Q1. How has this paper led you to update your probability that cold fusion is a real phenomenon that could be exploited to generate power (even if exploitation requires further research)?
[pollid:467]
Q2.In general, how likely is it that cold fusion is a real phenomenon that could be exploited to generate power (even if exploitation requires further research)?
I’m not sure I like Q2. Cold fusion that would generate power seems much less likely than “there’s interesting chemistry going on in the setups that is a real phenomenon and isn’t well understood.” As written it lumps a variety of distinct questions together in a way that may not be helpful. Note also that Rossi’s apparatus is in general pretty different from what most versions of cold fusion setups have done, so I’m confused as to how anyone can conclude much from this paper strongly in the negative direction.
I basically agree with you. I figured even a crude poll made more sense as a way to summarize LWers’ views on cold fusion than simply posing questions in a Discussion post, but reasonable people can disagree with that call.
Cold fusion that would generate power seems much less likely than “there’s interesting chemistry going on in the setups that is a real phenomenon and isn’t well understood.”
This is true, but I’d guess power generation is the dominant reason for most outside observers’ interest in cold fusion (such as it is). Cf. ordinary hot fusion, which motivates interesting research about MHD instabilities, designing tokamak casing materials, and so on, but is nonetheless mostly of interest as a potential power source.
Your poll does not include the option, “No change, because this has nothing to do with traditional cold fusion”. Rossi’s E-Cat employs nickel, not palladium.
Traditional cold fusion is fusion of deuterium in palladium and has been reported by a number of labs across several decades. They get heat and new isotopes, they don’t get gamma rays. The main problems are (1) what force overcomes the charge repulsion that should keep the deuteriums apart (2) why aren’t gamma rays being produced.
Ron Maimon has a new theory (unpublished, but discussed in various forums) in which the fusion is a d-d-Pd three-body interaction in which electrostatic interaction with the Pd nucleus allows otherwise forbidden transitions, increasing the probability of d-d fusion. If I have the details right, the deuterium wavefunctions are overlapping near the palladium nucleus; the trigger is an electron falling into a hole in the Pd inner shell, producing a 20 keV photon which is the energetic input to the d-d-Pd interaction; and then the energy is released as the kinetic energy of alpha particles, which travel through the palladium atomic lattice, knocking out inner-shell electrons and causing a chain reaction. I don’t know if it ultimately makes sense, but the idea gives a theorist something to work with.
So the Rossi saga is irrelevant for traditional cold fusion, the reality of which should be judged on the basis of a completely different body of theory and experiment.
It’s interesting that 20 out of 27 people say that there was no change in their opinion. Given conservation of expected evidence, this seems a bit odd. To a rough approximation, if a paper published on the subject could have provided evidence for it, but when investigated it failed to provide evidence, then we should update in favor of it being less likely. And if it succeeds in providing evidence, we should update in favor of it being more likely.
Likewise, if someone didn’t read the paper, he could still update one way or the other based on the existence of the paper.
Given conservation of expected evidence, this seems a bit odd.
Wrong event.
If someone tells me that they constructed a perpetual motion machine out of chains, cranks and pulleys, I do not expect to update my estimate of whether such a device is likely. I do however, expect to update my estimate of the probability of whether taking this person seriously is worthwhile.
If a serious scientist publishes an earnest paper claiming a revolutionary novel effect (like the superluminal neutrino paper last year), I would update my probability of this effect being real, until further information is available.
Rossi matches the pattern of a con artist, and none of the linked paper’s authors appear to be experts in debunking clever schemes. After reading the paper I have lower opinion of the paper authors, so yes, I have updated.
However, if someone makes the perpetual motion claim, unless you update your probability that they are worth taking seriously to 0%, you should also update your probability of the perpetual motion machine.
I don’t need to estimate “worth taking seriously” to 0, just “too low to bother”. (E.g., the update to my “perpetual motion machin probability” would be lower than the margin of error of my estimates.)
Might as well do this as a full-blown poll.
Q1. How has this paper led you to update your probability that cold fusion is a real phenomenon that could be exploited to generate power (even if exploitation requires further research)?
[pollid:467]
Q2. In general, how likely is it that cold fusion is a real phenomenon that could be exploited to generate power (even if exploitation requires further research)?
[pollid:468]
I’m not sure I like Q2. Cold fusion that would generate power seems much less likely than “there’s interesting chemistry going on in the setups that is a real phenomenon and isn’t well understood.” As written it lumps a variety of distinct questions together in a way that may not be helpful. Note also that Rossi’s apparatus is in general pretty different from what most versions of cold fusion setups have done, so I’m confused as to how anyone can conclude much from this paper strongly in the negative direction.
I basically agree with you. I figured even a crude poll made more sense as a way to summarize LWers’ views on cold fusion than simply posing questions in a Discussion post, but reasonable people can disagree with that call.
This is true, but I’d guess power generation is the dominant reason for most outside observers’ interest in cold fusion (such as it is). Cf. ordinary hot fusion, which motivates interesting research about MHD instabilities, designing tokamak casing materials, and so on, but is nonetheless mostly of interest as a potential power source.
Your poll does not include the option, “No change, because this has nothing to do with traditional cold fusion”. Rossi’s E-Cat employs nickel, not palladium.
Traditional cold fusion is fusion of deuterium in palladium and has been reported by a number of labs across several decades. They get heat and new isotopes, they don’t get gamma rays. The main problems are (1) what force overcomes the charge repulsion that should keep the deuteriums apart (2) why aren’t gamma rays being produced.
Ron Maimon has a new theory (unpublished, but discussed in various forums) in which the fusion is a d-d-Pd three-body interaction in which electrostatic interaction with the Pd nucleus allows otherwise forbidden transitions, increasing the probability of d-d fusion. If I have the details right, the deuterium wavefunctions are overlapping near the palladium nucleus; the trigger is an electron falling into a hole in the Pd inner shell, producing a 20 keV photon which is the energetic input to the d-d-Pd interaction; and then the energy is released as the kinetic energy of alpha particles, which travel through the palladium atomic lattice, knocking out inner-shell electrons and causing a chain reaction. I don’t know if it ultimately makes sense, but the idea gives a theorist something to work with.
So the Rossi saga is irrelevant for traditional cold fusion, the reality of which should be judged on the basis of a completely different body of theory and experiment.
I’m happy to subsume that under “no change (because I read the paper but it didn’t move me either way)”.
It’s interesting that 20 out of 27 people say that there was no change in their opinion. Given conservation of expected evidence, this seems a bit odd. To a rough approximation, if a paper published on the subject could have provided evidence for it, but when investigated it failed to provide evidence, then we should update in favor of it being less likely. And if it succeeds in providing evidence, we should update in favor of it being more likely.
Likewise, if someone didn’t read the paper, he could still update one way or the other based on the existence of the paper.
I was one of them, IIRC.
Yes. To a rough approximation. Excluding things like, ‘I can’t adjust my beliefs by such a small amount’.
Wrong event.
If someone tells me that they constructed a perpetual motion machine out of chains, cranks and pulleys, I do not expect to update my estimate of whether such a device is likely. I do however, expect to update my estimate of the probability of whether taking this person seriously is worthwhile.
If a serious scientist publishes an earnest paper claiming a revolutionary novel effect (like the superluminal neutrino paper last year), I would update my probability of this effect being real, until further information is available.
Rossi matches the pattern of a con artist, and none of the linked paper’s authors appear to be experts in debunking clever schemes. After reading the paper I have lower opinion of the paper authors, so yes, I have updated.
I agree with you about Rossi.
However, if someone makes the perpetual motion claim, unless you update your probability that they are worth taking seriously to 0%, you should also update your probability of the perpetual motion machine.
I don’t need to estimate “worth taking seriously” to 0, just “too low to bother”. (E.g., the update to my “perpetual motion machin probability” would be lower than the margin of error of my estimates.)
If you do, then you are prone to a version of the Pascal mugging attack: given enough false claims, you start taking them seriously.