Can the free market trump the scientific method?

[^_^ 5,021]

(PhysOrg.com) -- Few areas of science are more controversial than cold fusion, the hypothetical near-room-temperature reaction in which two smaller nuclei join together to form a single larger nucleus while releasing large amounts of energy.

...

Sstudies have shown that cold fusion is theoretically implausible, causing mainstream science to become highly speculative of the field in general.

...

The latest news occurred last week, when Italian scientists Andrea Rossi and Sergio Focardi of the University of Bologna announced that they developed a cold fusion device capable of producing 12,400 W of heat power with an input of just 400 W ... the scientists say that the reactor is well beyond the research phase; they plan to start shipping commercial devices within the next three months and start mass production by the end of 2011.

...

The scientists also say that one reactor has been running continuously for two years, providing heat for a factory. They provide little detail about this case.

...

Rossi and Focardi’s paper on the nuclear reactor has been rejected by peer-reviewed journals, but the scientists aren’t discouraged. They published their paper in the Journal of Nuclear Physics, an online journal founded and run by themselves, which is obviously cause for a great deal of skepticism. They say their paper was rejected because they lack a theory for how the reaction works. According to a press release in Google translate, the scientists say they cannot explain how the cold fusion is triggered, “but the presence of copper and the release of energy are witnesses.”

...

Rossi and Focardi have applied for a patent that has been partially rejected in a preliminary report. According to the report, “As the invention seems, at least at first, to offend against the generally accepted laws of physics and established theories, the disclosure should be detailed enough to prove to a skilled person conversant with mainstream science and technology that the invention is indeed feasible. … In the present case, the invention does not provide experimental evidence (nor any firm theoretical basis) which would enable the skilled person to assess the viability of the invention.”

...

“We have passed already the phase to convince somebody,” Rossi wrote in his forum. “We are arrived to a product that is ready for the market. Our judge is the market. In this field the phase of the competition in the field of theories, hypothesis, conjectures etc etc is over. The competition is in the market. If somebody has a valid technology, he has not to convince people by chattering, he has to make a reactor that work and go to sell it, as we are doing.”

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-italian-scientists-cold-fusion-video.html

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Oh brother....

[The_Dude 1,142]

They say their paper was rejected because they lack a theory for how the reaction works. According to a press release in Google translate, the scientists say they cannot explain how the cold fusion is triggered, “but the presence of copper and the release of energy are witnesses.”

That sounds about right.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

That sounds about right.

A couple of modern day snake oil salesmen.

[^_^ 5,021]

A couple of modern day snake oil salesmen.

What if they're not, though?

Accidents do happen. What if they've accidentally stumbled upon something that works but they can't explain?

If investors decide that the device works, they'll buy it. The scientific method can catch up later when it figures it out.

[The_Dude 1,142]

What if they're not, though?

Accidents do happen. What if they've accidentally stumbled upon something that works but they can't explain?

If investors decide that the device works, they'll buy it. The scientific method can catch up later when it figures it out.

They sound like a couple of ICP fans who discovered magnets.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

What if they're not, though?

Accidents do happen. What if they've accidentally stumbled upon something that works but they can't explain?

If investors decide that the device works, they'll buy it. The scientific method can catch up later when it figures it out.

I'd rather not allow my neighbor to purchase one of these miniature nuclear reactors to fuel their home without the manufacturer at least knowing how and why it works.

[^_^ 5,021]

I'd rather not allow my neighbor to purchase one of these miniature nuclear reactors to fuel their home without the manufacturer at least knowing how and why it works.

I'd rather not allow my neighbor?

Wow, fascist much?

[The_Dude 1,142]

I'd rather not allow my neighbor?

Wow, fascist much?

Indeed. These scientists are bringing this to the marketplace. According to some, that is the ultimate determining factor for EVERYTHING. Get used to it steven. No NIMBY wimps allowed.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I'd rather not allow my neighbor?

Wow, fascist much?

"You can pry my minnie nuclear reactor from my cold, dead hands."

[The_Dude 1,142]

"You can pry my minnie nuclear reactor from my cold, dead hands."

You could always move to vermont

[^_^ 5,021]

You could always move to vermont

Vermont? There's no regulation there on anything. Steven would freak out. I think he'd be happier in the peoples republik of kalifornia.

Edited January 20, 2011 by \

[The_Dude 1,142]

Vermont? There's no regulation there on anything. Steven would freak out. I think he'd be happier in the peoples republik of kalifornia.

Well, one of the benefits of Vermont is it's proximity to Quebec, where they regulate your dumps and give you 6 weeks paid time off for it. He could visit QC if he needed a quick infusion of overbearing regulation and smugness. It would be like going to an Apple convention.

[Amby 490]

I was actually discussing this with my lab partner last night. I think it's either fake or one of those things science isn't able to explain yet. If it's something science isn't able to explain yet, it will be interesting to see if they ever come up with a theory. If they can do that maybe their research will be able to be replicated and then accepted by peers.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

I was actually discussing this with my lab partner last night. I think it's either fake or one of those things science isn't able to explain yet. If it's something science isn't able to explain yet, it will be interesting to see if they ever come up with a theory. If they can do that maybe their research will be able to be replicated and then accepted by peers.

I would think that if it really works and can be replicated then it would have to be accepted.