[extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings (was: cold fusion warms up)
Lúcio de Souza Coelho
lucioc at gmail.com
Tue Dec 26 23:14:43 UTC 2006
On 12/26/06, John K Clark <jonkc at att.net> wrote:
> Split? Split implies 2 roughly equal parts, but there is no big controversy
> over this matter, 99.9% of the scientific community think cold fusion
> (except Muon-catalyzed cold fusion) is utter crap. It would be neat if it
> worked but it doesn't and there are plenty of other neat things that do
> work; life is short, time to move on.
Like Damien, I would be delighted in seeing the source of this 99.9% number.
As for my claim about the scientific community being seemingly split
on the reality/validity/possibility of "cold fusion", my source is the
panel of scientists gathered by the DoE in 2004 to review this issue
of alleged low-energy nuclear reactions. (Report available at
) There we can read (last phrase stressed by me):
"The excess power observed in some experiments is reported to be
beyond that attributable to ordinary chemical or solid state sources;
this excess power is attributed by proponents to nuclear fusion
reactions. Evaluations by the reviewers ranged from: 1) evidence for
excess power is compelling, to 2) there is no convincing evidence that
excess power is produced when integrated over the life of an
reviewers were split approximately evenly on this topic.* "
Of course, that report considered just 18 reviewers and there may be
some selection effect/statistical bias/whatever in such a small
population, so if there is some other study considering larger sets of
specialists I would like to see it.
More information about the extropy-chat