I met him and talked with him on 2 or 3 occasions. Both of us were courteous. I could not tell what motivated him, or what he truly believed. I wasn't going to ask him, "do you actually believe what you wrote?"

I assume he meant what he said. I suppose he sincerely thought that theory overrules experiments. That is a strange thing for a scientist to believe, but as they say, "there's naught so queer as folk." In his book, Huizenga concluded that:

"5. If the reported intensity of nuclear products is orders of magnitude less than the claimed
excess heat, then the excess heat is not due to a nuclear reaction process.

6. Furthermore, if the claimed excess heat exceeds that possible by other conventional
processes (chemical, mechanical, etc.), one must conclude that an error has been made in
measuring excess heat."

Quoted by Beaudette and on p. 39:

https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreviewofth.pdf

I tend to take statements at face value. I believe that people generally tell the truth as they see it. Huizenga had no reason to hide his beliefs. I agree with Maya Angelou, "When people show you who they are, believe them the first time."

I think he sincerely believed because his beliefs were so appalling. "One must conclude that an error has been made . . ." Can you imagine saying that!?! If I thought that, I would be embarrassed to say it. It reminds me of the joke about a man who cannot be blackmailed because the things you would blackmail him with he brags about.

I suspect that Robert Park was not sincere. I suspect he did not believe what he said. Huizenga, Morrison and Hoffman seemed sincere. Huizenga was very smart and extremely knowledgeable. The latter two were among the most stupid people I have ever met. They were probably accomplished and very good at the physics they specialized in. I wouldn't know. But their takes on ordinary physics, basic logic, and common sense was astonishingly stupid. Mind boggling. Morrison really did not know the difference between power and energy. He wasn't kidding, or trying to fool people. (See https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf) Hoffman actually thought that Ontario Hydro sold used reactor moderator water on the consumer market. The people at Ontario Hydro were not amused to hear that. They pointed out that it is about 100 million times too radioactive. (I think that was the number. I can look it up.)

Unlike most other skeptics, those three spent a lot of time studying cold fusion. They knew a lot about it. But someone who does not know the difference between power and energy will never understand the fundamentals of cold fusion. Or thermodynamics, calorimetry, heat pumps, or -- I suppose -- how a thermos bottle knows to keep a hot drink hot and a cold drink cold.

Quote from JedRothwell

Morrison really did not know the difference between power and energy.

This reminded me the first peer review I went through, with my humble paper. One of the reviewers, when I talked about how one of the suspected mechanism of toxicity of Boron in plants was that it impaired the energetic metabolism within the cells, acrymoniously told me that "plants don't produce nor consume energy". I was astonished to think someone that was reviewing my paper could be so completely and absolutely wrong, perhaps he was thinking in electricity, who knows. I got my paper rejected in that journal because it wasn't experimental but a pilot plant, so they suggested me another journal and that Journal readily accepted it.

Quote from JedRothwell

Hoffman actually thought that Ontario Hydro sold used reactor moderator water on the consumer market. The people at Ontario Hydro were not amused to hear that.

Okay, here are some quotes from Hoffman's book. He devotes 8 pages of the book to the hypothesis that Ontario Hydro sells used reactor moderator water. (The book is only 130 pages long):

“O.M. There are strong indications that commercially sold heavy water may contain variable contents of used moderator water from either CANDU-type nuclear reactors or Savannah River-type weapons production reactors.

Y.S. What would indicate that?

O.M. The indicator is the enormous variation in the tritium-to-deuterium (T/D) ratio in different batches of heavy water. . .

Y.S. By why in the world would the commercial suppliers mix any used moderator water into their feedstocks?

OM: As to why, one cannot just pour used moderator heavy water from these reactors down the drain – the tritium content is too high – and besides, heavy water is not all that cheap . . .”

I faxed those pages to Ontario Hydro. In response they pointed out that an operational CANDU power reactor, the moderator water contains 10⁷ µ-Ci/kg, and research reactors generally contain 10⁶ µ-Ci/kg. Furthermore, this water contains many other contaminants even more dangerous than tritium, including long-lived alpha and gamma emitters. Removing these radioactive contaminants would be far more expensive than refining virgin heavy water from ordinary water. In order to reduce the tritium to safe levels you would have to mix the moderator water with virgin heavy water in a ratio of 1 to 100,000,000. Ontario Hydro concludes:

“Used moderator water can often be re-sold, but only to other reactor operators. . . . Ontario Hydro dominates the world's nuclear market for heavy water and the world's non-nuclear wholesale market, and we have never attempted to use diluted, cleaned-up old moderator water for our non-nuclear markets.”

The letter points out that some of Hoffman's other speculation about heavy water is also wrong:

“Theoretically, deuterium gas produced by electrolysis has lower D/T ratio than the source D₂O. However, in practice, there is no difference, as the separation factor is so small, and the operation is done in a single stage process. . . . [Hoffman's] suggestion that commercial D₂ gas suppliers must start with heavy water that is higher in tritium activity than any commercially available product any is also pure nonsense. Ontario Hydro is one of the world's major deuterium gas suppliers and we provide heavy water to one of the world's other major suppliers. The heavy water starting material is our normal virgin product.”

. . . The skeptics' own words disprove their case more than anything I can come up with.

Quote from Curbina

One of the reviewers, when I talked about how one of the suspected mechanism of toxicity of Boron in plants was that it impaired the energetic metabolism within the cells, acrymoniously told me that "plants don't produce nor consume energy".

That is hilarious! The reviewer has never heard of a forest fire?! Or firewood? This is like our friends here who insist it is impossible to tell when half the water in a test tube boils away. (Okay, it might be 45% or 55% instead of half, but that would make no difference to the conclusion.)