5 ms·

It depends. The transmuted elements could be viewed as contaminants while it'd be hard to explain away excess heat. There are so many sources of potential conta

It depends. The transmuted elements could be viewed as contaminants while it'd be hard to explain away excess heat. There are so many sources of potential contamination. Random heat signatures not so much.

jiggawatts 6y ago
It's the opposite. Heat is notoriously difficult to measure accurately, especially when small amounts are being produced or if the experiment runs over a long time. Heat can also have many sources, some of which aren't expected by even highly experienced experimenters. For example, hydrogen has spin isomers, and the conversion of orthohydrogen into parahydrogen releases energy. Metals like palladium can also release surprising amounts of energy due to lattice or adsorption effects. Graphite absorbs neutrons in reactors and can store sufficient energy in the lattice structure defects that it's a hazard if released too quickly. Electrical interference can produce currents that are absorbed in the metal. Residual magnetic fields release energy if the metal is demagnetised. Etc... Meanwhile, measuring the production of new elements is trivial, even in tiny amounts, and cannot possibly occur via only chemical processes. Crystal structure, phase transitions, external fields, etc... have no effect on this measurement. It is a simple, reliable, accurate measurement. If you see a scientist insisting that you pay attention to the unreliable metric and waves his hands to explain why you should ignore the reliable metric then it's a safe bet that he's either fooling you, or he fooled himself.
- raziel2701 6y ago
  Yeah but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Right now the easiest explanation is contamination, ordinary and easy to explain.
  - ncmncm 6y ago
    No. Claims Require Evidence. Maybe it's contamination. Maybe it is something interesting. Ordinary evidence will reveal which. Demanding extraordinary evidence is just defending turf, and not science.
    - pfdietz 6y ago
      The level of evidence required increases with the audacity of the claim. That's because outrageous new physics is almost never the case, for the same reason that miracles or aliens are almost never (or just never) the explanation for something.
      - ncmncm 6y ago
        "Extraordinary evidence" is usually interpreted, nowadays, as unobtainable evidence, with the effect that any discovery incompatible with current consensus is reflexively discounted. This is less often harmful in cases where the current consensus is based more on actual evidence than on groupthink and conformity. So, in physics, there is actual evidence for most things observable. But there are plenty of fields where fashion prevails. Without citing current problem children, geology until quite recently forbade mention of catastrophic events like bolide strikes, and psychology filtered all hypotheses through behaviorism.
        pfdietz 6y ago
        It's evidence so incontrovertible and ironcland that the chance it is wrong (or faked) is less than the chance the outrageous claim is true. This could be close to unobtainable, for sufficiently outrageous claims. The argument I am making goes all the way back to Hume's "Of Miracles". In the specific case of Cold Fusion and the like, the evidence is further impeached by the lack of progress. What's happening looks just like a pseudoscientific study of nothing that spits out bad results that never goes anywhere.
        ncmncm 6y ago
        That presupposes a correct probability, implicitly assuming the consensus model is correct. That begs the question, a fundamental cognitive mistake. The current consensus model does not deserve any privilege over any other model that also accounts for the same body of evidence. The degree of privilege afforded to it is exactly the inertia that prevents progress. Science does not need for there to be a consensus model. Nature doesn't have one. Insistance on a single model when more than one meets requirements is purely human pigheadedness, and a primary impediment to progress. None of this means that low-energy fusion happens, or doesn't. But the vociferous attacks on reports of what looks like it are the absolute antithesis of science. Science says only, "Try it again, more carefully." Ordinary evidence.
- gnufx 6y ago
  Right, but the simple, reliable measurement is the nuclear radiation if someone is claiming a nuclear process.
  - morei 6y ago
    No, background radiation makes nuclear radiation a noisy and ambiguous signal. The unambiguous result is the presence of fusion by-products, but unfortunately they're not seen here. In particular, there should be detectable amounts of He-3, lithium, beryllium, etc, none of which seem to have been found. All the listed elements are common cross-metal contaminants and should be present in far lower ratio than He, Li, Be et al.
    - gnufx 6y ago
      > No, background radiation makes nuclear radiation a noisy and ambiguous signal. You make a decent measurement -- my former speciality. That's not waving a Geiger counter surrounded by concrete or granite. (It just wouldn't have been worth the effort at the time of the original cold fusion nonsense.) Sure, about atomic reaction products if you can analyse their appearance as well as neutrons and gamma rays.

jiggawatts 6y ago

It's the opposite. Heat is notoriously difficult to measure accurately, especially when small amounts are being produced or if the experiment runs over a long time. Heat can also have many sources, some of which aren't expected by even highly experienced experimenters. For example, hydrogen has spin isomers, and the conversion of orthohydrogen into parahydrogen releases energy. Metals like palladium can also release surprising amounts of energy due to lattice or adsorption effects. Graphite absorbs neutrons in reactors and can store sufficient energy in the lattice structure defects that it's a hazard if released too quickly. Electrical interference can produce currents that are absorbed in the metal. Residual magnetic fields release energy if the metal is demagnetised. Etc... Meanwhile, measuring the production of new elements is trivial, even in tiny amounts, and cannot possibly occur via only chemical processes. Crystal structure, phase transitions, external fields, etc... have no effect on this measurement. It is a simple, reliable, accurate measurement. If you see a scientist insisting that you pay attention to the unreliable metric and waves his hands to explain why you should ignore the reliable metric then it's a safe bet that he's either fooling you, or he fooled himself.

raziel2701 6y ago
Yeah but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Right now the easiest explanation is contamination, ordinary and easy to explain.
- ncmncm 6y ago
  No. Claims Require Evidence. Maybe it's contamination. Maybe it is something interesting. Ordinary evidence will reveal which. Demanding extraordinary evidence is just defending turf, and not science.
  - pfdietz 6y ago
    The level of evidence required increases with the audacity of the claim. That's because outrageous new physics is almost never the case, for the same reason that miracles or aliens are almost never (or just never) the explanation for something.
    - ncmncm 6y ago
      "Extraordinary evidence" is usually interpreted, nowadays, as unobtainable evidence, with the effect that any discovery incompatible with current consensus is reflexively discounted. This is less often harmful in cases where the current consensus is based more on actual evidence than on groupthink and conformity. So, in physics, there is actual evidence for most things observable. But there are plenty of fields where fashion prevails. Without citing current problem children, geology until quite recently forbade mention of catastrophic events like bolide strikes, and psychology filtered all hypotheses through behaviorism.
      - pfdietz 6y ago
        It's evidence so incontrovertible and ironcland that the chance it is wrong (or faked) is less than the chance the outrageous claim is true. This could be close to unobtainable, for sufficiently outrageous claims. The argument I am making goes all the way back to Hume's "Of Miracles". In the specific case of Cold Fusion and the like, the evidence is further impeached by the lack of progress. What's happening looks just like a pseudoscientific study of nothing that spits out bad results that never goes anywhere.
        ncmncm 6y ago
        That presupposes a correct probability, implicitly assuming the consensus model is correct. That begs the question, a fundamental cognitive mistake. The current consensus model does not deserve any privilege over any other model that also accounts for the same body of evidence. The degree of privilege afforded to it is exactly the inertia that prevents progress. Science does not need for there to be a consensus model. Nature doesn't have one. Insistance on a single model when more than one meets requirements is purely human pigheadedness, and a primary impediment to progress. None of this means that low-energy fusion happens, or doesn't. But the vociferous attacks on reports of what looks like it are the absolute antithesis of science. Science says only, "Try it again, more carefully." Ordinary evidence.
gnufx 6y ago
Right, but the simple, reliable measurement is the nuclear radiation if someone is claiming a nuclear process.
- morei 6y ago
  No, background radiation makes nuclear radiation a noisy and ambiguous signal. The unambiguous result is the presence of fusion by-products, but unfortunately they're not seen here. In particular, there should be detectable amounts of He-3, lithium, beryllium, etc, none of which seem to have been found. All the listed elements are common cross-metal contaminants and should be present in far lower ratio than He, Li, Be et al.
  - gnufx 6y ago
    > No, background radiation makes nuclear radiation a noisy and ambiguous signal. You make a decent measurement -- my former speciality. That's not waving a Geiger counter surrounded by concrete or granite. (It just wouldn't have been worth the effort at the time of the original cold fusion nonsense.) Sure, about atomic reaction products if you can analyse their appearance as well as neutrons and gamma rays.