4 ms·

> This article is funny. It tries to do an end-run around any criticism of the subject matter by constructing an elaborate piece of work to establish that if yo

> This article is funny. It tries to do an end-run around any criticism of the subject matter by constructing an elaborate piece of work to establish that if you don't agree with the basic premise of low energy nuclear reactions there must be something pathologically wrong with you. It's really quite the other way around: the opponents of LENR research have treated everyone working on it as if there were something pathologically wrong with them. The article is merely pointing out that this is not good science. Skepticism is important, but it is not an infallible source of truth. A lot of self-styled skeptics, ironically, refuse to apply their skepticism to itself. As for raising expectations, I think a somewhat fine line has to be drawn. There's nothing wrong with talking about possibilities as a way of attracting attention and funding; what's wrong is to cross the line into making promises not yet supported by results.

jacquesm 11y ago
I'm not aware of any scientist that 'opposes LENR', I am however aware of a lot of scientists (and lay-people for that matter) that are skeptical of Rossi. And most scientists will take a much harder look at anything LENR related before committing their names and reputations to it leaving the field wide open to the fringe, with predictable results. It's not dis-similar to how people working on AI would call it anything but AI for a decade or so in the IT business. The AI winter had a very good reason: being oversold makes a field toxic.
- ScottBurson 11y ago
  > I'm not aware of any scientist that 'opposes LENR' Say what? From the article: Ever since 1989, in fact, the whole subject has been largely off-limits in mainstream scientific circles. Authors who do put their head above the parapet are ignored or rebuked. Most recently, Lundin and Lidgren reported that they had submitted their paper to the journal Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, but that the editors declined to have it reviewed; and that even the non-reviewed preprint archive, arxiv.org, refused to accept it. This is not just about Rossi by any means; he showed up relatively recently. This goes all the way back to Pons and Fleischmann. I wish I could remember the name of the physicist whose career was destroyed for no more than being publicly seen to entertain the possibility that cold fusion could be real. Read up on this a little bit -- you'll see that pretty much the entire physics establishment opposes LENR. > being oversold makes a field toxic Yes, and there certainly has been some overselling. Even if P&F's work had been replicated, one could legitimately criticize their handling of the situation (it appears that the University of Utah, their employer, had a hand in this). But can one seriously suggest that because some researchers made premature announcements and oversold what they had actually accomplished, we should punish them by denying humanity what would be an almost miraculous invention, if it could be made to work? That makes just no sense at all, but that's pretty much how the physics establishment reacted.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    > Most recently, Lundin and Lidgren reported that they had submitted their paper to the journal Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, but that the editors declined to have it reviewed; and that even the non-reviewed preprint archive, arxiv.org, refused to accept it. Since when is a journal under obligation to review or accept a publication? They're free to publish it on their own website. > I wish I could remember the name of the physicist whose career was destroyed for no more than being publicly seen to entertain the possibility that cold fusion could be real. Well, history will vindicate him if it is real. That's the way these things go and cold fusion is not an exception to this. Any kind of very much off the beaten path scientific idea that turns out to be true after all has gone the same route. There are even cases of Nobel prizes being awarded many years after the original discovery. One thing I do know about cold fusion: nobody to date has been able to demonstrate beyond doubt the production of a net energy surplus over an extended period. And since evidence would be very easy to provide we don't need to rely on rumors for this, just show the device and we'll call it the breakthrough that it is. And I'm sure that even nature would be more than happy to publish the write-up in that case.

jacquesm 11y ago

I'm not aware of any scientist that 'opposes LENR', I am however aware of a lot of scientists (and lay-people for that matter) that are skeptical of Rossi. And most scientists will take a much harder look at anything LENR related before committing their names and reputations to it leaving the field wide open to the fringe, with predictable results. It's not dis-similar to how people working on AI would call it anything but AI for a decade or so in the IT business. The AI winter had a very good reason: being oversold makes a field toxic.

ScottBurson 11y ago
> I'm not aware of any scientist that 'opposes LENR' Say what? From the article: Ever since 1989, in fact, the whole subject has been largely off-limits in mainstream scientific circles. Authors who do put their head above the parapet are ignored or rebuked. Most recently, Lundin and Lidgren reported that they had submitted their paper to the journal Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, but that the editors declined to have it reviewed; and that even the non-reviewed preprint archive, arxiv.org, refused to accept it. This is not just about Rossi by any means; he showed up relatively recently. This goes all the way back to Pons and Fleischmann. I wish I could remember the name of the physicist whose career was destroyed for no more than being publicly seen to entertain the possibility that cold fusion could be real. Read up on this a little bit -- you'll see that pretty much the entire physics establishment opposes LENR. > being oversold makes a field toxic Yes, and there certainly has been some overselling. Even if P&F's work had been replicated, one could legitimately criticize their handling of the situation (it appears that the University of Utah, their employer, had a hand in this). But can one seriously suggest that because some researchers made premature announcements and oversold what they had actually accomplished, we should punish them by denying humanity what would be an almost miraculous invention, if it could be made to work? That makes just no sense at all, but that's pretty much how the physics establishment reacted.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  > Most recently, Lundin and Lidgren reported that they had submitted their paper to the journal Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, but that the editors declined to have it reviewed; and that even the non-reviewed preprint archive, arxiv.org, refused to accept it. Since when is a journal under obligation to review or accept a publication? They're free to publish it on their own website. > I wish I could remember the name of the physicist whose career was destroyed for no more than being publicly seen to entertain the possibility that cold fusion could be real. Well, history will vindicate him if it is real. That's the way these things go and cold fusion is not an exception to this. Any kind of very much off the beaten path scientific idea that turns out to be true after all has gone the same route. There are even cases of Nobel prizes being awarded many years after the original discovery. One thing I do know about cold fusion: nobody to date has been able to demonstrate beyond doubt the production of a net energy surplus over an extended period. And since evidence would be very easy to provide we don't need to rely on rumors for this, just show the device and we'll call it the breakthrough that it is. And I'm sure that even nature would be more than happy to publish the write-up in that case.