Having followed the antics of Andrea Rossi and his E-Cat system for the last couple of years I’ve read a lot about how this device might work. I’ve also read about a lot of other related systems and I’ve come to a conclusion: Whatever the principle is behind how these devices operate, the way people talk about them needs a new name.
Way back when I first heard about Andrea Rossi everyone was calling it “cold fusion” or using the rather newer term “Low Energy Nuclear Reaction”. The problem is that whatever is really going on is not, as yet, well enough understood to provide scientists in general with a common ground for discussion.
Indeed, if you use the term “cold fusion” most physicists’ heads explode and they start expounding why, from what is known about nuclear processes, “cold fusion” is simply not possible.
For example, consider Rossi’s claim that the E-Cat’s operation involves the transmutation of nickel into copper in a hydrogen atmosphere. In a blog posting by Ethan Siegel, a theoretical astrophysicist, titled “The Physics of why the e-Cat’s Cold Fusion Claims Collapse” Ethan argues that what Rossi claimed about the E-Cat would defy the laws of what constitutes known physics. Ethan’s argument looked good to me (though I am not a physicist) but, of course, there’s no proof that what Rossi claimed was, indeed, the truth … he could well have been intentionally leading everyone astray.
Why would Rossi do such a thing? Well, assuming that you give any kind of credibility to the recent test of the E-Cat HT by a team of reputable scientists and conclude Rossi’s device really does something interesting that involves generating a lot of heat then a plausible reason might be that to protect whatever his real technology is, Rossi just made up the catalyst-nickel-copper description. Another explanation is that Rossi doesn’t actually know what’s actually happening inside the device.
But whatever Rossi’s reasons let’s for the moment leave Rossi and his E-Cats aside and ponder what is going on with the thousands of documented experiments that have shown unexplained heat outputs.
You’ve only got to browse the archives of LENR-CANR.ORG to discover not just an overwhelming number of papers on the subject along with an equally overwhelming catalog of theories that range from the almost understandable to incredibly complex explanations based on quantum mechanics. While some theories have found broader support than others there is, to date, no theory or theories that have been shown experimentally to explain the observed phenomena.
But here’s the thing: It appears something very interesting really is going with whatever you want to call the phenomena but if the field is to get any traction the theorists and believers have got to stop calling it “cold fusion.” Even “low energy nuclear reaction” is a problematic name. I don’t know what a good descriptive term might be but I’d suggest something like “Anomalous Energy System (AES)”.
Until there’s a common term used by the “cold fusion” or “LENR” experimenters, theorists, and believers that doesn’t trigger reflexive dismissal by mainstream scientists and non-believers it will be hard for the field to be treated fairly and rationally and ignoring AES just slows its potentially phenomenal impact.
Siegel opened another of his blog posts arguing against cold fusion with a quote from an excellent article by David Goodstein, Professor of Physics and Applied Physics at Caltech, that I shall close with:
“Between cold fusion and respectable science there is virtually no communication at all.…because the Cold-Fusioners see themselves as a community under siege, there is little internal criticism. Experiments and theories tend to be accepted at face value, for fear of providing even more fuel for external critics, if anyone outside the group was bothering to listen. In these circumstances, crackpots flourish, making matters worse for those who believe that there is serious science going on here … What all these experiments really need is critical examination by accomplished rivals intent on proving them wrong. That is part of the normal functioning of science. Unfortunately, in this area, science is not functioning normally. There is nobody out there listening.”
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Forbes Latest
