The cold fusion horizon • Hacker News Board

Re: The cold fusion horizon

#161

Post by blazespin » Wed, Dec 23, 2015, 3:11 PM UTC

Wow, 154 comments and complete and utter cluelessness. Yikes. Seriously people, why are you commenting on a complex subject you clearly know very very little about? I suggest you go read the articles on lenr-canr.org before any further commenting. Better yet, get back to your day job. You have no idea how little you know about this subject. http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/mt-s...

Fact: Cold fusion is a phenomenon that has been studied by 100s of scientists and replicated 1000s of times by folks as diverse as the Navy and Toyota and published in many many different and respected journals.

Re: The cold fusion horizon

#162

Post by lmm » Wed, Dec 23, 2015, 3:15 PM UTC

ZenoArrow wrote: post #144

igravious wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a bit strong. You refute your own refutation. You use the words 'somehow', 'if', and 'currently'. That's kind of the whole point. _Currently_ there is no theory that explains how to do fusion without massive amounts of heat, ergo cold fusion IS (currently) theoretically impossible.

> "_Currently_ there is no theory that explains how to do fusion without massive amounts of heat, ergo cold fusion IS (currently) theoretically impossible." http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/11/25/cold-fusi... "Unfortunately, their results were hugely flawed, and their experiments were not reproducible, and cold fusion is now synonymous with ideas like perpetual motion machines: very appealing promises of…

This is misleadingly phrased. We have precise, verified models for quantum tunneling and at what rates under what circumstances it does and doesn't occur.

Re: The cold fusion horizon

#163

Post by lmm » Wed, Dec 23, 2015, 3:20 PM UTC

rdlecler1 wrote: post #77

The article seems to be lost on a large number of commenters who are asserting (or almost asserting) that this is a scam because (1) Rossi seems to have a dubious history (I'm only going by the comments, not my own investigation) and (2) Rossi is secretive (3) Rossi is not a notable scientist from a top-tier University (4) Rossi comes across as overconfident. This is what the article is pointing out. The author is sa…

This sounds like a case of "Pascal's mugging" - the idea that we should be willing to pay for a very small chance of an extremely good outcome, because the expected value is high. There are arguments over how to resolve it, but taking it literally certainly leads to bad outcome. There is a virtually limitless supply of cranks claiming to have cold fusion, and I would bet a lot of money that none of them do.

Re: The cold fusion horizon

#164

Post by mcguire » Wed, Dec 23, 2015, 3:26 PM UTC

disbelief wrote: post #86

marshray wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another possible explanation is: He is really not very good at measuring energy input and heat output. He built something and confused himself into thinking it was producing more energy than it consumes. He took some money from investors to develop the technology. He spent much of the research money, eventually to realize that his device does not, in fact, produce energy. His investors now want their money back and h…

The article mentions two independent groups of physicists who both had access to his device and both reported the same results. That would mean that both groups were in on it, or he's become so good at faking his results that they withstand a month of scrutiny.

Or that they have screwed up themselves somehow. In '89, there were several labs which claimed to replicate P&F's results, too.

They were eventually found to have calorimetric or similar problems.

Re: The cold fusion horizon

#165

Post by mcguire » Wed, Dec 23, 2015, 3:29 PM UTC

jeffdavis wrote: post #136

Cacti wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, what? I thought this was about the science and the results, not about the person.

That's true as long as everyone is acting in good faith.

Most of science is not particularly good at handling people not acting in good faith.

Re: The cold fusion horizon

#166

Post by ZenoArrow » Wed, Dec 23, 2015, 3:32 PM UTC

lmm wrote: post #162

ZenoArrow wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "_Currently_ there is no theory that explains how to do fusion without massive amounts of heat, ergo cold fusion IS (currently) theoretically impossible." http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/11/25/cold-fusi... "Unfortunately, their results were hugely flawed, and their experiments were not reproducible, and cold fusion is now synonymous with ideas like perpetual motion machines: very appealing promises of…

This is misleadingly phrased. We have precise, verified models for quantum tunneling and at what rates under what circumstances it does and doesn't occur.

Based on those models, what circumstances are required for quantum tunnelling to occur?

Re: The cold fusion horizon

#167

Post by SAM4321 » Wed, Dec 23, 2015, 3:40 PM UTC

GET READY THE COLD FUSION TRAIN IS ABOUT TO LEAVE THE STATION

Re: The cold fusion horizon

#168

Post by SAM4321 » Wed, Dec 23, 2015, 3:41 PM UTC

GET READY THE COLD FUSION TRAIN IS ABOUT TO LEAVE THE STATION.

Re: The cold fusion horizon

#169

Post by debacle » Wed, Dec 23, 2015, 3:54 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #160

debacle wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No real entrepreneur wants to be acquihired. It's a massive loss of freedom.

Then most startup founders are not "real entrepreneurs". Most people go for startups because it's a get-rich scheme, and whatever product that startup does is a throwaway thing, means to an end.

You don't get rich in an acquihire.

Being acquired and being acquihired are two different things.

Re: The cold fusion horizon

#170

Post by astazangasta » Wed, Dec 23, 2015, 3:56 PM UTC

ZenoArrow wrote: post #83

tim333 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recall 1989 incident as Pons and Fleischmann appearing in the news saying they'd discovered cold fusion and then becoming a bit of a laughing stock when it turned out to be rubbish. I don't get how that shows that Big Science is corrupt or not. It seems a bit unrelated.

> "becoming a bit of a laughing stock when it turned out to be rubbish" The important thing here is to separate the idea from the implementation. Is cold fusion theoretically impossible? I'm no expert, but there seems to be at least some scientists indicating it's not impossible. If that's the case, why does the failure of the first experiment matter? It's sad that the scientific community is partly based on reputati…

I don't think the work can ever speak for itself; it is simply too hard to verify the data. Falsified data appears in science all the time even without anonymity and can take years to discover. With anonymity the world of science would quickly fill up with fake data generated by fossil fuel and pharma companies. Having your reputation at stake is an important control in behavior.

Finally, anonymity precludes collaboration, the very basis of science. If I don't know who did something I can't call them up to extend their work, get their raw data, get help optimizing their method, etc.