The Big NIF Dis

NIF Beam Lines

True, the NIF was built as a weapons facility, and that’s a big strike against it in the warm, fuzzy world of today. That’s not the whole story, though. The “ignition” in National Ignition Facility means inertial fusion ignition, and a great number of dedicated scientists have devoted their careers to the proposition that fusion ignition will usher in an era of clean energy with a virtually limitless fuel supply. I, personally, find that proposition dubious, at least with the hot spot ignition approach currently envisioned for the NIF. However, a lot of outstanding scientists who probably know more of the relevant physics than I are not similarly dubious, and believe the daunting technical, economic, and engineering hurdles on the path to inertial fusion energy can be overcome.

Now, 35 long, difficult years after the first confirmation of fusion neutrons produced by laser implosion, we finally have an operational facility capable, according to the theorists, of achieving significant energy gain, and we stand on the threshold of the decisive series of ignition experiments that are likely to determine whether they’re right or wrong once and for all. It seems to me that those who have dedicated their lives to a goal they believe will be of incalculable value to all mankind should now, at least, be given a fair shot at achieving that goal. The tool they need is in their hands. Given what’s at stake, not to mention the massive amounts we’ve recently been spending on far less worthy goals, does it not seem logical to give them a chance?

Perhaps Secretary Chu does not agree. It would certainly seem so. NNSA, a part of DOE, manages the NIF, and its budget has been cut to the bare bones. This budget slashing cannot help but affect the coming campaign of ignition experiments at the facility. Well, then, if Secretary Chu does not agree, perhaps it would better befit the leader that he is supposed to be to stand up and explain why, instead of playing hide and seek at dedication ceremonies. Those who have worked long and faithfully to make this project a reality deserve no less.

The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing but the Truth

I must leave the question of our ability to know the truth with absolute certainty for others to debate.  For my part, I act according to what appears to me to be closest to the truth, although I realize I can’t be perfectly sure it really is the truth.  Rather, I accept the conclusions that seem to me to have the highest probability of being true, and act on them as if they were the truth.  It seems to me that actions based on the truth are more likely to have a positive outcome than actions based on falsehoods.  Therefore, I reason, investigate, and experiment in order to approach the truth as closely as I can.

Human beings have accomplished some remarkable intellectual feats, but usually by confirming their hypotheses with experiments every step of the way.  Take, for example, the conclusions of several talented physicists regarding the discovery of nuclear fission.  Although they were dealing with processes they couldn’t actually see, they predicted that it would be possible to build a nuclear weapon.  They proceeded to build such a weapon.  The weapon worked.  Therefore, there must have been some element of truth in their original conclusions.  Terrible as its result may be, the development of the bomb was, nevertheless, an awesome achievement of the human mind.  However, it did not result from much spinning of complex intellectual webs, carried out purely in the realm of theory.  Rather, to the extent possible, theory was confirmed by experiment every step of the way.

Despite such remarkable achievements, however, we are far less logical and intelligent than we give ourselves credit for.  Our conclusions about what is true are subject to a host of emotional biases having their origin in “human nature,” the way in which evolution has hard-wired various predispositions and responses in our brains.  We experience reality conditioned by a host of preconceived notions.  As a result, the more complex our theoretical and ideological speculations become, and the further we depart from the realm of experiment, the more likely we are to wander off the path of truth into intellectual swamps.  History is full of cautionary lessons to this effect.  Communism is an outstanding example.  Many others can be drawn from our endless quarrels over obscure matters of religious doctrine. 

The conclusion?  The truth is never “crystal clear,” and no individual or sect, whether political or religious, has a monopoly on it.  It is elusive, and easily lost sight of in the mist.  If you would approach it, do so with due humility, never assuming that you know it in advance.

The SPAWAR Experiments and the Recurring Resurrections of “Cold Fusion”

Tabletop Cold Fusion Experiment (hat tip Indymedia)

There are many government agencies, including the Military that would seem to have at least some interest in promoting research in this area, with DOE in the forefront.  Unfortunately, the appointment of Steve Koonin as the new Under Secretary for Science does not bode well for the new technology.  Steve is a brilliant, conscientious scientist, and would seem to be the ideal man for the job.  However, he was also a prime mover in the scientific community’s initial rejection of cold fusion following its ill-conceived debut back in 1989.  He is unlikely to be enthusiastic about eating crow, as it were, 20 years later.  Be that as it may, DOE just stood up ARPA-E, and handed them $400M to fund just such high risk, high payoff work as this.  It seems eminently reasonable to me that, given the organization’s stated mission, some fraction of this largesse should be devoted to cold fusion research.  In terms of the nation’s overall research budget, we’re talking chump change here.  What do we have to lose?  Is it really worth unleashing a scientific Jihad to stop it? 

For anyone interested in learning more, here are some links to recent publications in the Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) community, some graphics and descriptions of experiments, and a paper disputing the SPAWAR results.

Let reason prevail and the research go forward.

More on Twittering the Revolution in Iran

The Wall Street Journal chimes in with another note of caution.

Perhaps the State will never be as agile and clever as individual expert hackers, but it’s unlikely most of the people Twittering Revolutions will be expert hackers. It’s more likely they will be people who leave behind silicon footprints, making them prime targets for retribution the day after.