Science and Technology news... :: View topic

Eeyore · Guest

Benj wrote:

[quote]On Jul 26, 10:08 am, "Cwatters"
colin.wattersNOS...@TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote:

Why not be more positive? Perhaps you could start by discussing how you
think it might be made to work.

Well since you are taking a reasonable approach, I see no reason why I
might not do the same! First let me say that I have not personally
investigated any of the "cold fusion" claims and research and am not
asserting that any of them actually work!
[/quote]
Start here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion

Graham

Richard Schultz · Guest

In sci.physics.fusion Benj <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote:

: Isn>t it amazing how when tools of the establishment show up to
: ridicule and "debunk" any topic that is to be discouraged from any
: reasonable discussion, they always have to have the last word?

The reasonable discussion of cold fusion was held roughly from 1989-1994.
If you have anything new to add to it, please feel free to go ahead.

-----
Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
". . .Mr Schutz [sic] acts like a functional electro-terrorist who
impeads [sic] scientific communications with his too oft-silliness."
-- Mitchell Swartz, sci.physics.fusion article <EEI1oz.43q@world.std.com>

Richard Schultz · Guest

In sci.physics.fusion Vince Morgan <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
: "Richard Schultz" <schultr@mail.biu.ack.il> wrote in message
: news:g6c2s4$vsg$1@news.iucc.ac.il...

:> Isn>t it amazing? When a reported discovery violates fundamental
:> principles of physics, it suddenly seems to disappear into a black hole,
:> and anyone who suggests a connection between the two is accused (by people
:> who don>t know anything about physics) of being part of some huge
:> secret conspiracy that only the accuser knows about.

: And now a chemist knows all there is to know about nuclear physics.
: Get real.

I have never claimed to know all there is to know about nuclear physics --
only enough about the fundamental principles of physics in general to
know that "cold fusion" violates them. Or, to put it another way, my
knowledge of nuclear physics is greater than zero; yours is equal to zero.

-----
Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
". . .Mr Schutz [sic] acts like a functional electro-terrorist who
impeads [sic] scientific communications with his too oft-silliness."
-- Mitchell Swartz, sci.physics.fusion article <EEI1oz.43q@world.std.com>

Bob Myers · Guest

"Benj" <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:261d02b5-fe6a-4a76-b1d4-d74c52b7c26e@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
[quote]Here>s where I think so many physicists have jumped the track. Nuclear
reactions in the present era are well known to exist. Atomic bombs
and accelerators of various types have shown that if you "smash"
things together these kinds of reactions do occur. And it is widely
established that for these kinds of primitive reactions a lot of
energy is required to make them go.
[/quote]
You really should learn some very basic physics before you
try to comment on this subject.

"Smashing things together" is a very crude and misleading description
of how an atomic bomb works. You might start by thinking about
what the term "critical mass" means.

[quote]The answer to the earnest student of these subjects would be a
resounding "yes". I refer of course, to the "low energy
transmutations" proposed and studied by C. Louis Kervran and others.
[/quote]
You mispelled "gullible" as "earnest" in the above.

Kervran>s "theories" (which in truth never came close to meeting
the criteria to be considered "theories" in the scientific sense) are
among the most thoroughly debunked in the biological sciences.

Bob M.

Benj · Guest

On Jul 26, 8:05 pm, "Bob Myers" <nospample...@address.invalid> wrote:

[quote]You really should learn some very basic physics before you
try to comment on this subject.
[/quote]
Perhaps you might learn a little bit about scientific research and
physics yourself before you start judging how much other people know.
This kind of comment is meaningless. You clearly have no knowledge of
basic physics yourself, save what you have read in "Wikipedia"! Sure,
that>s the ultimate source of knowledge! Did you write the article on
"atomic bombs" yourself?

[quote]"Smashing things together" is a very crude and misleading description
of how an atomic bomb works. You might start by thinking about
what the term "critical mass" means.
[/quote]
This proves you are a moron. You clearly have no understanding of
nuclear physics and have very limited reading comprehension as well.
You can start by thinking about what the term "atom smasher" means.
You may use Wikipedia to find an answer.

Idiot.

[quote]The answer to the earnest student of these subjects would be a
resounding "yes". I refer of course, to the "low energy
transmutations" proposed and studied by C. Louis Kervran and others.

You mispelled "gullible" as "earnest" in the above.
[/quote]
And you misspelled "mispelled" you ignorant fool. Yeah spelling
flames, that wins the debate of who knows more science EVERY time!!!
I take it you call any student "gullible" who does not accept without
question each and every lie that falls from your spewing lips. Most
of us in science call accepting statements without data or proof
"gullible".

Schmuck.

[quote]Kervran>s "theories" (which in truth never came close to meeting
the criteria to be considered "theories" in the scientific sense) are
among the most thoroughly debunked in the biological sciences.
[/quote]
Cite please? Do you speak fluent French? I heard that CIA employees
are often fluent in several languages. Oh, I get it. The old "proof by
assertion" where your opinion is so important that no other proof is
needed! Oh, I forgot, you won>t "like me anymore" unless I accept
every statement you make without hesitation. Hint: I don>t give a
rat>s ass if you "like" me.

I can see that CWatters call for a sane, reasonable, and adult
discussion of this topic had no effect on you.

Clearly you are a shill attempting (as I so eloquently pointed out
above in this thread) to steer this topic away from any reasonable
discussions.

Or more likely:
Paid Shill.

Why don>t you just take your flim-flam and bugger off?

Vince Morgan · Guest

"Richard Schultz" <schultr@mail.biu.ack.il> wrote in message
news:g6gv05$oln$2@news.iucc.ac.il...
[quote]In sci.physics.fusion Vince Morgan <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
: "Richard Schultz" <schultr@mail.biu.ack.il> wrote in message
: news:g6c2s4$vsg$1@news.iucc.ac.il...

:> Isn>t it amazing? When a reported discovery violates fundamental
:> principles of physics, it suddenly seems to disappear into a black
hole,
:> and anyone who suggests a connection between the two is accused (by
people
:> who don>t know anything about physics) of being part of some huge
:> secret conspiracy that only the accuser knows about.

http://www.spawar.navy.mil/sti/publications/pubs/tr/1862/tr1862-vol1.pdf[/quote]
[]
Technical Report 1862 Febuary 2002
Thermal and Nuclear aspects of the Pd/D20 system

Volume 1: A Decade of Research at Navay Laboratories
[]

Within the forward please read the following.
[qoute]
By the Second Inernationl Conference on Cold Fusion, held at Vill Olmo,
Como, Italy, in June/July 1991, the attitude toward cold fusion was
beginning to take on a more scientific basis. The number of flash-in-the-pan
"believers" had diminished, and the "skeptics" were beginning to be faced
with having to explain the anomalous phenomenon, which by this time had been
observed by many credible scientists throughout the world.
[/quote]
Please pay particular attention to 'credible scientists'. Where do you fit
into this picture Ritchard?
And within same forword, a little further down one may read the following.
[quote]
At China Lake, Dr. Miles and his collaborators showed that a correlation
exists between the rate of the excess enthalpy generation and the quantity
of helium in the gas stream. Such a correlation is the direct evidence of
the nuclear origin of the Fleischmann-Pons effect.
[/quote]
I shan>t bother to continue.
Evidently you know better that the NRL. What would they know?
Vince Morgan

Vince Morgan · Guest

"Richard Schultz" <schultr@mail.biu.ack.il> wrote in message
news:g6gv05$oln$2@news.iucc.ac.il...
[quote]In sci.physics.fusion Vince Morgan <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
: "Richard Schultz" <schultr@mail.biu.ack.il> wrote in message
: news:g6c2s4$vsg$1@news.iucc.ac.il...

:> Isn>t it amazing? When a reported discovery violates fundamental
:> principles of physics, it suddenly seems to disappear into a black
hole,
:> and anyone who suggests a connection between the two is accused (by
people
:> who don>t know anything about physics) of being part of some huge
:> secret conspiracy that only the accuser knows about.

: And now a chemist knows all there is to know about nuclear physics.
: Get real.

I have never claimed to know all there is to know about nuclear physics --
only enough about the fundamental principles of physics in general to
know that "cold fusion" violates them. Or, to put it another way, my
knowledge of nuclear physics is greater than zero; yours is equal to zero.
[/quote]
And evidently you know this via the same means you know 'enough' to decide
that 'for all of eternity' no one will ever find anything within nuclear
physics that might not fit into your (and many of similar ilk) self admitted
limited knowlege of nuclear physics.
I>m pleased to see you don>t allow your imited knowlege to interfere with
your unlimited judgements.
What I do or do not know about nuclear physics is 'completely' unknown to
you.

Richard Schultz · Guest

In sci.physics.fusion Vince Morgan <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au> wrote:

: If the 'evidence' is contrary to current understanding, then either the
: evidence is false, or the 'understanding' is.
: The evidence has been observed by 'credible scientists'.

That is a necessary but not a sufficient condition. Most of the "scientists"
who have "observed" "Cold Fusion" have in fact not been "credible," and
even "credible" scientists can be wrong.

: This suggests that the current understanding is what is in need
: of correction.

If a "credible scientist" repeats the Michelson-Morley experiment and finds
results contrary to the theory of relativity, does that mean that the
theory of relativity is in need of correction?

: Unless we are to rashly conclude that the scientists at the NRL and other
: notable institutions are a bunch of incompetent fools we should take note of
: the 'evidence', should we not? Your apparent ignoring of the quoted
: material is screaming louder than I can.

I dealt with the papers at the time that they came out, or within a couple
of years of their having come out. You can check the spf archives for
my comments, which I feel no need to repeat. Many of the experiments
were clearly done incompetently.

: So, please offer some credible explaination for the excess enthalpy and the
: 'coresponding' helium production.

The enthalpy was measured improperly; in some cases, possible sources of
error were not considered, and in others, the experiments were not done
competently.

The measurements of "corresponding" helium production were (to my knowledge)
without except carried out improperly, and hence the results were meaningless.

-----
Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You don>t even have a clue about which clue you>re missing."

Vince Morgan · Guest

"Richard Schultz" <schultr@mail.biu.ack.il> wrote in message
news:g6h7c4$t1s$1@news.iucc.ac.il...
[quote]In sci.physics.fusion Vince Morgan <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au> wrote:

: What I do or do not know about nuclear physics is 'completely' unknown
to
: you.

Actually, it>s fairly clear that your knowledge of nuclear physics is
zero, as if it were non-zero, you would know why "cold fusion" as touted
by its enthusiasts is *extremely* unlikely to be a real phenomenon, and
instead of relying on personal attacks on me, you would have dealt with
some of the actual scientific issues, e.g., how an interaction of on
the order of eV can possibly affect a process of on the order of 10 MeV.

I wouldn>t. That would be to go down a very well trodden track. And you[/quote]
and I would be simply arguing what so many others have already argued.
I>m not the one saying that 'Coldfusion' is real, nor, obviously am I saying
it>s not. What I am saying is as follows.
If the 'evidence' is contrary to current understanding, then either the
evidence is false, or the 'understanding' is.
The evidence has been observed by 'credible scientists'. This suggests that
the current understanding is what is in need of correction.
Unless we are to rashly conclude that the scientists at the NRL and other
notable institutions are a bunch of incompetent fools we should take note of
the 'evidence', should we not? Your apparent ignoring of the quoted
material is screaming louder than I can.
However, I haven>t offered you the same courtesy that you have offered
myself.
So, please offer some credible explaination for the excess enthalpy and the
'coresponding' helium production. Then I>ll feel obliged to answer your
question.
By the way, the ad hominem did not begin with myself either, please read
your prior posts. However, I do feel a little embarrased at my descent into
such, and will not repeat it.
You have my appologies.
Vince Morgan

Benj · Guest

On Jul 27, 12:53 am, schu...@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:

[quote]I have never claimed to know all there is to know about nuclear physics --
only enough about the fundamental principles of physics in general to
know that "cold fusion" violates them. Or, to put it another way, my
knowledge of nuclear physics is greater than zero; yours is equal to zero.
[/quote]
And the way you know what my knowledge of nuclear physics is?
And you might add how you came to have knowledge of all the laws of
physics that haven>t been discovered yet.

You clearly have nothing of value to add to this conversation.

Yawn.

Richard Schultz · Guest

In sci.physics.fusion Benj <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote:
: On Jul 27, 12:53 am, schu...@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:

:> I have never claimed to know all there is to know about nuclear physics --
:> only enough about the fundamental principles of physics in general to
:> know that "cold fusion" violates them. Or, to put it another way, my
:> knowledge of nuclear physics is greater than zero; yours is equal to zero.

: And the way you know what my knowledge of nuclear physics is?

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

: 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.

If you have some reason to believe that moving two nuclei further apart
will increase their chances of undergoing fusion, by all means, share it
with us. I would consider such a scenario to be unlikely a priori, but
I>m sure that you have an explanation.

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.

-----
Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
". . .Mr Schutz [sic] acts like a functional electro-terrorist who
impeads [sic] scientific communications with his too oft-silliness."
-- Mitchell Swartz, sci.physics.fusion article <EEI1oz.43q@world.std.com>

Androcles · Guest

"Richard Schultz" <schultr@mail.biu.ack.il> wrote in message
news:g6hfaa$16d$2@news.iucc.ac.il...
| In sci.physics.fusion Vince Morgan <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
|
| : If the 'evidence' is contrary to current understanding, then either the
| : evidence is false, or the 'understanding' is.
| : The evidence has been observed by 'credible scientists'.
|
| That is a necessary but not a sufficient condition. Most of the
"scientists"
| who have "observed" "Cold Fusion" have in fact not been "credible," and
| even "credible" scientists can be wrong.
|
| : This suggests that the current understanding is what is in need
| : of correction.
|
| If a "credible scientist" repeats the Michelson-Morley experiment and
finds
| results contrary to the theory of relativity, does that mean that the
| theory of relativity is in need of correction?

Yes, of course. And if he spins MMX he>ll get a positive result.

Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?

"Easy: he did NOT say that." - cretin harald.vanlintelButNotThis@epfl.ch
According to moron van lintel, Einstein did not write the equation he wrote.

According to xxein:
It is an artefactual/superficially imposed yin-yang of sorts.

According to Lamenting Shubert:
Why do you want to know?

" In neither system (meaning frame of reference in modern-day terminology)
is the speed of light c-v or c+v. In both systems the speed of light is c."
-- cretin Jimmy Black fmlast3@organization.edu.
According to the imbecile Jimmy Black, Einstein did not write the equation
he wrote.

According to Dork Bruere
"I don>t give a damn what Einstein wrote."

Benj · Guest

On Jul 27, 10:28 am, schu...@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:
[quote]In sci.physics.fusion Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
: On Jul 27, 12:53 am, schu...@mail.biu.ack.il (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.
[/quote]
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.

[quote]: 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.
[/quote]
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 shirt 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?

[quote]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.
[/quote]
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?

Richard Schultz · Guest

In sci.physics.fusion Benj <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote:
: On Jul 27, 10:28 am, schu...@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:
:> In sci.physics.fusion Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
:> : On Jul 27, 12:53 am, schu...@mail.biu.ack.il (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 shirt 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.

-----
Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
". . .Mr Schutz [sic] acts like a functional electro-terrorist who
impeads [sic] scientific communications with his too oft-silliness."
-- Mitchell Swartz, sci.physics.fusion article <EEI1oz.43q@world.std.com>

Ken S. Tucker · Guest

Hi Mr. Schultz and all.

On Jul 27, 9:55 pm, schu...@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:
[quote]In sci.physics.fusion Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
: On Jul 27, 10:28 am, schu...@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:
:> In sci.physics.fusion Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
:> : On Jul 27, 12:53 am, schu...@mail.biu.ack.il (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 shirt 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.
[/quote]
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
....


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Electronics - Miscellaneous Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Page 2 of 5