Resolution to Huizenga's "Three Miracles of Cold Fusion"
Huizenga's three miracles were:
|Resolution to Miracle #1:
|Resolution to Miracle #2:
|Resolution to Miracle #3:
A critique to the “DOE Report 1989”, that gives Resolutions to Miracle #1 - #3, was given in the book as follows.
Chapter 1, pp. 5 – 6 of H. Kozima, Discovery of the Cold Fusion Phenomenon, Ohtake Shuppan, Tokyo, Japan, 1998, ISBN 4-87186-044-2.
“Let us point out mistakes in the DOE report.
Conclusion (1) is based on Conclusions (2) ~ (5), and it has no basis if Conclusions (2) ~(5) are incorrect. The issue of excess heat and fusion products discussed in Conclusion (2) has significance only when D + D reaction is assumed as the main process. This assumption was adopted by the majority of the scientists at that time, including those who discovered cold fusion.
If there is some other mechanism governing the process, this argument is no longer valid. If you are searching for truth, whether one assumption made by a scientist is correct or not has no importance. You should search for the truth based on the fact that the phenomenon did occur. From this point of view, we will show, in Chapters 11 and 12, that it is possible to explain the results of cold fusion experiments without any inconsistency.
Conclusion (3) was based on the fact that the cold fusion phenomenon presented poor reproducibility. However, the reproducibility of a phenomenon is determined by the condition of the entire system, in which the process takes place. Simple analogy from other physical phenomena should not have been used to draw a conclusion. We will also show the reasons for the poor reproducibility and the way to improve it in Chapters 11 and 12.
Conclusion (4) only shows that the interpretations of the discoverers of cold fusion were not appropriate, and it has nothing to do with the truth. It is hard to believe that board members have made such an elementary mistake. It was found later that inside solid, such as Pd or Ti, with a combination of various factors, complex phenomena can occur. There is always such possibility in science. Today, it is quite obvious to everybody. The board members might have forgotten for some reason that natural science is build upon the fact.
Conclusion (5) is dsimilar to Conclusion (4). If any new findings had been denied only because they were contradiction with the existing knowledge, there would have been no progress in science and there will not be any progress in the future.
The discussions expressed in the DOE Report remind us Procrustes' bed. As Procrustes used his bed as an absolute standard to measure heights of his captives, the critiques against the cold fusion used d – dreaction as an inevitable standard to judge anomalous events.”
The Conclusions of DOE Report 1989 is cited in Chapter 1 of the book and posted at the CFRL website: http://www.geocities.jp/hjrfq930/Books/bookse/bookse01/chap1.htm
Back to Top