½Å°úÇÐ/öÇÐ
Ãʽɸ®ÇÐ/ÀáÀç´É·Â
UFO/½Å¹°¸®ÇÐ
¿ÀÄÃƼÁò/¹Ì½ºÅ͸®

°úÇÐÀû, ºñ°úÇÐÀû ÀÇÇÐ
µ¿¼­¾ç ´ëüÀÇÇÐ

âÁ¶·Ð/°úÇÐÀû »ç½Ç¼º
âÁ¶·Ð/öÇаú Á¤Ä¡

½ºÄÎƽ½º/±âŸ ÁÖÁ¦
KOPSA ¹Ú¹°°ü

 

´ëÁ߸Åü ¸ð´ÏÅ͸µ
Áú¹®°ú ´ä

Åä·Ð¹æ¹ý
Åä·Ð»ç·Ê

¿¬±¸È¸¿ø °Ô½ÃÆÇ
¿¬±¸À§¿ø °Ô½ÃÆÇ

 

UFO/½Å¹°¸®ÇÐ
   
  »ó¿Â ÇÙÀ¶ÇÕ ¿¬±¸ÀÚÀÇ Ç×ÀÇ(04/04/03 DOE Æò°¡ ¿¹Á¤ Ãß°¡)
  ±Û¾´ÀÌ : kopsa     ³¯Â¥ : 02-01-20 13:53     Á¶È¸ : 9203    
»ó¿Â ÇÙÀ¶ÇÕ ¿¬±¸ÀÚÀÇ Ç×ÀÇ
(04/04/03 DOE Æò°¡ ¿¹Á¤ Ãß°¡)

==================
2004³â 4¿ù 3ÀÏ Ãß°¡ÇÕ´Ï´Ù. ¾Æ·¡ »ó¿ÂÀ¶ÇÕ°ú °ü·ÃÇÑ ICCF-10À» ¼Ò°³ÇÏ¿´½À´Ï´Ù. À̵éÀÇ ¿¬±¸ ³»¿ëÀ» Á÷Á¢ ºÐ¼®ÇÑ ÀÚ·á°¡ ÀÖÀ¸¸é ¹Ù¶÷Á÷ÇÒ °ÍÀ̶ó°í Çߴµ¥ ´º»çÀ̾ðƼ½ºÆ®(The New Scientist, March 20, 2004)¿Í ´º¿åŸÀÓ½º(March 25, 2004)¿¡ ÀÇÇϸé DOE(¿¡³ÊÁö¼º)¿¡¼­ »ó¿ÂÀ¶ÇÕÀÇ Çö »óȲÀ» ºÐ¼® Æò°¡ÇÒ À§¿øȸ(review panel)¸¦ ±¸¼ºÇÒ °ÍÀ̶ó°í ÇÕ´Ï´Ù. »ó¿ÂÀ¶ÇÕÀº Peter Hagelstein (MIT), Michael McKubre (SRI International), David J. Nagel (George Washington University) µî Á¤Åë ÇÐÀÚ ¹Ý°æ¿¡¼­ ¿¬±¸µÇ°í ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù. À̵éÀÌ DOE¿¡ Á¢ÃËÇÏ¿© ÀڷḦ Á¦½ÃÇϸç Æò°¡¸¦ ¿ä±¸ÇÑ ¶§¹®À̶ó°í ÇÕ´Ï´Ù. ±×¸®°í »ó¿ÂÀ¶ÇÕ ¹Ý°æÀÇ ÀÌ·¯ÇÑ ³ë·ÂÀº ¿¬±¸ºñ¿Í °ü·ÃÀÌ ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù. 1989³â »ó¿ÂÀ¶ÇÕÀÌ Ã³À½ ³ª¿ÔÀ» ¶§ DOEÀÇ "»ó¿ÂÀ¶ÇÕÀÌ ¾Æ¸¶µµ Á¸ÀçÇÏÁö ¾ÊÀ» °ÍÀÌ´Ù"´Â ºÎÁ¤ÀûÀÎ Æò°¡ÀÌ·¡, DOE º¸°í¼­´Â ¿¬±¸ºñ¸¦ ¿ÏÀüÈ÷ ¾ø¾Öµµ·Ï ÇÏÁö´Â ¾Ê¾ÒÁö¸¸(some funding might be appropriate), ½ÇÁ¦ ¿¬±¸ Áö¿øÀº ¾ø¾ú´Ù°í ÇÕ´Ï´Ù. »ó¿ÂÀ¶ÇÕ ¹Ý°æ¿¡¼­´Â À̹ø À§¿øȸ°¡ ¿¬±¸ºñ Áö¿ø °áÁ¤À» ³»¸®±â¸¦ Èñ¸ÁÇÏ°í ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù.

=====================

2004³â 1¿ù 15ÀÏ Ãß°¡ÇÕ´Ï´Ù. »ó¿Â ÇÙÀ¶ÇÕ ¹Ý°æÀÇ ÇÐÀÚµéÀº Áö±Ýµµ Àڽŵé
ÀÇ Çмú ȸÀǸ¦ °³ÃÖÇÏ°í ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù. 2003³â 8¿ù¿¡ ¸Å»çÃß¼¼Ã÷ ÄÉÀӺ긮Áö
¿¡¼­ ¿­¸°  'Á¦ 10Â÷ »ó¿Â À¶ÇÕ ±¹Á¦ ÇмúȸÀÇ'(The Tenth International
Conference on Cold Fusion, ICCF-10)°¡ ±×°ÍÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

ICCF-10¿¡¼­ ¹ßÇ¥µÈ ³»¿ë µîÀº °ü·Ã »çÀÌÆ®(www.lenr-canr.org)¿¡¼­ º¼
¼ö ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù. À̵éÀº '»ó¿Â À¶ÇÕ'(cold fusion)À̶ó´Â ¿ë¾î ´ë½Å¿¡ 'Àú ¿¡³Ê
Áö ÇÙ¹ÝÀÀ'(Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, LENR) ¶Ç´Â 'È­ÇÐÀû º¸Á¶ ÇÙ
¹ÝÀÀ'(Chemically Assisted Nuclear Reactions, CANR)À̶ó´Â ¿ë¾î¸¦ »ç¿ë
ÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Â °Í °°½À´Ï´Ù.

¾Æ·¡ ÂüÁ¶ 1Àº ICCF-10¿¡ ÁîÀ½ÇÏ¿© ¹Ì±¹ È­ÇÐȸ ´º½º·¹ÅÍ(C&EN)¿¡ ½Ç¸°
³íÆòÀÔ´Ï´Ù. ´ÙÀ½ ³íÆòÀÇ Á¦¸ñ°ú °°ÀÌ '»ó¿Â À¶ÇÕ'À» '¹ÏÀ½ÀÇ °úÇÐ'(belief
science) ³»Áö '¹Ù¶÷ÀÇ °úÇÐ'(wishful science)À̶ó°í ¸»ÇÏ°í ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù.

SCIENCE, RELIGION, AND THE ART OF COLD FUSION(°úÇÐ, Á¾±³,
±×¸®°í »ó¿Â À¶ÇÕ ±â¼ú)
Despite quite opposite fundamental roots, science and religion can both
rely on faith(¾ÆÁÖ »ó¹ÝµÈ ±Ùº» »Ñ¸®¿¡µµ ºÒ±¸ÇÏ°í °úÇаú Á¾±³°¡ ¸ðµÎ ½Å
¾Ó¿¡ ÀÇÁ¸ÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù)

ICCF-10¿¡´Â ´ëÇÐ ±³¼ö µî ÇÐÀÚµéÀÌ Âü¿©ÇÏ°í Àֱ⠶§¹®¿¡ ÀÌ·¯ÇÑ ³íÆò¿¡
´ëÇØ ¹ÝÀÀÇÒ °ÍÀÌ ºÐ¸íÇÕ´Ï´Ù. ¾Æ·¡ ÂüÁ¶ 2´Â »ó¿Â À¶ÇÕ ¹Ý°æ¿¡¼­ Àß ¾Ë·Á
Áø ¸¶ÀϽº(Melvin H. Miles)ÀÇ ¹Ý·Ð Åõ°í ±ÛÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

±×´Â ICCF-10¿¡¼­ ¹ßÇ¥µÈ ÀϺ», Áß±¹, À̽º¶ó¿¤, ÀÌÅ»¸®¾Æ µî ±¹°¡¿¡¼­ Çà
ÇÑ ½ÇÇèÀÌ 1989³â ÇöóÀ̽´¸¸(Martin Fleischmann)°ú Æù½º(B. Stanley
Pons)¿¡ ÀÇÇØ º¸°íµÈ »ó¿Â À¶ÇÕ È¿°ú¸¦ È®ÁõÇØ ÁÖ¾ú´Ù°í ¸»ÇÕ´Ï´Ù. »ó¿Â
À¶ÇÕÀ» ºÎÁ¤ÇÑ ½ÇÇè °á°ú°¡ Áß¿ä º¯¼ö¸¦ Á¦´ë·Î °í·ÁÇÏÁö ¾Ê°í Á¤È®ÇÑ ¿­
ÃøÁ¤ ¹æ¹ý¿¡ ´ëÇØ ¾ËÁö ¸øÇÑ °¡¿îµ¥ ³ª¿Ô´Ù´Â ¸»µµ ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù. ¸¶Áö¸· ´ë¸ñ
ÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

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. (°úÇаè´Â °úÇÐÀû ¹æ¹ýÀ» ºÒÇÊ
¿äÇÑ Á¶·ÕÀ¸·Î ´ë½ÅÇÏ´Â °Í»Ó¸¸ ¾Æ´Ï¶ó ¾ÕÀ¸·Î ƯÀÌÇÑ »õ·Î¿î °á°ú¿¡ ´ëÇÑ
¾î¶°ÇÑ ¼º±ÞÇÑ ÆǴܵµ °æ°èÇÒ ÇÊ¿ä°¡ ÀÖ´Ù.)

"°­¹Ú»çÀÇ ÃÊ°úÇÐ »êÃ¥"¿¡ »ó¿Â À¶ÇÕÀÇ Á¦¹Ý ¾ç»óÀ» ´Ù·é ÀûÀÌ ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù.
»ó¿Â À¶ÇÕ ¹Ý°æÀÇ ÁÖÀåÀÌ Áø½ÇÀÌ ¾Æ´Ï¶ó¸é À̵éÀ» ÀáÀç¿ï ¼ö ÀÖ´Â ¹æ¹ýÀº
°ú°Å Ãʽɸ®ÇÐ ¹Ý°æÀÇ ÃÊ´É·Â ÁÖÀå¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ½ºÄÎƽ½ºÀÇ ¿ªÇÒÀÌ ±×·¯ÇßµíÀÌ
À̵éÀÇ ½ÇÇè °á°ú¿¡ ´ëÇÑ Á÷Á¢ÀûÀÎ ºñÆÇÀÌ ÇÊ¿äÇÒ °ÍÀ̶ó°í »ý°¢ÇÕ´Ï´Ù.
ICCF-10 °á°ú µî¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ºñÆÇÀÌ ¹ß°ßµÇ¸é Ãß°¡ÇÏ¿© °Ô½ÃÇÏ°Ú½À´Ï´Ù. 

----------------------
*ÂüÁ¶ 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.

----------------------
* ÂüÁ¶ 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.
===========================

ÀÌ°÷¿¡ °Ô½ÃµÈ '»ó¿Â ÇÙÀ¶ÇÕÀÇ Áø»ó'(1999³â 11¿ù 24ÀÏ)À̶ó´Â ±ÛÀ» ÂüÁ¶ÇÏ
½Ã±â ¹Ù¶ø´Ï´Ù. »ó¿Â ÇÙÀ¶ÇÕ(cold fusion)Àº '¹Ù¶÷ÀÇ °úÇÐ'(wishful science)
À̶ó°í ºñÆǹްí ÀÖÁö¸¸, Áö±Ýµµ ¼Ò¼öÀÌÁö¸¸ ¿¬±¸ÇÏ´Â ÇÐÀÚµéÀÌ ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù.
À̵é°ú À̵éÀÇ Áý³äÀ» ºñ³­ÇÒ ¼ö´Â ¾ø½À´Ï´Ù. °úÇÐÀ̶õ Áý³äÀÌ ¾øÀÌ´Â ³ª
¿ÀÁö ¾Ê±â ¶§¹®ÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

°úÇп¡¼­´Â ³í¹® ¿Ü¿¡ ³ë·Â°ú ´É·ÂÀ» ÀÎÁ¤¹Þ±â À§ÇØ ³» º¸ÀÏ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â °ÍÀÌ
¾ø½À´Ï´Ù. ³í¹®ÀÌ ¾øÀ¸¸é ¿¬±¸ºñ¸¦ ¹ÞÀ» ¼ö ¾ø°í ÅõÀÚ¸¦ À¯Ä¡ÇÒ ¼ö ¾ø½À´Ï
´Ù. µû¶ó¼­ »ó¿Â ÇÙÀ¶ÇÕ ¿¬±¸ÀÚµéÀº ÀÚ½ÅÀÇ ¿¬±¸°á°ú¸¦ ÀÎÁ¤¹Þ´Â ÇмúÀâÁö
¿¡ ¹ßÇ¥ÇÏ·Á°í ÇÕ´Ï´Ù. ÀÌ¿Í °ü·ÃÇÏ¿© ¾Æ·¡ 2001³â 12¿ù 24ÀÏ, ¹Ì±¹ È­ÇÐȸ
´º½º·¹ÅÍ¿¡ µ¶ÀÚÅõ°í Çü½ÄÀ¸·Î °ÔÀçµÈ ±ÛÀ» ¿ø¹®À¸·Î ¼Ò°³ÇÕ´Ï´Ù.

À̵éÀº »ó¿Â ÇÙÀ¶ÇÕÀÌ ±× µ¿¾È ¿¬±¸µÈ ½ÇÇèÀû ÀÌ·ÐÀû ÀÚ·á·Î º¼ ¶§ º´Àû
°úÇÐ(pathological science)À¸·Î °£ÁÖµÉ ¼ö ¾ø´Ù°í ¸»ÇÕ´Ï´Ù. ±×·³¿¡µµ ÀÌ
ºÐ¾ß Åõ°í ³í¹®Àº ½É»çÁ¶Â÷ ¹ÞÀ» ¼ö ¾øµµ·Ï ¿Ü¸é ´çÇÏ°í Àִµ¥, ÀÌ´Â ÀÚ
°¡±³Á¤(self-correction)À̶ó´Â °úÇÐÀû ÆÇ°á°úÁ¤ÀÇ ÁßÁö¸¦ ÀǹÌÇÑ´Ù°í Çß½À
´Ï´Ù. 

°úÇÐÀû ÆÇ°áÀº ¾î´À ±ÇÀ§ÀÚ(ÆÇ»ç¶ó°í ÇÒ±î¿ä?)°¡ ³»¸®´Â °ÍÀÌ ¾Æ´Õ´Ï´Ù. ÀÏ
Á¤ ¼öÁØÀÇ (ÃÖ»óÀ̶ó´Â Àǹ̰¡ ¾Æ´Õ´Ï´Ù) ¿¬±¸°á°ú°¡ Çü½ÄÀ» °®Ãá ³í¹®À¸
·Î ¹ßÇ¥µÇ¸é ±× ³í¹®À» ÀÐÀº ±× ºÐ¾ß ¸ðµç °úÇÐÀÚ(¹è½É¿øÀ̶ó°í ÇÒ±î¿ä?)
¿¡ ÀÇÇØ ÆÇ°áµË´Ï´Ù. °á°ú¿¡ ½Åºù¼ºÀÌ ¾øÀ¸¸é ÀÚ¿¬È÷ »ç¶óÁý´Ï´Ù. ±× ¾È¿¡
°¡´É¼ºÀÌ ÀÖÀ¸¸é ´Ù¸¥ °úÇÐÀڵ鵵 Èï¹Ì¸¦ °®°í ¿¬±¸ÇÕ´Ï´Ù. 

ÀÌ·¸°Ô Çؼ­ °úÇÐÀÌ ¹ßÀüÇÏ´Â °ÍÀ̸ç, »ó¿Â ÇÙÀ¶ÇÕ ³í¹®¿¡ ´ëÇØ °øÁ¤ÇÑ ½É
»ç¿Í °ÔÀçÀÇ ±âȸ°¡ ÁÖ¾îÁ®¾ß ÇÑ´Ù´Â °ÍÀº Ʋ¸²¾ø½À´Ï´Ù. ¾Æ·¡ ±ÛÀº À̸¦
¸»ÇÏ°í ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù. ±×·¯³ª À̵éÀÇ Åõ°í ³í¹®ÀÌ ¹ßÇ¥ ±âÁØ¿¡ ÀûÇÕÇÑ ÁúÀû ¿ä
°ÇÀ» °®Ãß¾ú´ÂÁö´Â ´Ù¸¥ ¹®Á¦ÀÔ´Ï´Ù. ³í¹®Àº °¡¼³, ½ÇÇè, ÀϹÝÈ­µÈ °á·Ð Àü
ü¿¡ ´çÀ§¼º, ½ÇÇèÀû Á¤È®¼º°ú ÃæºÐ¼ºÀ» °®Ãß¾î¾ß ÇÏ¸ç ³í¸®Àû ¿À·ù°¡ ¾ø
¾î¾ß ÇÕ´Ï´Ù.
   
..................................... 
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.
..............................................