IT
  
Attualmente si sta visualizzando la versione Italy del sito.
Volete passare al vostro sito locale?
16 TEMPO DI LETTURA MIN

Cold Fusion to E-Cat: From Pathological Science to … Worse

—KENDRICK FRAZIER

[ FROM THE EDITOR

It is hard to believe three decades have passed. This March will be the thirtieth anniversary of cold fusion. In case you think that debacle—that icon of pathological science—is all in the past, think again. Two articles in this issue provide scientific perspective and report on a new related device. In “Cold Fusion: Thirty Years Later” chemistry professor David W. Ball (Cleveland State University) reviews what happened with cold fusion, what resulted, and how the entire series of events is viewed today. Was cold fusion a case of what is wrong or of what is right in science? Both, Ball concludes, but he says the balance is toward the latter: “Scientists ended up doing what scientists do: they tried to understand and replicate the work, and when not able to do so, said so and even criticized the original results. In the end science worked.”

When the cold fusion claims broke, I was working at Sandia National Laboratories. As a major U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) national laboratory, Sandia was one of the leading labs DOE tasked with trying to figure out what was going on. I remember the excitement well. Some of Sandia’s many PhD nuclear physicists, engineers, and research chemists immediately began devising ways to test cold fusion. Over the ensuing months they conducted a number of clever experiments. None I know of replicated the claims; many falsified them. Sandia prefers to avoid the limelight, so few of those experiments became widely known. Other labs elsewhere did their own studies, and some of those scientists did publicize their generally negative results. Gradually, cold fusion fell by the wayside.

Leggete l'articolo completo e molti altri in questo numero di Skeptical Inquirer
Opzioni di acquisto di seguito
Se il problema è vostro, Accesso per leggere subito l'articolo completo.
Singolo numero digitale January/February 2019
 
€3,49 / issue
Questo numero e altri numeri arretrati non sono inclusi in un nuovo abbonamento. Gli abbonamenti comprendono l'ultimo numero regolare e i nuovi numeri pubblicati durante l'abbonamento. Skeptical Inquirer
Abbonamento digitale annuale €19,99 fatturati annualmente
Risparmiare
5%
€3,33 / issue

Questo articolo è...


View Issues
Skeptical Inquirer
January/February 2019
VISUALIZZA IN NEGOZIO

Altri articoli in questo numero


THE MYTHS OF ENDLESS ENERGY
COLD FUSION Thirty Years Later
In March 1989, the claim of a revolutionary discovery in nuclear energy production galvanized the scientific community. It turned into a classic case of pathological science—and a textbook example of the self-correcting nature of science
Why E-Cat Is a Hoax
Energy Catalysis, or E-Cat, claims to generate nuclear energies on a tabletop—a scientifically impossible feat. Nonetheless, its inventor, Andrea Rossi, has fooled companies into investing in it
FEATURES
The Sputtering Engine of Creator Belief
Far from belief in a supernatural creator being a natural consequence of the way our brains work like language, materialism, and sex, it is an easily cast-off opinion quickly losing ground in the United States and much of the world
It Is Not the God Engine That Sputters ...
A Response to Gregory Paul
Screening for Prostate and Breast Cancer: It’s More Complex Than You May Think
Cancer screening searches for cancer before its symptoms appear. Messages encouraging screening for prostate and breast cancer are not only filled with misleading statistics, they also do not discuss the most significant harm of screening: being diagnosed and treated needlessly
PROFILE
Better Than Dumbledore
Have you ever wondered what it would be like if
RESEARCH REVIEW
Could Multiple Personality Disorder Explain Life, the Universe, and Everything?
Authors Bernardo Kastrup, Adam Crabtree, and Edward Kelly posed the
COLUMNS
Fringe Scientist Santilli’s Suit Against Dutch Astronomer Settled
An American fringe scientist sued an innocent astronomer on the
The New IPCC Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) special report released
Social Media–Fueled Child Abduction Rumors Lead to Killings
Misinformation is always problematic but can be especially malicious in
UK eHarmony Ads Banned for False Claims of Science
In January 2018, Britain’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) banned advertisements
Kraken: Monster of the Deep
Joe Nickell, PhD, is CSI’s senior research fellow. This year,
How to Be Skeptics 2.0 with the Help of … YouTube
Massimo Polidoro is an investigator of the paranormal, lecturer, and
Is Acupuncture Winning?
Harriet Hall, MD, also known as “The SkepDoc,” is a
Talking Science and Society at Church
Let’s Put Aside Differences to Tackle Society’s Biggest Challenges
‘Class A’ Bigfoot Report Reveals Little about the Beast—and Much about the Seekers
Benjamin Radford is a research fellow at the Committee for
[NEW AND NOTABLE
Listing does not preclude future review
The God Engine
I thoroughly enjoyed your article “The God Engine” in the
Rethinking Radiation and Nuclear Power
The article by Jeanne Goldberg is an essential contribution, not
Advocating Science to Religious Believers
The commentary by Davidson, Hill, and Wolgemuth recommends that the
Challenging Homeopathy
In the September/October issue, Kendrick Frazier describes comparison tests of
Creating an Apparition
The September/October issue of Skeptical Inquirer contains a three-page special
Readers’ Myopia on Pinker
Regarding the reader comments (Letters to Editor, September/October 2018) on
THE LAST LAUGH
REVIEWS
A Skeptical Guide through the Conspiracy Rabbit Hole
After devoting the past fifteen years to online conspiracy-fighting projects
What Are Contact ‘Experiencers’ Really Experiencing?
Beyond UFOs: The Science of Consciousness and Contact with Non-Human
Say It Isn’t So
Rigor Mortis: How Sloppy Science Creates Worthless Cures, Crushes Hope,
We Need to Put the Reproducibility Problem in Perspective
“Let us hope it is not true, but if it