IH:
Quote
Lewis and Koonin hailed from Caltech, with a team whose claim to fame was a sloppy replication attempt.
jc:
Quote
IH:
Quote
This is the point—their skepticism might have been effective with some, but it was never sound.
No, you're still missing the point. You are arguing that scientists opposed cold fusion for selfish reasons like preserving hot fusion funding. Lewis and Koonin were not involved in hot fusion research, and whether or not you think their objections were sound doesn't matter. They were effective, and they were not recipients of hot fusion largesse.
Quote
joshua cude wrote:
This is an appeal to authority. Nature must occasionally retract papers. They are not the end-all be-all. They can make mistakes. The reviewers can have biases.
You called the work sloppy and cited (appealed to) the authority of Krivit and his co-author.
Nature is a premier journal, and while they are not infallible, they are certainly more qualified to recognized sloppiness than is Krivit.
Anyway, time has vindicated Lewis's criticism. That experiment has been all but abandoned with essentially no progress and no improvement in the quality of the evidence since 1989.
Quote
joshua cude wrote:
Sure there is. Lewis was incensed by the secrecy of P&F, and stated as much to news reporters. Watch Nathan Lewis confront Dr. Fleischmann and listen to his voice. (You can find this clip pretty much everywhere.) He has the air of youth and arrogance, standing up to one of the most renowned electrochemists in the world at that time. He used this whole affair as a pedestal to advance his career. He had every reason to attack Dr. Fleischmann, and with such gall after carrying out such a sloppy experiment.
Well, you are right that the fiasco was good for his career. But that is only because in the view of the mainstream, he prevailed, and his experiment convinced a lot of people, whether you think it was sloppy or not.
As you have said, in science, the truth will out, and scientists know that. Especially for an experiment as easily accessible as cold fusion, scientists who thought there was anything to it would have expected it to be vindicated in short order.
Therefore, what you call his motivation could only be a plausible motivation if he were all but certain that cold fusion would not prevail. Because if it did prevail, his career would have suffered.
And the only way he could be all but certain that cold fusion would not prevail, was if he was all but certain cold fusion was bogus. And in that case, he acted honestly and honorably in an effort to reveal the truth. And he has been rewarded for his efforts.
Quote
joshua cude wrote:
But that’s the thing: they didn’t view it that way. What with hot fusion reactors that require billions of dollars of research, development, and construction costs. Big science. If you can achieve better results with a simple table-top device, sort of takes the fun out of it, and would have resulted in the loss of the direct tap to big taxpayer dollars.
Look, the millions goes to research, not so the scientists can by Ferraris. Their salaries are typical of scientists everywhere.
But sure, if scientists have invested a lot of time and attracted big money for a project, they are reluctant to admit there is a much easier way. I'm just saying that it wouldn't be a crushing blow to their career income, or even career progress. In fact hanging on and attempting to suppress new science would be far worse for their career if the new science were ever vindicated. Again, their adamant opposition is only consistent with their being all but sure that cold fusion is bogus.
Quote
Hot fusion scientists are literally being paid pensions now. And for what? What have they achieved for the world?
On average the triple product of density, temperature, and confinement time has doubled every 18 months or so, and if ITER is built, it is likely it will exceed the Lawson criterion for ignition. In a century, today's hot fusion scientists might be given their credit, just as Otto Lilienthal and Samuel Langley are for powered flight, even though they did not themselves accomplish it.
You know, until a bridge is completed, not one vehicle has been transported across it. But that doesn't mean progress in its construction is useless.
Quote
joshua cude wrote:
They made progress in France, but unfortunately, all of the parameters to make a reaction take palace reliably were not known at the time. The clock and the funding ran out. Better and more reliable replication techniques were later developed, particularly by SPAWAR and others.
Toyota did not go broke. They *stopped* the funding for lack of progress. It took 100k to claim the definitive discovery of the phenomenon. Fifty million more over 6 years was not enough to improve matters, or even to convince the world it was real. It is characteristic of real phenomena that they become more manifest and more reproducible with protracted investigation, even if an understanding is not achieved, just by simple searches of parameter space. See for example, HTSC. It is characteristic of pathological science that as the experiments improve, the effect becomes more modest. Cold fusion fits the latter far better, that is also consistent with a century of robust and reproducible nuclear science.
Quote
joshua cude wrote:
Agreed, not in a world connected by the Internet. But they and others can certainly slow it down.
I find it inconceivable that they could cause a 27 year delay in an experiment accessible as accessible as cold fusion and so widely publicized in 1989, and so widely attempted. The entire modern physics revolution took about 27 years, and that involved dozens of new phenomena on a similar scale, and many new and revolutionary ideas. But in cold fusion, as Hagelstein says, after 27 years, "aside from the existence of an excess heat effect, there is very little that our community agrees on". No progress!
Quote
joshua cude wrote:
Large government beuroacracies are less benevolent than you think.
Saving money does not require benevolence. It represents greed.
Quote
Their primary thrust is to keep the beuroacracy (and therefore their livelihoods) in place.
Their livelihoods are benefitted when they benefit their political bosses. And that means getting results that are popular with the public without costing the public money. Hot fusion does none of that. The public (like you) does not have the patience to wait 50 years, and they hate taxes. Getting the same result now, for less money benefits the public, makes the politicians happy, and that ensures the livelihoods of the bureaucrats who made it happen. The DOE would have loved nothing better than a real cold fusion phenomenon. Unfortunately, it appears it is not to be.
Quote
The more they can spend the better.
Yea, because taxes are everyone's favorite thing...