Return to the list of clickable items
203) Proto-science is not pseudo-science
Ludwik Kowalski (2/24/05)
Department of Mathematical Sciences
Montclair State University, Upper Montclair, NJ, 07043
Irreproducibility, as we know, is typical in the field of cold fusion. I like to compare the situation with
irreproducibility that was probably frustrating investigators of electrostatic phenomena before the role of
humidity was recognized. Other comparisons are often mentioned, for example, the effect of impurities on
performance of early transistors (before it was recognized that 99.99% purity of raw material might not be
sufficient.) Failures probably resulted from hidden uncontrollable factors, such as sneezes, or from not
washing hands.
Nuclear phenomena triggered but chemical activities remain irreproducible, as far as I know. Unfortunately,
those who investigate such phenomena are often treated as pseudo-scientists or even can artists. This is
regretable; existing controversies would have been solved more rapidly if “cold fusion” was treated
as any other field of study. But let’s face it, a field of research is not scientific unless at least
something is 100% reproducible, or unless the irreproducibility is understood. Far from being pseudo-scientific
the field is active and, as far as I know, its major player are well qualified and honest. Therefore it deserves
to be labeled as “proto-science.”
The basic idea in the field of CF, as mentioned above, is that “a chemical process can trigger a nuclear
process.” That controversial idea conflicts with everything we learn from existing textbooks. Yes, excess
heat is an important technological issue. But the major controversy is not about the heat, it is about its
nuclear origin. Numerous cold fusion claims have been made but the progress is slow because research is not
coordinated. If it was up to me I would ask scientists to select one or two irreproducible phenomena and focus
on them. But that is not what is happening. Instead of seeing many scientists studying a selected cold fusion
phenomenon, such as emission of alpha particles, or large shifts of isotopic ratios, I see that each researcher
does something different.
Excellent instruments to study nuclear particles, and isotopic ratios, already exist in numerous laboratories,
all over the world. Therefore controversial claims in these areas would quickly be recognized as either valid
or not valid if a research-supporting agency, for example, NSF, or CERN, promoted the idea of focusing on
one or two claims. How much would it cost to perform ten or twenty reliable measurements of isotopic ratios
(using cathodes supplied by CF scientists) in several independent laboratories? Probably not longer than one
month, including preparations and testing of ion sources. Likewise, emission of charged particles, reported by
many investigators (Jones, Lipson, Karabut, Oriani, etc.), could be quickly confirmed or not confirmed by
scientists from several laboratories. To study Oriani effects (see item #192), for example, a single Si detector,
or a dE-E setup of two such detectors (in a sealed container with a thin window), would be placed above the
electrolyte, in the electrolyte and below the cathode. Showers of particles leaving tracks in CR-39 detectors
should be easily observable by electronic means. Track detectors show cummulative effects, electronic detectors
should allow observations of particles at the time of emission.
This approach, to solving a controversy, would be more natural than counting how many appointed panel members
ÒvotedÓ for or against various claims. The recent DOE panel report makes no reference to experiments. I still
do not know why the names of panel experts were removed from their individual repotrs (see item #196).