Timeline for What are the challenges to achieving cold fusion?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 27, 2012 at 20:27 | history | edited | anna v | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 667 characters in body
|
| Nov 7, 2012 at 16:06 | comment | added | Ron Maimon | @annav: My mystification is at the Freudian slip "it will remain dead for a long, long time." This is something that would not be said by someone who doesn't believe that the phenomenon is real. Anyone who thought it was delusion would have just said "it will remain dead." Is geocentric model going to remain dead for a long long time? Is phlogiston going to remain dead for a long long time? Only suppressed things remain dead for a long long time, real pseudoscience remains dead forever. | |
| Nov 7, 2012 at 5:02 | comment | added | anna v | @RonMaimon I saw the video and do not come to the conclusion that he knows it was right, he is just a senior bloviating . I lived through the period. Everybody was very excited for months. Solid state people did not give a dam for hot fusion, nor low energy nuclear physicists. Many people wanted a piece of the pie of excitement and were completely disappointed at not being able to reproduce the effect. You should read the link for the white paper of Shanahan below . He is measured in his criticism and wants the field open and does not exclude LENR succeeding in the end. | |
| Nov 7, 2012 at 0:03 | comment | added | Ron Maimon | The money was on the other side--- the hot fusion folks were afraid of losing their funding, and said so. At MIT, they held a "death of cold fusion" party before the replication they were conducting was even run! In this video you have this fellow saying "Broadly speaking, it's dead, and it will remain dead for a long, long time." The notable part is the "long, long time". What the heck is that supposed to mean? That all discredited ideas come back? This means "I know it's real, but I'll suppress it, because I am jealous of Martin's immortality." | |
| Nov 6, 2012 at 23:52 | comment | added | Ron Maimon | @JohnMcVirgo: Are you crazy? They lost all their funding, and their tenure, and got thrown to the wind! All they had to do was recant their fusion, and it would have been ok, like Paneth and Peters, but they didn't recant. That's what you get for reporting the most important discovery since fire, although, to be fair, Prometheus was treated slightly worse. Nobody in this field is in it for the money, except Rossi, and he's scamming. There is no money in this, and Fleischmann was already world famous before he announced this. Nobody money driven has ever discovered anything of value. | |
| Nov 6, 2012 at 23:42 | comment | added | John McAndrew | @ron "Pons/Fleisch" you really think so? Don't you think funding of their lab might have had something to do with what they saw? | |
| Nov 4, 2012 at 14:58 | comment | added | Ron Maimon | while this is informative, it is wrong to demand "peer review" in this case, as peer review is just censorship. The stuff you link to, the "surface polaritons", the NASA stuff, the Rossi crap, this is the worst stuff in the cold fusion field. There are hangers-on and frauds, the legitimate work is Pons/Fleischmann, McKubre, Arata, and others related to this experimental setup. It's Pd/d not Ni/H, and it's fusion with KeV energies, not some nonexistent crystal effect. | |
| Nov 2, 2012 at 0:43 | vote | accept | Chimera | ||
| Nov 1, 2012 at 5:53 | history | answered | anna v | CC BY-SA 3.0 |