Replies to post #247897 on Zeev's Turnips Patch-No Politics (ZEEV)

[osprey]

Zeev, I've only been a scientist for a few decades, publish papers, hold patents. The standard in my field is quite clear. My work has been published and
1. Been reproduced by others who have published their work.
2. Made a direct and considerable impact on desperately sick patients.

As to am I certain that cold fusion doesn't work? You said that not me. I'm an agnostic, not proven, not disproven. In my field data rules, believing in this or that is for other people. The general rule for cases like this is, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." I do think the weight of the evidence is on the negative side but any new data would change that in a heartbeat.

Over the years I've gotten pretty skeptical of grandiose claims without proof. Reason, many diseases cancer, aids, cv are treatable but not not often curable. There is always a large group of altenative snake oil types who claim they can do better. Have AIDS, no problem. Forget those cocktails, we have a radiowave treatment. Metastatic cancer killing you? Right over the border in Mexico are all sorts of clinics that claim they can do better. These aren't gedanken examples either, I've seen the damage these guys have done to patients up close.

Not a physicist but do know a few here and there. I'm not going to name drop for privacy reasons (theirs and mine) but they've said some skeptical things about Fleishman, Pons, and the Infinite Energy crowd. Not personally critical or insulting as they are gentleman but skeptical.

Finally, the proof is in the pudding. I would really like to buy a cold fusion generator, haven't seen one yet. I do believe in nuclear fission as I've looked into the core pool of a TRIGA research reactor when it was running, cerenkov radiation is a perfect shade of blue.

[maury]

Zeev, (re: cold fusion) Wondered if this might interest you
if you have not already seen it. Follows the link plus the first and last paragraphs of the article.
Cheers,
Maury

http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-4/p27.html

DOE Warms to Cold Fusion

Whether outraged or supportive about DOE's planned
reevaluation of cold fusion, most scientists remain deeply skeptical that it's real.

The cold fusion claims made in 1989 by B. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann didn't hold up. But they did spawn a small and devoted coterie of researchers who continue to investigate the alleged effect. Cold fusion die-hards say their data from the intervening 15 years merit a reevaluation-- and a place at
the table with mainstream science. Now they have the ear of the US Department of Energy.

....... omitted .........

"The critical question is, How good and different are [the cold fusion researchers'] new results?" says Allen Bard, a chemist at the University of Texas at Austin. "If they are
saying, 'We are now able to reproduce our results,' that's
not good enough. But if they are saying, 'We are getting 10
times as much heat out now, and we understand things,' that would be interesting. I don't see anything wrong with giving these people a new hearing." In ERAB's cold fusion review in 1989, he adds, "there were phenomena described to us where
you could not offer alternative, more reasonable explanations.
You could not explain it away like UFOs."

Toni Feder
2004 American Institute of Physics