UFO/신물리학

상온 핵융합 연구자의 항의(04/04/03 DOE 평가 예정 추가)   글쓴이 : kopsa     날짜 : 02-01-20 13:53     조회 : 9461     상온 핵융합 연구자의 항의 (04/04/03 DOE 평가 예정 추가) ================== 2004년 4월 3일 추가합니다. 아래 상온융합과 관련한 ICCF-10을 소개하였습니다. 이들의 연구 내용을 직접 분석한 자료가 있으면 바람직할 것이라고 했는데 뉴사이언티스트(The New Scientist, March 20, 2004)와 뉴욕타임스(March 25, 2004)에 의하면 DOE(에너지성)에서 상온융합의 현 상황을 분석 평가할 위원회(review panel)를 구성할 것이라고 합니다. 상온융합은 Peter Hagelstein (MIT), Michael McKubre (SRI International), David J. Nagel (George Washington University) 등 정통 학자 반경에서 연구되고 있습니다. 이들이 DOE에 접촉하여 자료를 제시하며 평가를 요구한 때문이라고 합니다. 그리고 상온융합 반경의 이러한 노력은 연구비와 관련이 있습니다. 1989년 상온융합이 처음 나왔을 때 DOE의 "상온융합이 아마도 존재하지 않을 것이다"는 부정적인 평가이래, DOE 보고서는 연구비를 완전히 없애도록 하지는 않았지만(some funding might be appropriate), 실제 연구 지원은 없었다고 합니다. 상온융합 반경에서는 이번 위원회가 연구비 지원 결정을 내리기를 희망하고 있습니다. ===================== 2004년 1월 15일 추가합니다. 상온 핵융합 반경의 학자들은 지금도 자신들 의 학술 회의를 개최하고 있습니다. 2003년 8월에 매사추세츠 케임브리지 에서 열린  '제 10차 상온 융합 국제 학술회의'(The Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion, ICCF-10)가 그것입니다. ICCF-10에서 발표된 내용 등은 관련 사이트(www.lenr-canr.org)에서 볼 수 있습니다. 이들은 '상온 융합'(cold fusion)이라는 용어 대신에 '저 에너 지 핵반응'(Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, LENR) 또는 '화학적 보조 핵 반응'(Chemically Assisted Nuclear Reactions, CANR)이라는 용어를 사용 하고 있는 것 같습니다. 아래 참조 1은 ICCF-10에 즈음하여 미국 화학회 뉴스레터(C&EN)에 실린 논평입니다. 다음 논평의 제목과 같이 '상온 융합'을 '믿음의 과학'(belief science) 내지 '바람의 과학'(wishful science)이라고 말하고 있습니다. SCIENCE, RELIGION, AND THE ART OF COLD FUSION(과학, 종교, 그리고 상온 융합 기술) Despite quite opposite fundamental roots, science and religion can both rely on faith(아주 상반된 근본 뿌리에도 불구하고 과학과 종교가 모두 신 앙에 의존할 수 있다) ICCF-10에는 대학 교수 등 학자들이 참여하고 있기 때문에 이러한 논평에 대해 반응할 것이 분명합니다. 아래 참조 2는 상온 융합 반경에서 잘 알려 진 마일스(Melvin H. Miles)의 반론 투고 글입니다. 그는 ICCF-10에서 발표된 일본, 중국, 이스라엘, 이탈리아 등 국가에서 행 한 실험이 1989년 플라이슈만(Martin Fleischmann)과 폰스(B. Stanley Pons)에 의해 보고된 상온 융합 효과를 확증해 주었다고 말합니다. 상온 융합을 부정한 실험 결과가 중요 변수를 제대로 고려하지 않고 정확한 열 측정 방법에 대해 알지 못한 가운데 나왔다는 말도 있습니다. 마지막 대목 입니다. The scientific community needs to guard against any future rush to judgment of unusual new results as well as the replacement of the scientific method by uncalled-for ridicule. (과학계는 과학적 방법을 불필 요한 조롱으로 대신하는 것뿐만 아니라 앞으로 특이한 새로운 결과에 대한 어떠한 성급한 판단도 경계할 필요가 있다.) "강박사의 초과학 산책"에 상온 융합의 제반 양상을 다룬 적이 있습니다. 상온 융합 반경의 주장이 진실이 아니라면 이들을 잠재울 수 있는 방법은 과거 초심리학 반경의 초능력 주장에 대한 스켑틱스의 역할이 그러했듯이 이들의 실험 결과에 대한 직접적인 비판이 필요할 것이라고 생각합니다. ICCF-10 결과 등에 대한 비판이 발견되면 추가하여 게시하겠습니다.  ---------------------- *참조 1 C&EN August 25, 2003 Volume 81, Number 34 INSIGHTS SCIENCE, RELIGION, AND THE ART OF COLD FUSION Despite quite opposite fundamental roots, science and religion can both rely on faith   BY STEPHEN K. RITTER The 10th International Conference on Cold Fusion is taking place this week in Cambridge, Mass. This milestone conference may come as a bit of a surprise to most members of the scientific community, who probably thought that cold fusion died a painful death shortly after it was first announced nearly 15 years ago. To recap, Martin Fleischmann of the University of Southampton, in England, and B. Stanley Pons of the University of Utah made the stunning announcement on March 23, 1989, that they had achieved sustained nuclear fusion of deuterium atoms at ambient temperatures inside an electrolytic cell. Predictions were made that with the new method unlimited energy could be produced from seawater. Fusion fever spread quickly. Dozens of research labs worldwide began trying to repeat the experiments. There were a few scattered confirmations of excess heat or telltale signs of fusion in the form of neutrons or tritium produced. But cold fusion could not be reproduced on demand. Many researchers began to ascribe the unpredictable effects that were being observed to calibration errors, electronic artifacts, variations in background radiation, and generally sloppy lab work. Pons and Fleischmann themselves admitted that only part of their observations could be attributed to deuterium-deuterium fusion and the remainder was the result of "a hitherto unknown nuclear process or processes." The cold fusion furor quickly collapsed, and mainstream scientists wrote it off as an embarrassing mistake. Yet to the cold fusion faithful, a general feeling emerged that, even though there had been spurious results, Pons and Fleischmann weren't totally wrong. They knew something was going on; they just couldn't prove it. Since 1997, the field has been mostly silent. A small band of researchers persevere in studying "low-energy nuclear reactions," as cold fusion is now called. Other curious phenomena such as bubble fusion stemming from acoustic cavitation and a supposedly new form of hydrogen called the hydrino have been added to the culture of "new energy research" as well. There is ever-growing evidence of anomalous effects but still no verification that fusion is actually taking place. There have been no breakthrough papers published in top-tier journals. No Nobel Prizes. In late 1996, a purported cold fusion device went on the market. Apparently, it never caught on since we still don't have cold fusion devices powering cars, homes, or office buildings. You can't buy one at Wal-Mart. The research community at large now dismisses the ongoing research as "pathological science," yet cold fusion researchers continue to maintain a genuine, optimistic belief that they are doing good work and that it's worth pursuing. Why? I ended up unexpectedly giving some thought to that question as a result of part of my summer reading. I have been working my way through a collection of essays, "Science and Religion: Are They Compatible?" This topic is one that every scientist broaches from time to time, if not in animated discussions with friends over dinner then at least in self-contemplation. While reading some of the essays, I was reminded that the claims of science rely on experimental verification while the claims of religion rely more simply on faith. It struck me that science also can, at times, require a measure of faith in the workings of the scientific method. Cold fusion is a case in point. Despite the wealth of evidence against cold fusion, it is still insufficient to put all the nails in the coffin. If one adheres rigorously to the scientific method, the research community should reserve final judgment as long as research in this area continues. Cold fusion researchers, though marginalized, thus continue to pursue their work. But why do they choose to do so? Obviously, they still have hopes for their research, but their persistence could justifiably be considered a leap of faith. Expressions of faith are familiar. Consider masses of people who gather for religious ceremonies, such as Sunday Easter mass at the Vatican or the annual hajj to Mecca. I was reminded of these events when looking at old photos from the American Chemical Society national meeting in Dallas in April 1989. An estimated 7,000 people attended a hastily put together symposium to hear about cold fusion just after the first announcement was made. The people who gathered in Dallas were hopeful that what they were hearing was true. In the end, their faith in the scientific method was upheld, one way or the other. For now, cold fusion lives for those who believe. The burden of proof is still on their shoulders, however, just as it is on the shoulders of the religious faithful to convince nonbelievers. New data being reported at the cold fusion meeting this week may or may not provide some answers. ---------------------- * 참조 2 C&EN November 24, 2003 Volume 81, Number 47   Cold fusion heats up I recently attended ICCF-10 in cambridge, Mass. (C&EN, Aug. 25, page 33), where new experiments from Japan, China, Israel, Italy, and other countries further confirmed the cold fusion effect reported by Martin Fleischmann and B. Stanley Pons in 1989 (see http://www.lenr-canr.org). In 1989, the critics of cold fusion rightfully insisted on the identification of the nuclear ash. Should this nuclear ash now be ignored simply because it was found in 1990 and later rather than in 1989? It is possible that Massachusetts Institute of Technology, California Institute of Technology, Harwell, and other groups reported their findings of no excess heat in 1989 before they investigated the key variables and without learning how to correctly perform the calorimetric measurements. The scientific community needs to guard against any future rush to judgment of unusual new results as well as the replacement of the scientific method by uncalled-for ridicule. Melvin H. Miles La Verne, Calif. =========================== 이곳에 게시된 '상온 핵융합의 진상'(1999년 11월 24일)이라는 글을 참조하 시기 바랍니다. 상온 핵융합(cold fusion)은 '바람의 과학'(wishful science) 이라고 비판받고 있지만, 지금도 소수이지만 연구하는 학자들이 있습니다. 이들과 이들의 집념을 비난할 수는 없습니다. 과학이란 집념이 없이는 나 오지 않기 때문입니다. 과학에서는 논문 외에 노력과 능력을 인정받기 위해 내 보일 수 있는 것이 없습니다. 논문이 없으면 연구비를 받을 수 없고 투자를 유치할 수 없습니 다. 따라서 상온 핵융합 연구자들은 자신의 연구결과를 인정받는 학술잡지 에 발표하려고 합니다. 이와 관련하여 아래 2001년 12월 24일, 미국 화학회 뉴스레터에 독자투고 형식으로 게재된 글을 원문으로 소개합니다. 이들은 상온 핵융합이 그 동안 연구된 실험적 이론적 자료로 볼 때 병적 과학(pathological science)으로 간주될 수 없다고 말합니다. 그럼에도 이 분야 투고 논문은 심사조차 받을 수 없도록 외면 당하고 있는데, 이는 자 가교정(self-correction)이라는 과학적 판결과정의 중지를 의미한다고 했습 니다.  과학적 판결은 어느 권위자(판사라고 할까요?)가 내리는 것이 아닙니다. 일 정 수준의 (최상이라는 의미가 아닙니다) 연구결과가 형식을 갖춘 논문으 로 발표되면 그 논문을 읽은 그 분야 모든 과학자(배심원이라고 할까요?) 에 의해 판결됩니다. 결과에 신빙성이 없으면 자연히 사라집니다. 그 안에 가능성이 있으면 다른 과학자들도 흥미를 갖고 연구합니다.  이렇게 해서 과학이 발전하는 것이며, 상온 핵융합 논문에 대해 공정한 심 사와 게재의 기회가 주어져야 한다는 것은 틀림없습니다. 아래 글은 이를 말하고 있습니다. 그러나 이들의 투고 논문이 발표 기준에 적합한 질적 요 건을 갖추었는지는 다른 문제입니다. 논문은 가설, 실험, 일반화된 결론 전 체에 당위성, 실험적 정확성과 충분성을 갖추어야 하며 논리적 오류가 없 어야 합니다.     .....................................  LETTERS December 24, 2001 Volume 79, Number 52 Cold fusion Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons announced in a press conference that nuclear events can be initiated by electrochemically compressing deuterium into the palladium lattice and that these events manifest themselves in the form of excess enthalpy generation. The heat generation rate was consistent with that expected for nuclear processes taking place in a fast-breeder reactor. The mode of the announcement, the term cold fusion, the invasion of the traditional physicist's domain by chemists, and limited disclosure of details prevented duplication. Claims were rejected, fraud often was implied, and papers submitted for publication were returned with inappropriate comments. In intervening years, Fleischmann and Pons's claims were confirmed in many laboratories in the U.S. and abroad. Researchers report that excess enthalpy is generated at discrete locations randomly distributed in time and space, helium production is proportional to the amount of excess heat, tritium is produced sporadically at rates of about 104 atoms per second, and a broad-spectrum X-ray emission with recognizable peak at 21 keV is observed. Today, cold fusion can no longer be regarded as pathological science. Given the wealth of experimental and theoretical information that exists, it is surprising that the information about the subject is not appearing in mainstream scientific journals. First, because of an apparent consensus by most physicists that is based on incomplete and incorrect information, meaningful discussion of the relevant scientific issues in scientific journals never took place. Second, as a result of this consensus, the scientific adjudication process ceased to be self-correcting. This is because scientists have ceased to monitor experiments, and additional experiments that could potentially verify or disprove positive cold fusion claims are not being performed. We believe this situation will not change until editorial policies of the majority of scientific journals, which currently do not allow cold fusion papers even to be reviewed, are modified. S. Szpak and P. A. Mosier San Diego, Calif. Scott R. Chubb Washington, D.C. ..............................................