Re: THE WORLD NEEDS COLD FUSION.

On Jul 27, 10:28 am, schu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Richard Schultz) wrote:
> In sci.physics.fusion Benj <bjac...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> : On Jul 27, 12:53 am, schu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Richard Schultz) wrote:

> Your complete failure to add anything to the discussion that would
require
> a knowledge of physics implies that you have no knowledge of physics.

I have added suggestions and evidence that points to ways cold fusion
COULD work, all you've added is a rehash of high energy nuclear
physics which we already knew going in was a wrong explanation.
Standard faith-based physics dogma does not work to "debunk" phenomena
where it doesn't apply.  It's just a snow job.

> : And you might add how you came to have knowledge of all the laws of
> : physics that haven't been discovered yet.
>
> The word you're looking for is "strawman."  If you have some reason to
> believe that there is some non-miraculous mechanism by which the normal
> decay channels of an excited 4He nucleus can be completely surpressed,
> by all means, share it with us.  "We don't know all of the laws of
physics"
> doesn't cut it, since D+D fusion *has* been observed at room
temperature, and
> the branching ratio is just what one would expect it to be based on
> known physics.

And while we are on the subject of "strawman" let us note that
"proving" low energy reactions can't take place because high energy
physics says they can't is no proof of anything.  If you actually wish
to have a real discussion here, you'd better start talking about The
Salam-Weinberg theory, weak neutral currents, neutrinos, anti-
nuetrinos and all the rest.  But your goal only seems to be to piss
into the wind rather than to examine how cold fusion COULD work. I've
pointed to numerous corners of physics where hints abound. You've just
pointed to theory and data that clearly does not and in fact COULD NOT
ever apply.  You are a guy a lost a quarter over here but are looking
over there because the light is better!  I guess something like the
Nobel Prize in Physics for 1979 isn't "establishment" enough for you.
Psst. The front of your ****rt is wet!

Plus you attempt to end all discussion with some kind of statement
that all the relevant discussion was made back in 1989-1994 and there
is nothing left to be said unless you personally approve of it. Kinda
arrogant, aren't you?

> You might also consider the practical question that I've already asked:
> nearly 20 years ago, Pons and Fleischmann claimed to *already have* a
> working prototype of a cold fusion water heater.  Where is the water
heater?
> Providing a working CF device would obviate any need for theoretical
> explations of how it works.

Sure, and this proves?  This is the old "If the government secretly
has UFOs then either take me to see one or bring one to my front lawn
otherwise anything you say can safely be totally disregarded".  Right.
Sure.   Perhaps you can explain to me why Pons and Fleishmann have not
yet committed "suicide" with three gunshots to the back of the head?
THAT is the real question here.  [And I might add that the fact that
they haven't is pretty good evidence that their experiments are NOT
definitive]

Please explain how a working device "obviates the need" for theory?
Clearly your interests are ONLY in "debunking" the whole concept of
low energy interactions. Experimental proof does not mean that one
cannot develop theories for low energy interactions and Theories of
interactions can certainly take place without any definitive proof
that such a device could be build in some manner.  The problem here is
that you wish not only to not discuss these issues, but you want to
try to stop everybody else from discussing them as well!  If you can't
add something constructive here, how about you just shut up?