Scientific Blunder
This is a modal window.
The media could not be loaded, either because the server or network failed or because the format is not supported.
Formal Metadata
| Title |
| |
| Title of Series | ||
| Number of Parts | 340 | |
| Author | ||
| License | CC Attribution - NonCommercial - NoDerivatives 4.0 International: You are free to use, copy, distribute and transmit the work or content in unchanged form for any legal and non-commercial purpose as long as the work is attributed to the author in the manner specified by the author or licensor. | |
| Identifiers | 10.5446/45097 (DOI) | |
| Publisher | ||
| Release Date | ||
| Language |
Content Metadata
| Subject Area | ||
| Genre | ||
| Abstract |
|
00:00
NobeliumChemistryLecture/ConferenceMeeting/Interview
00:38
PharmacyNobeliumPathologySurface finishingSchmerzschwelleLecture/Conference
01:05
Langmuir, IrvingChemistNobeliumSchmerzschwelleSchmerzschwelleLecture/Conference
01:28
11 (number)International Nonproprietary NameTable wineAngular milMapInfo Interchange FormatMill (grinding)IronTube (container)AluminiumGolgi apparatusMaterials scienceEmission spectrumGrowth mediumChemical propertyMan pageScreening (medicine)Germanic peoplesPotenz <Homöopathie>Metabolic pathwayFormaldehydeFlameCalcium sulfideNobeliumSeparation processExplosionRadioactive decayWine tasting descriptorsAntigenStream gaugeMetalHyperpolarisierungVolumetric flow rateDyeingDeathNahtoderfahrungDrop (liquid)Lecture/Conference
06:30
Emission spectrumOcean currentRadioactive decayCalcium sulfideElectronic cigaretteGlassesRiver sourceSystemic therapyExplosionNomifensineMeeting/Interview
08:45
TrihalomethaneLemonColumbia RecordsInternational Nonproprietary NameAngular milMill (grinding)HotmeltNobeliumInsulinMethyl iodideQuartzCapillary electrophoresisElectronic cigaretteRepeated sequence (DNA)WaterChemical propertyExplosionMaterials scienceWine tasting descriptorsPolywasserTube (container)LactitolGolgi apparatusThin filmSeparator (milk)Phase (waves)Potenz <Homöopathie>Controller (control theory)Functional groupChromosomenaberrationPharmacyPeriodateSeparation processFatty acid methyl esterMeatStockfishAreaOperonFrench friesVolumetric flow rateSurface scienceMan pageAdeninePhysical chemistryPsychological traumaAzo couplingLecture/Conference
13:18
PolymerBallistic traumaMethyl iodideColumbia RecordsNobeliumMindestzündenergieTinInternational Nonproprietary NameInterferon <gamma->Pill (pharmacy)Research Institute for Mathematical SciencesAngular milWaterGrowth mediumNanoparticleQuartzTube (container)Host (biology)Surface scienceExplosionProcess (computing)ChemistryWeaknessElectronic cigaretteSample (material)Periodic acid-Schiff stainSchwermetallThermoformingFunctional groupCell (biology)Chemical compoundDiamondFatty acid methyl esterOceanGemstoneHuman subject researchMoleculeCapillary electrophoresisSyrupTransformation <Genetik>FreezingCondensationOrganische ChemieAtomActivity (UML)Chemical engineeringAageGolgi apparatusOrlistatBody weightMedical historyAreaCell fusionHydrogenDecompositionColourantAzo couplingSoapDensityLecture/Conference
18:36
KernproteineHydrogenCell fusionHeliumChemical reactionProcess (computing)NucleolusGesundheitsstörungGrowth mediumMarch (territory)Chain (unit)Coordination numberMetalTransportFoodUraniumChemical elementAbundance of the chemical elementsCell (biology)WaterNeotenyMan pageElectrochemistryHuman subject researchController (control theory)Wasserwelle <Haarbehandlung>HydrogenNucleolusGrowth mediumBallistic traumaHeliumFoodPalladiumCell fusionChemical elementProcess (computing)Abundance of the chemical elementsMarch (territory)Coordination numberDeuteriumMetalGeneSeawaterSchwermetallChemistryTransportUraniumElectrical breakdownActive siteSecretionGesundheitsstörungInitiation (chemistry)Maskierung <Chemie>Chemical plantHuman body temperaturePreservativeReservoirChemical reactionSense DistrictMeeting/Interview
23:43
PalladiumHydrogenCell (biology)Chemical reactionProcess (computing)SolutionLithiumDeuteriumOxideSample (material)HeliumTritiumCell fusionYield (engineering)Growth mediumRiver sourceAtom probeSurface scienceWine tasting descriptorsMarch (territory)AreaExplosionAlchemyHeliumHydrogenPalladiumAtom probeCell fusionSurface scienceSeparation processExplosionGrowth mediumProcess (computing)NobeliumMixing (process engineering)DeuteriumTritiumRiver sourceSea levelLithiumSet (abstract data type)Systemic therapyChemical reactionFlash evaporationPondWine tasting descriptorsPH indicatorCell (biology)Functional groupSolutionAlchemyPlatinSchwermetallChemistryFoodSpawn (biology)WursthülleCuring (food preservation)Structural steelMeeting/Interview
28:50
Methyl iodideNobeliumLecture/ConferenceMeeting/InterviewComputer animation
Transcript: English(auto-generated)
00:17
Thank you very much, Rainer, for your introduction.
00:20
This is the seventh time that I'm here in Lindau giving talks, and every time I prepare something new. So today I prepared a talk which is called Scientific Blunders, and I'm from the Technion Haifa Israel. I also have a position at Iowa State University, which is in Ames, Iowa.
00:44
So what is a scientific blunder? It must have to do with some bad science. But the term pathological science was coined by Nobel laureate chemist Irving Longmire in 1953.
01:01
He defined what it is, and this is the definition. He says, the maximum effect that is observed is produced by causative agent or barely detectable intensity. And the observations are near the threshold of visibility of the eyes, and there are claims of great accuracy and fantastic theories
01:24
contrary to experience, and the criticism are made by ad hoc excuses brought up on the spur of the moment. And the ratio of supporters to critics rise up somewhere near 50%, then follow gradually until they disappear.
01:43
So a scientific blunder has to do with bad science. This is clear, but I define it further. This is more than that, and what I add is the following. Number one, a respectful scientist is involved
02:00
because bad science is all over us, and we don't mention them. But when a prominent science makes a prominent mistake, that is something else. And also, the media is involved. So the people in the streets hear about this new fantastic science until it dies.
02:22
And I'll give you three examples, and the first one is called N-rays. It happened in Nancy in France, 1903, and I coined it, seeing is believing. And here is the story. The man is René Prosper-Blantlot.
02:41
He lived from 1849 to 1930. He's a respectful French scientist and a professor in the University of Nancy, and he was the first to measure conduction velocity in wire, and that was very important. So he is prominent. The time is the beginning of the 20th century.
03:01
X-rays were discovered in 1895 by Randgen, first Nobel Prize in physics, 1901, and he's a German scientist. And he announced, and then Max Planck announced the quantisation of energy.
03:21
Two very prominent discoveries and announcements that came from Germany. German science peaks and the prestige soared while the great French science of the past years is now stagnant. The media is deeply involved, and the new German discoveries and their implications
03:42
were subject to public speculation and debate. And here is the story. In 1902, Blantlot was studying polarisation of X-rays, looking forward to add his path to the growing body of knowledge on X-rays. And in one of his experiments, he was using hot filament
04:02
sealed in an iron tube, sealed inside, and the iron tube had an aluminium window. Blantlot noticed that something was happening in his lab when the filament was hot, and the radiation that his apparatus emitted seemed to increase the luminosity of nearby gas flame
04:23
and to brighten a screen coated with calcium sulphide. He has also noticed that a large number of materials emitted X-rays. Blantlot called his newly discovered emission X-rays N for Nancy, named after his city, and in 1903 wrote 10 papers on their properties.
04:44
Other French scientists joined and added their contribution. Examples, André Bocorel wrote 10 papers, Charpentier discovered X-rays were emitted from human body, and Zeeman conducted experiments and published,
05:00
and Bocorel published his results. Meanwhile, in Germany, the Kaiser invited Heinrich Rubens, who was a German scientist of University of Berlin, to demonstrate to him the new radiation, and Ruben failed, he could not do that. 1904, Cambridge, England,
05:21
a meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, several European scientists discuss the N-rays phenomenon. Rubens tells them that he failed to reproduce these results. An American physicist, Robert W. Wood, from the Johns Hopkins University, he was not involved in European scientific power struggle.
05:43
He is chosen to go to Nancy and examine Blantlot's experiment. So Wood reported in his observation during his visit to Blantlot Laboratory in detail and informative way,
06:00
and he describes several experiments he performed with Blantlot and his assistant, and the assistant is a very important figure here. None was convincing. In fact, Wood saw none of the effects that were claimed to be caused by N-rays, and this was published in Nature in 1904, September 91.
06:23
This short report of Wood killed the concept of N-rays. So what happened there in the laboratory? Well, Blantlot could not see very well in the dark, so he has an assistant. The assistant claimed that he could see very well in the dark, and the assistant performed the experiment.
06:44
So the eye, oops, yeah, the eye of the observer, this is the assistant, is here, this is some kind of a spark, produces light, this is a ground glass, and here is, right here,
07:01
is the source, window, some lens, and this was the setup. So what happened was that Blantlot increased the luminosity of the filament inside by altering the current, and up and down and up and down, and the assistant reports up and down the results.
07:24
I see that the spark is dimmer, it's lighter, and so on and so on. And Wood is sitting there at the experiment, and the room is very dark. So Wood puts his hand on the way of the support with emission, and the assistant continues to read results
07:47
according to the declaration of Blantlot as he increases and decreases the current. Experience number one isn't working very well.
08:00
Number two, the same setup, but there is a prism here, and there is a calcium sulfide coated filament here, and the filament can go up and down, yeah, the filament can go up and down so as to measure the spectrum of the radiation.
08:23
And the assistant, sitting here, is reading dark light, dark light, like he's seeing all the spectrum. What happened then, Blantlot grabs the prism, takes it away, the room is dark, nobody sees anything,
08:40
and the assistant continues to read bright, dark, bright, dark, and that was the end of that story, epilogue. During 1903 to six, some 300 scientific articles were published, 300 scientific articles were published by 100 scientists. Several scientists could repeat Blantlot experiments,
09:02
most of them could not repeat, the serious ones could not repeat the experiments. Among the reported properties of N-rays, of those who reported positively, most materials emit N-rays, including the human body. Wood does not emit X-ray, it absorbs them.
09:22
N-rays enhance human vision, especially in dimly lit areas. Loud noise make N-rays disappear. Don't play jazz during the experiment. Heat made N-rays more effective, and the end of story.
09:42
1904, the French Academy of Science bestowed its Covet Le Conte Award on Blantlot. He had the reward, and that's the end of that. Number two on our series is polywater. Now, while N-rays does not affect us,
10:03
polywater is an interesting story, because it affects many of us today, and I'll tell you why. So, the place is Kostroma in Russia, the year is 1962, our century, and I coined it, this borscht is good for you.
10:25
Discovery. The man, Nikolai Fedayakin, is in the Technological Institute of Kostroma, was the first to observe that water sealed in a glass capillary tube, a very, very thin capillary tube, and water inside,
10:44
the water formed a second column separate from the first. The new phase was found by Fedayakin, it was found by him to be denser than water, and the effect was called anomalous water. And Fedayakin published his results
11:00
in Kolloid Sujunal in Russian. Enters Boris Volodymyrovich Deryagin. Now, Deryagin was a very famous scientist at his time, and a very good chemist. I heard him talk before he died, and I could not understand a single word.
11:24
He was the director of the Surface Force Laboratory at the Institute of Physical Chemistry in Moscow. Moscow is the place to be for science, and he takes over the results. Deryagin, powerful and in control of large,
11:42
well-equipped group of scientists, takes over the research on anomalous water, and Fedayakin stays in the shade. Announcement. For several years, anomalous water was studied only in Russia, but in 1966, Deryagin was part of the discussion of the Faraday Society
12:02
in Nottingham, England, and this talk marks the beginning of a long trail of studies in which prominent laboratories and eminent scientists around the world, United States, England, other countries, took part. Between 1962 and 1966, Deryagin Group published
12:21
10 important papers in Russian. Deryagin designed an elegant apparatus to produce anomalous water in minute quantities, but much faster than Fedayakin. 25 scientists were working on the project in his group, and clean experiments were performed in quartz capillary tube, not glass.
12:43
Why glass, why quartz? Because quartz is not supposed to dissolve in water. So that was wise. Reports on strange properties of anomalous water started to appear in Western scientific literature after the Nottingham meeting, and in 1970,
13:01
anomalous water was named poly-water, because water sort of polymerized in the quartz tubes. And during the early 70s, about 100 papers appeared in the scientific literature every year. And these graphs show you the frequency of publication,
13:22
so you can follow from 1962, you can follow the number of publication, and Calumet peak was around 1970, and then it dropped down eventually to zero, and I'll tell you what happened. Deryagin claimed that poly-water was stable form of liquid water,
13:41
and that eventually, all water will transform to poly-water. Hey, the media said, you mean that if the oceans will find a capillary space there, then we'll have all water transform into poly-water, like a soup, and that's the end of life on Earth?
14:03
Hey, scientists, what are you doing? Boiling point was above 150 degrees C, and according to some reports, much higher. Freezing point, below minus 30. Density, 1.2 gram per centimeter cube. Vapor of poly-water condensed as regular water.
14:22
Aha. The media. There is order in the liquid water, and the atomic structure of the capillary surface determines the orientation of the water molecules well into the center of the capillary. This was the theory. Poly-water looked to behave a bit like colorless syrup.
14:44
And now the media. I told you, the media must be involved. Miami scientific team created mysterious new form of water. Miami Herald, July 30, 1969. Same year. Discussion of practical applications today
15:02
is considered bad form. Noted scholars have been cut dead by their colleagues for less chemical engineering. At least one research group is studying living cells for evidence of the strange new compound. Newsweek, famous journals. Scientists everywhere must be alerted
15:21
to the need for extreme caution in the disposal of poly-water. Because you know what happens if the disposal goes to the ocean. And in France, c'est tout qu'il n'est c'est pas. Science heavy. Weird water debate over mysterious fluid
15:42
splits scientific world. Poly-water has bright future, or does it? Criticize it's only impure tap water. Wall Street Journal. Can he, Duryagin, prove it's water? Chemical weak. And science is going wet, creepy,
16:00
water, Washington Post. Look at the journal. Throwing cold water on poly-water, a new scientist, July 7th. The end. 1986, Duryagin had some 25 samples of water, poly-water, analyzed for purity. The analysis report claimed that the amount
16:20
of impurity particles in the poly-water matched the amount of water. So it was so polluted. In short, poly-water is a thick borscht of dissolved particles from the quartz tube in water. Hey, but quartz does not dissolve in water, so what's going on? Yes, quartz does not dissolve.
16:40
Only little. But when the surface to volume is very, very large, like in a capillary, that minute amount is huge amount that dissolves in water, and you have quartz particle in the water, which is, of course, a different substance, and that's the end of that. The analysis also claimed that a host of organic molecules
17:03
were found in the soup, so dirty experiments. And this marked the beginning of the end of poly-water, and seven years later, in 1975, there was no more activity in the field. The end. In 1968, Duryagin had some 35 samples of water,
17:21
analyzed for purity. And I will not continue to read, I just want to go to the end. Duryagin was then 73 years old. Was this the end of his career? Not so fast. Because in 1976, Duryagin proposed a technique to make diamonds from the gas phase by CVD process.
17:42
And when Duryagin declared that, everybody said, Duryagin, go home. We had enough of you. But he was right. He was right. And today, this is a fantastic way to making diamonds by CVD process. As a commercial process, you can make diamond as large as you want,
18:01
and this is a polycrystalline diamond, by the way, not gem quality, but true diamond. And it works. As I mentioned, I heard him talk once. Contribution is the last subject, and this is a controversial subject, because here there are believers and non-believers.
18:23
Like UFOs, you know, there are believers and non-believers. And we will dwell on that a little bit. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Fusion, just a small introduction for those of you who are not familiar with the subject. Fusion is a nuclear process in which two light nuclei
18:41
combine to form a single, heavier nucleus. Hydrogen fusion is the basis for hydrogen bomb. Bam, bang. And possibly, fusion reactions for control production of energy. In one shot reaction, two hydrogen isotopes fuse to form an isotope of helium,
19:00
and this produces, these are the two isotopes, and it produces helium plus neutron plus energy. And we are interested in the neutron, and we are interested in the energy, and both of them can be measured. This is a sketch of what's going on. So if you take deuterium plus tritium,
19:21
you receive helium plus neutron plus energy. This is the idea. Okay. Fusion has been achieved in hydrogen bomb and under intense heat and control conditions, but only for a split of a second. Chemical, so it is possible to do.
19:40
The question is, can you bring the hydrogen so close together that they fuse? And that's the point. Chemically assisted nuclear reaction at room temperature is therefore a dream worth pursuing, because if you can do, and if you can make a lot of energy
20:01
and produce a lot of neutrons at room temperature in a simple process, that means, hey, energy forever for everybody, that means pure desalinated water for the rest of the world. It means a change in our life. So many countries, not only people, pursue this project. Announcement.
20:21
On the 23rd of March, 1989, Martin Fleischmann of Southampton University and Stanley Pons of University of Utah announced to the media that they have developed a process of achieving cold water fusion. The announcement was made in a press conference
20:40
in the University of Utah one day before their article was to be sent to nature. On the same day, March 24, another paper was also to be sent to nature, that of Stephen Earl Johns of the neighboring Brigham Young University.
21:01
The three of them, that Fleischmann, Pons and Johns, agreed before to do that together, announce it together at the presence of the presidents of the university. However, the University of Utah team snapped and made the announcement one day earlier.
21:24
They cheated and they paid for it. What led them to do that? Well, the chain of events. 1984, Fleischmann takes an early retirement for the University of Southampton and go to visit
21:41
his former student and co-researcher Pons. Pons is the young man and Fleischmann is the older man. Fleischmann died a few years ago. Pons is still alive and kicking. He's in his mid 70s now. They discussed the possibility of creating cold fusion by electrochemical process and decide to go for it.
22:00
In secret, the experiments continued till 1988. 1986, Johns and Palmer begin similar experiment in Brigham Young University, nearby university in Utah. The team eventually builds a new neutron detector to detect a low number of neutrons
22:21
that may be emitted from the process. Fleischmann and Pons submit a research proposal Department of Energy. Department of Energy sent the proposal to review to Johns, who is an expert, right? The right thing to do. Johns realizes that neighbors are working on the same subject and proposes coordination of efforts.
22:41
They agree and involve the university management. The announcement that was done after the discovery created a huge wave of enthusiasm in the scientific community and in the media and for good reason because if indeed they have such process, it would have improved life
23:02
of every person around the world. Imagine cheap electricity means unlimited amount of distilled water, food available everywhere, cheap chemicals, metal transportation, amazing. In all this, without exotic heavy metal like uranium, no radioactive elements produced as in fusion reactor
23:23
that we have now, no fancy expensive equipment, simple abundant element like hydrogen will do the trick. Just clean, pure, cheap energy. What was the experiment? So I call it the genie in the jar. Palladium absorbs huge amount of hydrogen,
23:42
huge amount of hydrogen. So the idea was, hey, let's put palladium, push in hydrogen and some of these hydrogen atoms will cause the reaction. They will be so close together, they will be pushed so hard that they will start the reaction. So palladium electrode was loaded with hydrogen
24:02
and after several hours, so they say, started to produce heat and neutron, an evidence of the process. Cold fusion cell, here is the cold fusion cell. Very briefly, we have cylindrical platinum anode on the outside, the cathode is made of palladium
24:24
and it's inside, a stirrer, I mean, like a high school experiment. There's nothing very fancy in it and the power unit was small, portable, cheap, very simple. The fusion reaction was achieved by an electrochemical process
24:40
in a solution of lithium and heavy water, deuterium oxide. Flashing and ponds incited a process introduced, produced energy and heat, neutrons, tritium and helium exactly like the prediction, a clear indication of cold nuclear reaction, cold fusion.
25:01
Experiment to reproduce the result started immediately all over the world. Some announced success five minutes ago, however, most experiments failed. More and more evidence appeared in the press that explain why the process could not yield the reported results and the program faded.
25:23
The media was deeply involved and the disappointment matched the initial expectations. Was this the end? Not so fast. On January 1, 1991, Pons resigned from the University of Utah. The president of university resigned before him
25:41
and they paid their price for the failure. However, research on cold fusion continued around the world until today. A good number of studies report was sponsored by governments. Flashing and ponds continued their effort in the field. So, was cold fusion a scientific blunder?
26:03
Yes, it was bad science, respectable scientists, the media was involved. But is it a scientific blunder? Probably yes. Most scientists around the world believe that it cannot be done the way they did it. But there are very large group of believers
26:21
who say it is possible and we will show you how to do that. So it continues. For the next 17 years, effort to replicate the effect had mixed success and panels organized by the U.S. Department of Energy, the first in 1989 and the second in 2004,
26:42
failed to find convincing evidence that useful source of energy would result. However, low level research continued and claims of experimental success were reported, preliminary and non-mainstream publication. But let me show you one example in which the claim simply worked.
27:02
In 2006, two scientists, Moise Bos and Spak, research in the U.S. Navy, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center in San Diego, developed a new experimental technique, a key feature of which electroplating of probes
27:21
to set ratio of palladium and deuterium, as high as possible deuterium into palladium. These experiments have produced evidence of high energy nuclear reaction concentrated near the probe surface. Based on this work, two other teams have reported similar findings at the American Physical Society meeting 2007,
27:43
although interpretations vary. Here is a report from the U.S. Department of Energy, 2004. I will briefly go through it for lack of time. And without reading it, what it says is the following.
28:02
Nobody shows us the reproducible system that works. People report success, but there is no recipe for success that people can repeat. All the Nobel lawyers that you find here in this meeting, all 40 some of them,
28:21
produce results that are reproducible. Everybody with right equipment can repeat and receive exactly the same results. This is not the case with cold fusion. Here's a caricature for the 17th century alchemist lab. Look at, this person is really praying for success.
28:42
This is the experiment in here. And the ladies here is full of fear. And thank you very much. I still have 49 seconds left. Thank you.