One year after the March 23, 1989, announcement of cold fusion observations at the University of Utah, the controversy goes on, although not as intensely as it did during the first few months. Unfortunately, this controversy has clouded what could be a significant scientific event.
The expectations the announcement aroused, as well as the pique it generated, created an atmosphere centered on objectives and results rather than scientific curiosity.Two sources of the controversy are contradiction and skepticism. The contradiction is that established theory of atomic interactions, known for decades, predicts that cold fusion is impossible. The observations being reported, therefore, could not be attributed to fusion.
If fusion happens, energy is released in the form of radiation. To a suddenly released radiation particle, everything else is standing still. It is absurd, scientists think, to suppose that its energy could be transferred to the kinetic energy, or heat, of the environment.
Thus, scientists believe the reported observations to be absurd on two counts: It is unlikely for the fusion to take place, and it is even more unlikely for the released energy to be recorded as heat. Being contradictory to established theory, they say these events cannot happen.
Although this is an amazing argument coming from scientists, almost all revolutionary discoveries have had to face it. It's also amazing because a scientist's ultimate faith must be in observations. Theory always makes way for new data when it cannot account for those data.
However, it is to be expected that in cases of radical claims, the data must be assumed to be wrong. This is the skepticism that is the second fuel of the controversy. Such skepticism is supported by the high variation in the experimental observations, the high degree of irreproducibility of the experiment and inherent difficulties in making the measurements.
We should view both these aspects of the controversy - contradiction of theory and skepticism about observations - as uncertainties. Theory, even well-established theory, is always just an approximation of the "true nature of things."
What does current research show? Since last March we have learned much about the conditions that result in the phenomenon. Observation of excess heat requires unusual loading of deuterium into palladium. Surface conditions of the rod must be just right to permit this loading, and sometimes "just right" is obtained by defects in experimental technique, which careful scientists succeed in avoiding.
We have seen many experiments in the past few months that have taken all the original objections into account. We have seen excess energy production in several laboratories in "optimal" systems. We have seen this excess energy accompanies by tritium.
We have seen experiments done very carefully, with controls, that show immense production of tritium in very short periods of time. We have seen observations of short bursts of neutrons in a large variety of circumstances. Both tritium and neutrons are experimental evidence of nuclear reactions.
At the same time, there is too high a degree of variability in the observations; irreproducibility persists. The highest priority is to succeed in an experiment where the observations are incontrovertible and can be reproduced on demand.
The resolution of the cold fusion controversy will not come about soon, neither will it come easily. Uncertainty will persist. Even when the phenomenon becomes faithfully reproducible, deeper questions remain. What is going on? How can we effectively exploit this?
Scientists will plunge into the darkness and continue groping around because that is what they like to do. The allure of scientific investigation is not the discovery which one seeks. It is too infrequently attained to be a true reward. Something else compels us to start a new series of experiments. I believe it is the uncertainty which pulls us along.
And this is where the cold fusion episode went awry. From the beginning outcomes were inappropriately stressed, expectations unduly aroused and old angers needlessly fueled. Immediately, everyone became focused on the quick answer. Is anything going on and, if so, what? The joy of the hunt has been lost, overshadowed by the lust for the prize.
This problem pervades every aspect of our modern society. We live for rewards and not the pleasures inherent in earning them.
We must relearn that uncertainty feeds curiosity, that it is the wellspring of imagination, intelligence and, ultimately, knowledge.