

Cold fusion experiment "of great scientific value" to be presented on Jan 10-12 - mrb
http://e-catsite.com/2012/01/06/celani-group-zeroes-in-on-lenr-markers-mechanism/

======
tzs
There was an interesting article published about 10 years ago by David
Goodstein, a Caltech physicist, looking back on the whole cold fusion debacle.
It's long but very interesting, and is available here:
<http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/fusion_art.html>

What's interesting is how all the bad science basically tainted the field,
making it so that even potentially good science was dismissed out of hand, so
right at the point where there were some hints that there might actually be
something there and some experimenters were starting to get a handle on what
the key factor was, people were no longer willing to look at their results.
Here are the last four paragraphs of the Goodstein article.

\-----------------------------------------------------

Experiments done in the U.S. and in Japan, and reported at the Maui meeting
indicate that the missing ingredient may have been found. In all the various
Cold Fusion experiments, the first step is to load deuterium into the body of
metallic palladium. The issue is how much deuterium gets into the metal. The
ratio of the number of atoms of deuterium in the metal to the number of atoms
of palladium is called x. It turns out, by means of electrolysis, or by
putting the metal in deuterium gas, that it is rather easy to get x up to the
range of about 0.6 or 0.7. That is already a startlingly high figure. If there
are almost as many deuterium atoms as palladium atoms in the material, the
density of deuterium (a form of hydrogen) is essentially equal to that of
liquid hydrogen rocket fuel, which can ordinarily exist only at extreme low
temperatures. In other words, palladium (and certain other metals including
titanium) soak up almost unbelievable amounts of hydrogen or deuterium if
given the chance. This is far from a new discovery. However, according to the
experiments reported at Maui, x=0.6 or 0.7 is not enough to produce Cold
Fusion. Both the American and Japanese groups showed data indicating there is
a sharp threshold at x=0.85. Below that value (which can only be reached with
great difficulty and under favorable circumstances) excess heat is never
observed. But, once x gets above that value, excess heat is essentially always
observed, according to the reports presented at Maui, and recounted by Franco
Scaramuzzi in his seminar at the University of Rome.

The audience at Rome, certainly the senior professors who were present,
listened politely, but they did not hear what Franco was saying (that much
became clear from the questions that were asked at the end of the seminar, and
comments that were made afterward). If they went away with any lasting
impression at all, it was just the sad realization that a fine scientist like
Franco had not yet given up his obsession with Cold Fusion. They cannot be
blamed. Any other audience of mainstream scientists would have reacted exactly
the same way. If Cold Fusion ever gains back the scientific respectability
that was squandered in March and April of 1989, it will be the result of a
long, difficult battle that has barely begun.

Recently, I told this story in a Philosophy course we teach at Caltech called
"Ethics of Research." The first question, when I finished my tale, was, do I
believe in Cold Fusion? The answer is, no. Certainly, I believe quite firmly
the theoretical arguments that say Cold Fusion is impossible. On the other
hand, however, I believe equally firmly in the integrity and competence of
Franco Scaramuzzi and his group of co-workers at Frascati. I was disturbed
when I saw that Franco had gotten caught in the web of science-by-news
conference in April 1989 (although I was truly pleased that he finally got the
long overdue recognition his agency ENEA owed him), and I was even more
distressed when I learned that Franco and his group had observed excess heat
(the "bad kind" of Cold Fusion). However, I have looked at their cells, and
looked at their data, and it's all pretty impressive. The Japanese experiment
showing that heat nearly always results when x is greater than 0.85 looks even
more impressive on paper. It seems a particularly elegant, well designed
experiment, at least to the untutored eye of a physicist (what do I know about
electrochemistry?) What all these experiments really need is critical
examination by accomplished rivals intent on proving them wrong. That is part
of the normal functioning of science. Unfortunately, in this area, science is
not functioning normally. There is nobody out there listening.

I suppose that, if nuclear fusion really does take place whenever x is greater
than 0.85 in palladium, the world of conventional science will eventually be
forced to take notice. If not, then the whole story I have told you is nothing
but a curious footnote to a bizarre and ugly episode in the history of
science. Either way, I think the story illuminates the inner dynamics of the
scientific enterprise in a way that few other stories have done. For that
reason alone, it may be worth telling.

