New US Navy Report Supports Cold Fusion

US Navy | 4/13/02

[PeaceBeWithYou]

You don't know Jack.....? (BG)

[Plummz]

I hope ONI finally releases the secret to cold fusion and puts an end to these bloody CIA oil games.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

The real question is why is it coming out now?

[Plummz]

ONR has no official position on cold fusion, but they are not pursuing it.

That's the official story, anyway.

[fella]

If this is true then it's good bye OPEC.

[Mo1]

OK .. I admit .. none of this makes sense to me .. could you summarize it for me .. Thanks

[Dinsdale]

'Strange attractors' is terminology from tensor math (which is used for, among other things, discribing turbulent flows).

I can barely read tensor notation so don't ask me anything more.

[Plummz]

It has been covered up for more than a decade.

Is that so? I haven't seen ,uch if any documentation on that, my previous remark was mostly off the cuff.

PLease post any documentation or links to same on this thread.

[WaterDragon]

I'm not science-savvy, but this is really interesting!

[Diogenesis]

In addition to the detailed article cited in this post
check out the following:

Vol.8, Nos 1-2 (2000)
Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance.

ISSN-0898-9621 Gordon and Breach Science
Adil E. Shamoo (Dept of Biological Chemistry, Univ. of Maryland)
Editorial: The Ethical Import of the Cold Fusion Controversy"

Scott Chubb -- Naval research Lab
Introduction to the Special Series of Papers in Accountability in
Research Dealing with "Cold Fusion"

Martin Fleischmann, FRAS
Reflections on the Sociology of Science and Social Responsibility

F. Scaramuzzi, ENEA (Italy)
Ten Years of Cold Fusion: An Eyewitness Account

J. Bockris (Texas A&M)
Accountability and Academic Freedom: The Battle Concerning
Research on Cold Fusion at Texas A&M University

George Miley (Univ. of Illinois)
Some Personal Reflections on Scientific Ethics and Cold Fusion

David J. Nagel (George Washington Univ.)
Fusion Physics and Philosophy

[Cvengr]

In other words, somebody initiated a study project into reviewing Cold Fusion. The person or persons conducting said study performed some literature research. They made a few notes and comments at the time of their reading the research notes, and now report their comments. No attention to detail or complete top-down or bottom-up analysis has been made. No description of limiting factors in the study's scope have been made. In general, the person/s performing the study might have a college degree in a science or engineering discipline but lack the ability to publish findings or even a research paper.

Regardless of preliminary qualifications and implicit due diligence for proper research, a paper is being tendered as a deliverable for said study which doesn't really address anything of quantifiable, identifiable, measurable, or repetitively describable format. Persons paid to perform scientific research like to get their money for nothing and their chicks for free, also. And BTW, ongoing state and local politics sometimes address broadbased topics which happen to touch upon one of the same physical terms seen in this study, namely 'energy'.

IMHO, the study isn't worth the paper its printed on. Worse, it took funding which is difficult to obtain to actually study said reported phenomenon and fails to render scientific professional due diligence in its deliverables.

[Diogenesis]

You are absolutely wrong with your malicious ad hominem.

These people are hot fusion people, semiconductor physicists, and reputable scientists.

You have typical pathological skepticism in that you talk and condemn,
but neither read nor have serious knowledge.

You obviously have your reasons.

[Cvengr]

"By the Second International Conference on Cold Fusion, held at Villa Olmo, Como, Italy, in June/July 1991, the altitude toward Cold Fusion was beginning to take on a more scientific basis.

Was that altitude measured above sea level or ground level?....sarcastic inquiring minds need to know..../sarcasm off.

Too bad the forward isn't as simply directed and focused in its measurable metrics as the above quote.

I've found the topic of 'Cold Fusion' to offer good opportunity in the identification problem, history of science, and philosophy of science. Many of the topics implied by the study require an intuition of the founding arguments used in science for basic terminology. The actual meanings, scope, and limitations of terms between different branches of science as well as identifying the mathematical methods used to describe phenomena from different scientific points of view.

Simple terms such as each term in Maxwell's Eqns (quantum, QED), terms from electrochemistry, terms from solid-state physics, derived terms and terms used as identifiable measurables all have some basic implied meanings constraining their range and domains of valid use.

The Cold Fusion problem exemplifies a problem where the quantification of some of these measurables might exceed the functional domains of other functions. Using a handful of measurables might lead to actual circular reasoning and measurements which imply false meanings without indications of the problem to junior postdoctorate level researchers.

I found study of the topic to mandate a review of the researcher's academic background to more fully appreciate their point of view and implied understandings of basic scientific terms. My viewpoint is more from rigorous Material Science ( Mechanical, Electronic, and Chemical), applied mathematics, and common engineering. Too many researchers in this field are either PhDs in Physics, with less than a 3rd year college experience in scientific study of Chemistry, or Physical Chemists, with less than 5 yrs of collegiant study in applied mathematics, or engineers / applied mathematicians with only one or two years of study in chemistry and physics.

I've found that a good 3 yrs of study of both Chemistry and Physics at the undergraduate level is required to even identify the semantical and meaningful conflicts between the sciences. Another 2-3 years of study in each discipline is then required, devoted to simply studying the etymology of the eqns and basic scientific terms. Essentially, this further study amounts to forming a history of science intuition. Then for a particular problem, such as 'Cold Fusion' a quick study and reformulation of scientific reports in an applied mathematics format allows the problem to take shape meaningfully.

Until this is done, too many sparsely described phenomenon are discussed using less than 5 variables when perhaps 10 are involved amongst peers who are only intuitive with discussing 1-3 variable problems.

[Diogenesis]

You use a lot of scientific words in pseudoscientific fashion.
Perhaps if you did several years of graduate study in engineering, physics, etc.
you would be better able to adequately criticize
the paper(s) to which you simply toss word-bricks.

These scientists published serious data, and analysis.
In constrast, your comments are not serious, but typical of the pathologic skeptic.

[Cvengr]

"At China Lake, Dr. Miles and his collaborators showed that a correlation exists between the rate of the excess enthalpy generation and the quantity of helium in the gas stream. Such a correlation is the direct evidence of the nuclear origin of the Fleischmann-Pons effect."

IMHO, this is about the most meaningful statement of the entire quoted forward. Not much is expressed, but some value exists in showing a correlation.

I studied the topic a bit around 1988-91 on the side. The assertions made and basis for assertions were a bit tenuous from a rigorous scientific viewpoint.

BTW you make my point. Some of these folk have backgrounds in Solid state physics, hot fusion. Now review the chemistry assertions based upon priniples from electrochemistry in aqueous solutions, then QED. The assertions being made regarding Cold Fusion touch upon measurables in different domains which don't necessarily mean the conclusions being drawn in one branch of science are as well identified in another branch.

We're dabbling with solid state, transitory states, liquid and gaseous and maybe even some plasma states. Additionally, we grate upon measurable which have meaning in one system of state variables, are shown to translate by braoder principles to other states based upon Invariants or dimensionless expressions, but the 'Cold Fusion' assertions go to the core of these foundations. They assert excess energy exists, when the measurable identity or function or process might be better isolated. The induced consequence that excess energy is being generated due to fusion might be very premature. I haven't seen a rigorous discussion of it and that includes reviewing every technical paper I could lay my hands on at Oak Ridge, Rice, Univ of Chicago, CIT, Berkeley, and that junior university out in Palo Alto (hehehehe, I really kill me sometimes ;^)... granted I wasn't tooled up to find all papers on the topic nor am I in 'that community'.

[Cvengr]

Mentioning the "Energy Crisis" in California in a forward to a paper paid to study 'Cold Fusion' is hardly rigorous science. Is that use of the California Energy Crisis an example of a 'word-brick'? Oops,..I forgot,...these are serious scientists.

[Cvengr]

"These scientists published serious data, and analysis. In constrast, your comments are not serious, but typical of the pathologic skeptic."

Dio,...baby...I enjoy few things more than some rigorous scientific review and study. The comments made in the forward were much more arrogant than anything I mentioned and they were being paid to make professional statements.

For example, commenting that the researchers didn't know when to differentiate when they should integrate,..."etc." is synonomous to saying they don't know when to add when they subtract. If somebody is guilty of ad hominem attack, I'd say the author fits the bill fairly well.

As for my pathology, the pathology of science usually is sceptical for error, and yes, I admit, I haven't presented a postdoc paper here in a five minute review, but I expect a research study forward to nicely concentrate it's findings in concise language displaying the fuits of its labor. The fruits I observe are from somebody tooled up to review experimental design, some backgound in applied mathematics and Solid State, but not much in science. A complete system isn't formulated. Nor are the criticisms in the forward well isolated and premises discerned to allow others to satisfy completeness. IMHO, It's premature and hasty,...As I grant is mine, but I only took 5-30 minutes to review, while they obviously have been charged and expected to present a synopsis for the profession. Especially when the topic is supposedly a revolution in science.

[The Raven]

>> I doubt that Fleischman and Pons wasted nearly as much US Taxpayer $$ as those working on "hot fusion" projects, such as at Princeton

OOOOHHHH.....EXCELLENT POINT !!!!

In retrospect, F&P should have kept quiet on the patent and asked for peer review of the anomoly.

[Cvengr]

I echo your sentiments,...its a mid level employee seeking funds for a broad brushed research dollars. Call it Cold Fusion at the time of the Energy Crunch,...what the heck, it might fly.

[Cvengr]

"I'm not science-savvy, but this is really interesting!"

Now THAT is a nice forward which describes the paper! ;^)