Science - Cold Fusion is it possible?

[33Vortex]

I'm just not familiar with the term. they sound a weird bunch.

Yes, english is not my first language so expect more of that. 

[bustr]

If you read the pdf patent request there is more to this than just hydrogen and nickel interacting to change the nickel into a copper isotope. The reaction takes place inside of a copper tube at preassure and temp. Sounds familiar from several unrelated groups attempts at separating hydrogen from water to fill hydrogen cells. Nickel and copper have been looked at as cataylists.

I'm not sure this is technicaly cold fusion. The hydrogen has to be externaly heated before being injected into the chamber. The temperature of the hydrogen is varyed periodicly during the injection raction resulting in supposedly some release of energetic particles requiring Lead and Steel sheilding. A Water/Boron solution is used to carry away heat. Sounds more like accidental particle scaveging by weakening of bonds via heat and preassure. Didn't the russians use liquid boron to cool their nuclear subs reactors and the leakages kept killing their crews.....

Reminds me of a digital H2O cracking device in the late 80's where the inventor claimed he could weaken the hydrogen bond via a polarity change at some harmonic frequency he determined of the H and O bonding. He supposidly demonstrated real time hydrogen production at amounts to run a car engine from tap water. Funny in 88 he ran out of a Denny's in I think Kansas holding his chest yelling he had been poisened then dropped dead in the parking lot. No one has yet to duplicate his work because he never documented the frequecy for the polarity switch.......

Wonder if this guy after the patent is issued will claim his reaction is a zero point energy reaction leveraging the casimir effect....

[33Vortex]

The Myers cell is another interesting topic which I'm sure would upset some more people here.  I think your thoughts of the two being related are interesting. I've not seen this patent request in .pdf format, do you have a link?

Anyway, Rossi never claimed his device to be based on cold fusion, afaik. I just pulled a dirty trick drawing attention to the thread because I think people need to wake up from the "this can't be done" mentality.

[bozon]

You are confusing "it can't be done" with "it has not been done".

[33Vortex]

No, you are confusing things. People are stuck with the formulas they were taught in school and many (most it seems) can't get their head around the fact that these laws are nothing but approximations based on assumptions in the first place. These approximations are adequate for our environment (in our environment) but are incomplete. Repeating what others have said and written before you doesn't make you a more intelligent person. People who say something is impossible because it goes against this or that law that we know is "true" and therefore it can't be done, well... we won't be pushing any boundaries with them unless perhaps when it comes to patience.

Some people treat science like a religion, some of these people are very influential in senior positions at various institutions around the world. They don't want their circles disturbed, because they know most everything already and would just prefer to occupy researchers with endless string theories which will lead us nowhere.

Ok I'm done with my rant, who wants the floor?

[bozon]

I don't think you understand what a physical law is. "Impossible" in science VERY improbable, not "absolutely cannot be". The days of absolute truths and philosophical science are over.

It is interesting that you keep repeating that: "Repeating what others have said and written before you doesn't make you a more intelligent person". The thing is that not repeating what other people said does not make their words not true. If someone did something right and came to the correct conclusion, should I refrain from using this conclusion because he said it first? I love the couch & joint philosophers that say you can't believe any scientific law and conclusion until you have done the experiments yourself... oh yes, and the galaxies can be like atoms in a fingernail of some giant whose world is in itself atoms of another giant which is an atom in our world... wow dude!

They don't want their circles disturbed, because they know most everything already and would just prefer to occupy researchers with endless string theories which will lead us nowhere.

If you knew anything about science and getting grants you'd know that what the scientists love the most is to emphasize how much we do not know yet. I have no idea what you mean about string theories. It is a very niche branch of theoretical physics that employ a tiny number of researchers and an even smaller number of scientists are interested in what is (not) happening in that field.

[moot]

Not "repeating" ie working from someone's conclusions is nothing but a recipe for gridlock.  Just completely unreal idea.  All for some philosophical satisfaction. 

You could do 1000 replication runs and still have the "philosopher" looking over your shoulder going "yeah, but what if the 1,001st time is when it stops working?"

[33Vortex]

I don't think you understand what a physical law is. "Impossible" in science VERY improbable, not "absolutely cannot be".

If only people would get that one thing right. Because the majority of people seem to assume the "laws" to be absolute. The best methods always are practical experimentation in correlation with theory. When it becomes too theoretical it can deviate from reality significantly. Experimentation is the foundation of science, without practical knowledge we could never build a viable theory or formulate "laws". So the logic has to be that experimental results supersede theory in importance, and theory be revised to accommodate any new results if they are found to be accurate. This is why I'm having problems with people who cry "fake" whenever they hear something in contradiction to their own theoretical knowledge of science. It reminds me more of religious dogma than science when people take on that behaviour. We would have no, or very little, scientific progress if those people were in charge. Luckily there are some maverick researchers out there who dare go their own way. If you remember, the Wright brothers were much like that.

[moot]

Those mavericks are outnumbered by cranks.  The average joe is correct in noticing that empirical trend.

[RTHolmes]

quite.

Luckily for us most researchers arent mavericks and spend their time doing rigorous science in potentially fruitful areas of research rather than wasting their time and our money chasing wild geese.

[mechanic]

The mavericks are the ones that go down in history as great. The rest, like I said in another topic, end life unstisfied, unappreciated and misserable having never really done anything worthwhile despite their intelligence and hard work.

[33Vortex]

quite.

Luckily for us most researchers arent mavericks and spend their time doing rigorous science in potentially fruitful areas of research rather than wasting their time and our money chasing wild geese.

Depends on whether you consider progress to be a faster, better looking, safer and more comfortable car, or something better than a car. I say the potential for something better than a car is there, we just have to do the research. For a scientist looking for a career it's a safer bet to do research which pays off, rather than let go "chasing wild geese" as you say. It's the golden rule once again. He who has the gold make the rules.

I guess basically it's about where you set your level of ambition. If you look around you everything in this world are built on dreams, a vision that someone had and made real. It's everywhere in the corporate and construction businesses just to name a couple, oh and aviation of course. Yet somehow as a scientist you are not encouraged to dream, but to carry on analytical work for a company looking for easier money, i e a bigger profit margin to show their share holders. So, do we want more of the same, but enhanced, products... or do we want some real change?

[RTHolmes]

I'm interested in these mavericks. traditional science involves the usual mix of observation, experimentation, theory and intuition, following the scientific method. usually you study hard at school and show some talent for your subject, go to a universtity study some more, get a degree, then start doing proper research and work towards further academic advancement, profit, personal fulfillment, whatever. somewhere along the way you might discover something cool, you submit it for peer review and if it passes muster it goes on for further review. if enough people have reviewed it and think its worthwhile, they will start using it in their own theories or research.

name some useful scientific theories discovered by a maverick - ie. someone who didnt follow the path above. I'm struggling with this.

[EskimoJoe]

No, you are confusing things. People are stuck with the formulas they were taught in school and many (most it seems) can't get their head around the fact that these laws are nothing but approximations based on assumptions in the first place. These approximations are adequate for our environment (in our environment) but are incomplete. Repeating what others have said and written before you doesn't make you a more intelligent person. People who say something is impossible because it goes against this or that law that we know is "true" and therefore it can't be done, well... we won't be pushing any boundaries with them unless perhaps when it comes to patience.

<snip>

Ok I'm done with my rant, who wants the floor?

I see this how I would see a movie that involves magic from some unused part of the brain.
It's impossible, most people would agree. That doesn't mean there is no possible way that
it can happen. I'm not saying I believe in magic or something, I'm just comparing the ideas.
Some people believe magic is truly possible, and they tend to be outcasts.

Just my thought on the matter. It appears to me the same concept. Just thinkin it would be
really, really cool to snap my fingers and have a fireball at my hand 

[mechanic]

I'm interested in these mavericks. traditional science involves the usual mix of observation, experimentation, theory and intuition, following the scientific method. usually you study hard at school and show some talent for your subject, go to a universtity study some more, get a degree, then start doing proper research and work towards further academic advancement, profit, personal fulfillment, whatever. somewhere along the way you might discover something cool, you submit it for peer review and if it passes muster it goes on for further review. if enough people have reviewed it and think its worthwhile, they will start using it in their own theories or research.

name some useful scientific theories discovered by a maverick - ie. someone who didnt follow the path above. I'm struggling with this.

You are confused as to what the term maverick means.

1) Darwin

2) Einstein

Two great mavericks, widely considered as mavericks by most people of their time.



Just an intersting piece on the subject:

Science creates 'own mavericks'
 
 British scientists fuel controversies by shunning colleagues with rebel ideas, according to research.
A Cardiff University study found British scientists ousted 'maverick' colleagues to avoid giving their arguments legitimacy.

In comparison, Swedish colleagues believed exclusion only served to exacerbate problems.

The author said this might explain how controversies around issues such as MMR have become health scares in the UK.
 
Dr Lena Eriksson surveyed 30 expert scientists from Sweden and the UK about their opinions on a high-profile controversial topic in their field of expertise - genetically modified food.

She found significant differences between the two groups' attitudes about scientist Arpad Pusztai who was suspended from his workplace after claiming in 1998 that a type of GM potato had adverse effects on the immune systems of rats.

The Swedish scientists were more inclined to take the view that there has to be scope for scientists to make mistakes, and therefore the treatment of Pusztai was to be condemned, regardless of the truth to his claims.

The British scientists on the other hand only said it was wrong to suspend Pusztai when they believed he was right in his conclusions.

When they did not hold the same unorthodox views as a maverick scientist, their first instinct was to shut out any dissenting voice, said Dr Eriksson.

Outcast

She believes research communities that punish scientists who present contentious results will risk disenchanting an already sceptical public even further.
  
"This increases the likelihood of scientific controversies moving into a public domain, as the ousted scientists are forced to seek new audiences for their claims."

She cited the controversy surrounding the MMR vaccine following Dr Andrew Wakefield's suggestions of a link between MMR and autism and bowel disease was an example.

"It's a matter of how controversies are handled within scientific communities.

Dr Eriksson told BBC News Online: "A Swedish 'big tent' strategy, in which room is made for marginal views, could potentially serve to diminish the risk of all-out battles between scientists in the full glare of mass media," she said.

The British scientists were also more accepting of management and employer control over the publication of their material.
 
They saw it as necessary for their own protection in a hostile world, while their Swedish counterparts tended to resent excessive "red tape".

Dr Piers Benn, a lecturer in medical ethics at Imperial College London, said: "In my view, there is a general tendency in any profession to close ranks when somebody has said something controversial.

"There is a kind of closing of ranks around views that are regarded as maverick.

"People who have research that may be respectable tend to be dismissed on grounds of character rather than science," he said.

Bob Ward, spokesman for the Royal Society said: "It is hard to believe that Britain tries to suppress well-founded but unorthodox ideas any more than other countries because it has produced more than its fair share of mavericks who have made great steps forward for science.

"Just being a maverick does not ensure that your ideas are good. It is established practice that new ideas in science should be assessed for quality by one's peers, and that is as true in Sweden as it is in Britain.

"Perhaps British scientists react more strongly against researchers who bypass this scrutiny by their peers and instead go straight to the media before the quality of their work has been assessed.

"Nobody wants to see the public made more anxious because a researcher sought publicity for flawed results before the work was properly checked. The public deserve to hear why a controversial idea may be wrong if it is made public by any researcher."