Re: THE WORLD NEEDS COLD FUSION.

Hi Mr. Schultz and all.

On Jul 27, 9:55 pm, schu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Richard Schultz) wrote:
> In sci.physics.fusion Benj <bjac...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> : 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.
>
> Muon-catalyzed fusion occurs at room temperature, and indeed, until Pons
> and Flesichmann came along, was the process known as "cold fusion."  The
> branching ratio is the same as in high-temperature fusion, which is not
> surprising -- the excited state of the 4He* produced by D+D is much
higher
> in energy than the kinetic energy of the typical atom even at solar
> temperatures.
>
> You have added no suggestions or evidence that points to anything other
than
> "Then a miracle occurs."
>
> : Standard faith-based physics dogma does not work to "debunk" phenomena
> : where it doesn't apply.  It's just a snow job.
>
> Your ignorance of how science works is almost as total as your ignorance
> of physics.
>
> :> 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.
>
> What part of "D+D fusion *has* been observed at room temperature" is
> too difficult for you to follow?
>
> : 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.
>
> None of that has anything to do with the issue at hand.  D+D fusion is
> a process that depends on the strong force, not the weak force.
>
> : But your goal only seems to be to piss
> : into the wind rather than to examine how cold fusion COULD work.
>
> No, my goal is to point out that there has been no compelling evidence
that
> cold fusion *does* work, so there is no point in trying to figure out
> how it *could* work, given that there is a *lot* of evidence, much of
> which is very basic physics (e.g. the special theory of relativity),
that
> cold fusion as it proponents claim it works is *very* unlikely to be a
> real phenomenon.
>
> : 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!
>
> What does the Nobel Prize in Physics for 1979 have to do with fusion?
>
> : 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?
>
> The relevant discussion was held in s.p.f. at the time that the
experiments
> were being performed.  Many people (including several people far more
> knowledgeable in the field than I am) pointed out the flaws in the
> experiments used to "demonstrate" the existence of the phenomenon and
the
> hypotheses used to "explain" it.  One of those people, by the way, was
> Steve Jones, who was one of the first people to propose the possibility
> of cold fusion, and who retracted his claims when he discovered the
flaws
> in his original experimental setup.
>
> I suggest that you read the transcript of Irving Langmuir's famous
lecture
> on "Pathological Science" that was reprinted in _Physics Today_ in late
> 1989 (I can't remember offhand which issue -- it was sometime between
> September and November).
>
> :> 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.
>
> You seem to have a great deal of trouble with reading comprehension.
> Pons and Fleischmann made two claims: (1) to have discovered a process
> of "cold fusion" in Pd and (2) that they had a *working* *prototype* of
a
> device that was powered by cold fusion.  This was not a government
secret --
> it was on the front page of the newspaper.
>
> : 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?
>
> Because the real world doesn't work the way that conspiracy nuts such as
> yourself would have it.
>
> : Please explain how a working device "obviates the need" for theory?
>
> Because if the device works, it doesn't matter *how* it works.  One can
> happily build the device and sell it and leave the issue of how it works
> to the theorists.  That Pons and Fleischmann, or none of the other true
> believers, have managed to construct a working device, or to provide a
> reproducible experiment that has a signal outside of the noise, is
strong
> evidence that the effect does not exist.

Possibly they don't know how to do it yet.
Silicon with some impurity has revolutionized
electronics, it took a century of electricity
research to finally get that reproducible.
It looks quite plausible to me that fusion
can occur within Pd+ with sufficient current.

They seem to know a fair amount about electron
flow in metal, but less about Deuterium flow,
which is a critical apart from trial and error,
to reproduciblity.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
....