misogynisticfeminist
Jul27-04, 08:52 AM
I am very interested in cold fusion, and wonder what are your takes on it? Bogus science or something worth considering? And also, do any of you guys have any hypotheses for the theory of cold fusion?
View Full Version : Cold Fusion
Uncle Al
Jul27-04, 01:50 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no,location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\nmisogynisticfeminist wrote:\n>\n> I am very interested in cold fusion, and wonder what are your takes on\n> it? Bogus science or something worth considering? And also, do any of\n> you guys have any hypotheses for the theory of cold fusion?\n\nCold fusion does not exit.\nPolywater does not exist.\nN-rays do not exit.\nAether does not exist.\nThe Fifth Force does not exist.\nYou cannot talk with your pets at the moment of equinix.\nMagnetic hernia trusses are crap.\nMagnetic fuel filters are crap.\nMagnetic water filters are crap.\nMagnetic arthritis bracelets are crap.\n\nDo you get the idea?\n\nYou will not have thinner thighs in 30 ays.\nYou will not have a washboard tummy.\nIt will not slice, dice, and julienne.\n\nDo you get the idea?\n\nThere is no post-mortem escrow.\nThe government is not here to help you.\nYou won\'t get your money back.\n\nDo you get the idea?\n\n--\nUncle Al\nhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/\n(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)\nhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>misogynisticfeminist wrote:
>
> I am very interested in cold fusion, and wonder what are your takes on
> it? Bogus science or something worth considering? And also, do any of
> you guys have any hypotheses for the theory of cold fusion?
Cold fusion does not exit.
Polywater does not exist.
N-rays do not exit.
Aether does not exist.
The Fifth Force does not exist.
You cannot talk with your pets at the moment of equinix.
Magnetic hernia trusses are crap.
Magnetic fuel filters are crap.
Magnetic water filters are crap.
Magnetic arthritis bracelets are crap.
Do you get the idea?
You will not have thinner thighs in 30 ays.
You will not have a washboard tummy.
It will not slice, dice, and julienne.
Do you get the idea?
There is no post-mortem escrow.
The government is not here to help you.
You won't get your money back.
Do you get the idea?
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
>
> I am very interested in cold fusion, and wonder what are your takes on
> it? Bogus science or something worth considering? And also, do any of
> you guys have any hypotheses for the theory of cold fusion?
Cold fusion does not exit.
Polywater does not exist.
N-rays do not exit.
Aether does not exist.
The Fifth Force does not exist.
You cannot talk with your pets at the moment of equinix.
Magnetic hernia trusses are crap.
Magnetic fuel filters are crap.
Magnetic water filters are crap.
Magnetic arthritis bracelets are crap.
Do you get the idea?
You will not have thinner thighs in 30 ays.
You will not have a washboard tummy.
It will not slice, dice, and julienne.
Do you get the idea?
There is no post-mortem escrow.
The government is not here to help you.
You won't get your money back.
Do you get the idea?
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
tessel@tum.bot
Jul28-04, 04:58 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no,location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\nmisogynisticfeminist asked:\n\n> > I am very interested in cold fusion, and wonder what are your takes on\n> > it? Bogus science or something worth considering? And also, do any of\n> > you guys have any hypotheses for the theory of cold fusion?\n\nUncle Al retorted:\n\n> Cold fusion does not exit.\n\nOnly too true :-)\n\n[snip list of previous extraordinary claims which were -not- followed by\nextraordinary proofs...]\n\nGuessing that "misogynisticfeminist" might be an earnest high school\nstudent, I gloss: Uncle Al is our official curmudgeon, but his attitude\nconcerning delusional beliefs is understandable (and widely shared here,\nif not widely expressed quite so bluntly). In particular, I have no\nreason to think "cold fusion" has any more validity than previous "free\nlunch" scams.\n\nHowever, assuming you are writing a term paper or something like that, and\nhave time for a bit of library research, let me offer a few constructive\nsuggestions:\n\n1. Get your local public librarian to help you search back issues of\n(roughly in order of preference) Nature, Science, New Scientist, American\nScientist, Scientific American, or [if you must] Discover, Newsweek, etc.,\nfor articles or editorials on "cold fusion".\n\n2. Your librarian can probably help you find books on psuedoscience in\ngeneral; if not, try to find a classic little book by the philosopher\nMartin Gardner (later editor of the famous "Mathematical Games" column in\nScientific American):\n\nauthor = {Gardner, Martin},\ntitle = {Fads and fallacies in the name of science},\npublisher = {Dover},\nyear = 1957}\n\nThere may even be a book on cold fusion itself by now, but if so, be\ncautious; take account of the author\'s credentials, etc., in evaluating\nscientific reliability. Generally speaking, as you would expect, books by\nscientists are more scientifically reliable than books by journalists.\nBut since "the cold fusion phenomenon" is probably best thought of as\nprimarily a political/sociological phenomenon rather than a scientific\none, a good investigative journalist could probably write a perfectly\nadequate book on this particular topic.\n\n3. [Optional] I would have thought that the ArXiV\n\nhttp://xxx.lanl.gov\n\nwould have some "general physics" expository papers explaining how the\noriginal investigators messed up so shamefully, but I just looked and it\nseems that there are none! There are some preprints mentioning "cold\nfusion" in their abstracts, but few of these seem to have been published\nin prestigious journals, and I\'d warn laypeople against assuming--- quite\nincorrectly--- that everything you might find in the ArXiv must have at\nleast some scientific merit.\n\n4. [Even more Optional] Google permitting, search the web--- but note that\nthe cautionary remarks above about not assuming what you find has any\nmerit hold with even greater force! As a general rule, stuff you find on\npages hosted by physics departments at accredited research universities in\nthe U.S. are probably generally much more reliable than stuff you find\nposted on some "enthusiast"\'s website.\n\nPossibly (4) would be worthwhile only if you decide you\'d rather write\nabout "why so many people hold weird beliefs in the face of all contrary\nevidence".\n\nHTH,\n\n"T. Essel" (hiding somewhere in cyberspace)\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>misogynisticfeminist asked:
> > I am very interested in cold fusion, and wonder what are your takes on
> > it? Bogus science or something worth considering? And also, do any of
> > you guys have any hypotheses for the theory of cold fusion?
Uncle Al retorted:
> Cold fusion does not exit.
Only too true :-)
[snip list of previous extraordinary claims which were -not- followed by
extraordinary proofs...]
Guessing that "misogynisticfeminist" might be an earnest high school
student, I gloss: Uncle Al is our official curmudgeon, but his attitude
concerning delusional beliefs is understandable (and widely shared here,
if not widely expressed quite so bluntly). In particular, I have no
reason to think "cold fusion" has any more validity than previous "free
lunch" scams.
However, assuming you are writing a term paper or something like that, and
have time for a bit of library research, let me offer a few constructive
suggestions:
1. Get your local public librarian to help you search back issues of
(roughly in order of preference) Nature, Science, New Scientist, American
Scientist, Scientific American, or [if you must] Discover, Newsweek, etc.,
for articles or editorials on "cold fusion".
2. Your librarian can probably help you find books on psuedoscience in
general; if not, try to find a classic little book by the philosopher
Martin Gardner (later editor of the famous "Mathematical Games" column in
Scientific American):
author = {Gardner, Martin},
title = {Fads and fallacies in the name of science},
publisher = {Dover},
year = 1957}
There may even be a book on cold fusion itself by now, but if so, be
cautious; take account of the author's credentials, etc., in evaluating
scientific reliability. Generally speaking, as you would expect, books by
scientists are more scientifically reliable than books by journalists.
But since "the cold fusion phenomenon" is probably best thought of as
primarily a political/sociological phenomenon rather than a scientific
one, a good investigative journalist could probably write a perfectly
adequate book on this particular topic.
3. [Optional] I would have thought that the ArXiV
http://xxx.lanl.gov
would have some "general physics" expository papers explaining how the
original investigators messed up so shamefully, but I just looked and it
seems that there are none! There are some preprints mentioning "cold
fusion" in their abstracts, but few of these seem to have been published
in prestigious journals, and I'd warn laypeople against assuming--- quite
incorrectly--- that everything you might find in the ArXiv must have at
least some scientific merit.
4. [Even more Optional] Google permitting, search the web--- but note that
the cautionary remarks above about not assuming what you find has any
merit hold with even greater force! As a general rule, stuff you find on
pages hosted by physics departments at accredited research universities in
the U.S. are probably generally much more reliable than stuff you find
posted on some "enthusiast"'s website.
Possibly (4) would be worthwhile only if you decide you'd rather write
about "why so many people hold weird beliefs in the face of all contrary
evidence".
HTH,
"T. Essel" (hiding somewhere in cyberspace)
> > I am very interested in cold fusion, and wonder what are your takes on
> > it? Bogus science or something worth considering? And also, do any of
> > you guys have any hypotheses for the theory of cold fusion?
Uncle Al retorted:
> Cold fusion does not exit.
Only too true :-)
[snip list of previous extraordinary claims which were -not- followed by
extraordinary proofs...]
Guessing that "misogynisticfeminist" might be an earnest high school
student, I gloss: Uncle Al is our official curmudgeon, but his attitude
concerning delusional beliefs is understandable (and widely shared here,
if not widely expressed quite so bluntly). In particular, I have no
reason to think "cold fusion" has any more validity than previous "free
lunch" scams.
However, assuming you are writing a term paper or something like that, and
have time for a bit of library research, let me offer a few constructive
suggestions:
1. Get your local public librarian to help you search back issues of
(roughly in order of preference) Nature, Science, New Scientist, American
Scientist, Scientific American, or [if you must] Discover, Newsweek, etc.,
for articles or editorials on "cold fusion".
2. Your librarian can probably help you find books on psuedoscience in
general; if not, try to find a classic little book by the philosopher
Martin Gardner (later editor of the famous "Mathematical Games" column in
Scientific American):
author = {Gardner, Martin},
title = {Fads and fallacies in the name of science},
publisher = {Dover},
year = 1957}
There may even be a book on cold fusion itself by now, but if so, be
cautious; take account of the author's credentials, etc., in evaluating
scientific reliability. Generally speaking, as you would expect, books by
scientists are more scientifically reliable than books by journalists.
But since "the cold fusion phenomenon" is probably best thought of as
primarily a political/sociological phenomenon rather than a scientific
one, a good investigative journalist could probably write a perfectly
adequate book on this particular topic.
3. [Optional] I would have thought that the ArXiV
http://xxx.lanl.gov
would have some "general physics" expository papers explaining how the
original investigators messed up so shamefully, but I just looked and it
seems that there are none! There are some preprints mentioning "cold
fusion" in their abstracts, but few of these seem to have been published
in prestigious journals, and I'd warn laypeople against assuming--- quite
incorrectly--- that everything you might find in the ArXiv must have at
least some scientific merit.
4. [Even more Optional] Google permitting, search the web--- but note that
the cautionary remarks above about not assuming what you find has any
merit hold with even greater force! As a general rule, stuff you find on
pages hosted by physics departments at accredited research universities in
the U.S. are probably generally much more reliable than stuff you find
posted on some "enthusiast"'s website.
Possibly (4) would be worthwhile only if you decide you'd rather write
about "why so many people hold weird beliefs in the face of all contrary
evidence".
HTH,
"T. Essel" (hiding somewhere in cyberspace)
Nick Maclaren
Aug4-04, 02:23 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no,location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>In article <41066624.6D3751F3@hate.spam.net>,\nUncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote:\n>misogynisticfeminist wrote:\n>>\n>> I am very interested in cold fusion, and wonder what are your takes on\n>> it? Bogus science or something worth considering? And also, do any of\n>> you guys have any hypotheses for the theory of cold fusion?\n>\n>Cold fusion does not exit.\n\nI assume you mean exist. Well, you are probably right, but why are\nyou so certain? The proofs that cold fusion is IMPOSSIBLE have as\nmuch handwaving as the proofs that it occurs. Absence of evidence\nis not evidence of absence.\n\nIf you can provide a solid proof that cold fusion is impossible,\nplease share it with us - if you merely have evidence that current\nclaims are based on the marvellous properties of snake oil, please\ndon\'t bother ....\n\nPersonally, I rate it as slightly more likely than FTL travel. I\nintend to pay for my holiday on Arcturus\'s planets with the profits\nfrom my cold fusion shares :-)\n\n\nRegards,\nNick Maclaren.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In article <41066624.6D3751F3@hate.spam.net>,
Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>misogynisticfeminist wrote:
>>
>> I am very interested in cold fusion, and wonder what are your takes on
>> it? Bogus science or something worth considering? And also, do any of
>> you guys have any hypotheses for the theory of cold fusion?
>
>Cold fusion does not exit.
I assume you mean exist. Well, you are probably right, but why are
you so certain? The proofs that cold fusion is IMPOSSIBLE have as
much handwaving as the proofs that it occurs. Absence of evidence
is not evidence of absence.
If you can provide a solid proof that cold fusion is impossible,
please share it with us - if you merely have evidence that current
claims are based on the marvellous properties of snake oil, please
don't bother ....
Personally, I rate it as slightly more likely than FTL travel. I
intend to pay for my holiday on Arcturus's planets with the profits
from my cold fusion shares :-)
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>misogynisticfeminist wrote:
>>
>> I am very interested in cold fusion, and wonder what are your takes on
>> it? Bogus science or something worth considering? And also, do any of
>> you guys have any hypotheses for the theory of cold fusion?
>
>Cold fusion does not exit.
I assume you mean exist. Well, you are probably right, but why are
you so certain? The proofs that cold fusion is IMPOSSIBLE have as
much handwaving as the proofs that it occurs. Absence of evidence
is not evidence of absence.
If you can provide a solid proof that cold fusion is impossible,
please share it with us - if you merely have evidence that current
claims are based on the marvellous properties of snake oil, please
don't bother ....
Personally, I rate it as slightly more likely than FTL travel. I
intend to pay for my holiday on Arcturus's planets with the profits
from my cold fusion shares :-)
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
richard miller
Aug5-04, 04:24 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no,location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Appreciating some of the responses you have had, and I tend to agree, but\ncan only offer unqualified opinion since I have not studied the evidence,\nhere is a book you might like to read\n\n\'Cold fusion The Scientific Fiasco of the Centruy\'\nJohn R Huizenga\nUniversity of Rochester Press\nISBN 1-878822-07-1\n\nIt is a sceptics book - you pays your money... (cost me UK one pound\nsterling, i.e. a dollar or so)\n\nIn the end, Science has to produce reproducible results, predict or explain\nother phenomena, its predictions ultimately have to be measurable. SR, GR,\nQM do this, like them or not. Cold Fusion -seems not so far.\n\nRichard Miller\n\n"misogynisticfeminist" <ugmail544@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message\nnews:misogynisticfeminist.1a0it3@physicsforums.com...\n>\n>\n> I am very interested in cold fusion, and wonder what are your takes on\n> it? Bogus science or something worth considering? And also, do any of\n> you guys have any hypotheses for the theory of cold fusion?\n>\n> ------------------------------------------------------------------------\n> This post submitted through the LaTeX-enabled physicsforums.com\n> To view this post with LaTeX images:\n> http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=36634#post265981\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Appreciating some of the responses you have had, and I tend to agree, but
can only offer unqualified opinion since I have not studied the evidence,
here is a book you might like to read
'Cold fusion The Scientific Fiasco of the Centruy'
John R Huizenga
University of Rochester Press
ISBN 1-878822-07-1
It is a sceptics book - you pays your money... (cost me UK one pound
sterling, i.e. a dollar or so)
In the end, Science has to produce reproducible results, predict or explain
other phenomena, its predictions ultimately have to be measurable. SR, GR,
QM do this, like them or not. Cold Fusion -seems not so far.
Richard Miller
"misogynisticfeminist" <ugmail544@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:misogynisticfeminist.1a0it3@physicsforums.com...
>
>
> I am very interested in cold fusion, and wonder what are your takes on
> it? Bogus science or something worth considering? And also, do any of
> you guys have any hypotheses for the theory of cold fusion?
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This post submitted through the LaTeX-enabled physicsforums.com
> To view this post with LaTeX images:
> http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=36634#post265981
can only offer unqualified opinion since I have not studied the evidence,
here is a book you might like to read
'Cold fusion The Scientific Fiasco of the Centruy'
John R Huizenga
University of Rochester Press
ISBN 1-878822-07-1
It is a sceptics book - you pays your money... (cost me UK one pound
sterling, i.e. a dollar or so)
In the end, Science has to produce reproducible results, predict or explain
other phenomena, its predictions ultimately have to be measurable. SR, GR,
QM do this, like them or not. Cold Fusion -seems not so far.
Richard Miller
"misogynisticfeminist" <ugmail544@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:misogynisticfeminist.1a0it3@physicsforums.com...
>
>
> I am very interested in cold fusion, and wonder what are your takes on
> it? Bogus science or something worth considering? And also, do any of
> you guys have any hypotheses for the theory of cold fusion?
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This post submitted through the LaTeX-enabled physicsforums.com
> To view this post with LaTeX images:
> http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=36634#post265981
branen1
Aug7-04, 06:07 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no,location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren)\n\nHi Nick,\n\n> I assume you mean exist. Well, you are probably right, but why are\n> you so certain?\n\nHe is probably so sure, because there was never ANY evidence for cold\nfusion, "except" of some destroyed lab equipment whose destruction\ncould have been caused by anything...\n\n\n> The proofs that cold fusion is IMPOSSIBLE have as\n> much handwaving as the proofs that it occurs.\n\n????? There is no need to prove that is is "IMPOSSIBLE" to have cold\nfusion. If you claim to have found a new phenomenon you better provide\nsome evidence for it.\n\n\n> Absence of evidence\n> is not evidence of absence.\n\nAbscence of evidence is the best evidence of absence in science.\n\nOtherwise, simply open up a press conference, tell the press that you\nfound, lets say, a 7th quark or so and end with "absence of evidence\nis no evidence of absence". Is everything alright?\n\nRegards,\n\n\nbranen1\n\n>\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren)
Hi Nick,
> I assume you mean exist. Well, you are probably right, but why are
> you so certain?
He is probably so sure, because there was never ANY evidence for cold
fusion, "except" of some destroyed lab equipment whose destruction
could have been caused by anything...
> The proofs that cold fusion is IMPOSSIBLE have as
> much handwaving as the proofs that it occurs.
????? There is no need to prove that is is "IMPOSSIBLE" to have cold
fusion. If you claim to have found a new phenomenon you better provide
some evidence for it.
> Absence of evidence
> is not evidence of absence.
Abscence of evidence is the best evidence of absence in science.
Otherwise, simply open up a press conference, tell the press that you
found, lets say, a 7th quark or so and end with "absence of evidence
is no evidence of absence". Is everything alright?
Regards,
branen1
>
Hi Nick,
> I assume you mean exist. Well, you are probably right, but why are
> you so certain?
He is probably so sure, because there was never ANY evidence for cold
fusion, "except" of some destroyed lab equipment whose destruction
could have been caused by anything...
> The proofs that cold fusion is IMPOSSIBLE have as
> much handwaving as the proofs that it occurs.
????? There is no need to prove that is is "IMPOSSIBLE" to have cold
fusion. If you claim to have found a new phenomenon you better provide
some evidence for it.
> Absence of evidence
> is not evidence of absence.
Abscence of evidence is the best evidence of absence in science.
Otherwise, simply open up a press conference, tell the press that you
found, lets say, a 7th quark or so and end with "absence of evidence
is no evidence of absence". Is everything alright?
Regards,
branen1
>
Nick Maclaren
Aug12-04, 09:30 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no,location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\nIn article <21d9ee84.0408070703.2fa6df16@posting.google.com>,\nbranen1 <branen1@yahoo.de> wrote:\n>\n>> The proofs that cold fusion is IMPOSSIBLE have as\n>> much handwaving as the proofs that it occurs.\n>\n>????? There is no need to prove that is is "IMPOSSIBLE" to have cold\n>fusion. If you claim to have found a new phenomenon you better provide\n>some evidence for it.\n\nYes. If you claim that cold fusion (except muon-catalysed) is pure\nsnake-oil, fine. But the original poster claimed that it was\nimpossible - that is a claim of a negative physical phenomenon (just\nlike the one that perpetual motion machines can\'t exist).\n\nNow, the latter claim has been justified, at least in classical\nphysics. Let\'s not get into the quantum effects.\n\nWhat I am asking for is evidence for the commonly stated claim that\ncold fusion is physically impossible. If you can\'t produce such\nevidence, then please qualify that claim with "almost certainly".\n\n\nRegards,\nNick Maclaren.\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In article <21d9ee84.0408070703.2fa6df16@posting.google.com>,
branen1 <branen1@yahoo.de> wrote:
>
>> The proofs that cold fusion is IMPOSSIBLE have as
>> much handwaving as the proofs that it occurs.
>
>????? There is no need to prove that is is "IMPOSSIBLE" to have cold
>fusion. If you claim to have found a new phenomenon you better provide
>some evidence for it.
Yes. If you claim that cold fusion (except muon-catalysed) is pure
snake-oil, fine. But the original poster claimed that it was
impossible - that is a claim of a negative physical phenomenon (just
like the one that perpetual motion machines can't exist).
Now, the latter claim has been justified, at least in classical
physics. Let's not get into the quantum effects.
What I am asking for is evidence for the commonly stated claim that
cold fusion is physically impossible. If you can't produce such
evidence, then please qualify that claim with "almost certainly".
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
branen1 <branen1@yahoo.de> wrote:
>
>> The proofs that cold fusion is IMPOSSIBLE have as
>> much handwaving as the proofs that it occurs.
>
>????? There is no need to prove that is is "IMPOSSIBLE" to have cold
>fusion. If you claim to have found a new phenomenon you better provide
>some evidence for it.
Yes. If you claim that cold fusion (except muon-catalysed) is pure
snake-oil, fine. But the original poster claimed that it was
impossible - that is a claim of a negative physical phenomenon (just
like the one that perpetual motion machines can't exist).
Now, the latter claim has been justified, at least in classical
physics. Let's not get into the quantum effects.
What I am asking for is evidence for the commonly stated claim that
cold fusion is physically impossible. If you can't produce such
evidence, then please qualify that claim with "almost certainly".
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Doug Goncz
Aug13-04, 06:41 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no,location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>>From: nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren)\n\n>What I am asking for is evidence for the commonly stated claim that\n>cold fusion is physically impossible.\n\nThere can\'t be any. There is plenty of understanding indicating that cold\nfusion won\'t happen.\n\nWhat there can be is evidence that cold fusion has happened. So far, there\nhasn\'t been any.\n\n>If you can\'t produce such\n>evidence, then please qualify that claim with "almost certainly".\n\nCan you produce evidence that cold fusion has happened?\n\nAlmost certainly\n\n\nYours,\n\nDoug Goncz ( ftp://users.aol.com/DGoncz/incoming )\nStudent member SAE for one year.\nI love: Dona, Jeff, Kim, Mom, Neelix, Tasha, and Teri, alphabetically.\nI drive: A double-step Thunderbolt with 657% range.\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>>From: nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren)
>What I am asking for is evidence for the commonly stated claim that
>cold fusion is physically impossible.
There can't be any. There is plenty of understanding indicating that cold
fusion won't happen.
What there can be is evidence that cold fusion has happened. So far, there
hasn't been any.
>If you can't produce such
>evidence, then please qualify that claim with "almost certainly".
Can you produce evidence that cold fusion has happened?
Almost certainly
Yours,
Doug Goncz ( ftp://users.aol.com/DGoncz/incoming )
Student member SAE for one year.
I love: Dona, Jeff, Kim, Mom, Neelix, Tasha, and Teri, alphabetically.
I drive: A double-step Thunderbolt with 657% range.
>What I am asking for is evidence for the commonly stated claim that
>cold fusion is physically impossible.
There can't be any. There is plenty of understanding indicating that cold
fusion won't happen.
What there can be is evidence that cold fusion has happened. So far, there
hasn't been any.
>If you can't produce such
>evidence, then please qualify that claim with "almost certainly".
Can you produce evidence that cold fusion has happened?
Almost certainly
Yours,
Doug Goncz ( ftp://users.aol.com/DGoncz/incoming )
Student member SAE for one year.
I love: Dona, Jeff, Kim, Mom, Neelix, Tasha, and Teri, alphabetically.
I drive: A double-step Thunderbolt with 657% range.
Franz Heymann
Aug13-04, 06:41 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no,location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\n\n"Nick Maclaren" <nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message\nnews:cf4rid\\$hs6\\$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...\n>\n>\n> In article <21d9ee84.0408070703.2fa6df16@posting.google.com>,\n> branen1 <branen1@yahoo.de> wrote:\n> >\n> >> The proofs that cold fusion is IMPOSSIBLE have as\n> >> much handwaving as the proofs that it occurs.\n> >\n> >????? There is no need to prove that is is "IMPOSSIBLE" to have\ncold\n> >fusion. If you claim to have found a new phenomenon you better\nprovide\n> >some evidence for it.\n>\n> Yes. If you claim that cold fusion (except muon-catalysed) is pure\n> snake-oil, fine. But the original poster claimed that it was\n> impossible - that is a claim of a negative physical phenomenon (just\n> like the one that perpetual motion machines can\'t exist).\n>\n> Now, the latter claim has been justified, at least in classical\n> physics. Let\'s not get into the quantum effects.\n>\n> What I am asking for is evidence for the commonly stated claim that\n> cold fusion is physically impossible. If you can\'t produce such\n> evidence, then please qualify that claim with "almost certainly".\n\nIt happens all the time in a Deuterium container. The problem is\nsimply that the Coulomb barrier is so high that the tunneling rate is\nutterly, utterly, utterly negligible for any practical purposes.\n\nFranz\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Nick Maclaren" <nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:cf4rid$hs6$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>
>
> In article <21d9ee84.0408070703.2fa6df16@posting.google.com>,
> branen1 <branen1@yahoo.de> wrote:
> >
> >> The proofs that cold fusion is IMPOSSIBLE have as
> >> much handwaving as the proofs that it occurs.
> >
> >????? There is no need to prove that is is "IMPOSSIBLE" to have
cold
> >fusion. If you claim to have found a new phenomenon you better
provide
> >some evidence for it.
>
> Yes. If you claim that cold fusion (except muon-catalysed) is pure
> snake-oil, fine. But the original poster claimed that it was
> impossible - that is a claim of a negative physical phenomenon (just
> like the one that perpetual motion machines can't exist).
>
> Now, the latter claim has been justified, at least in classical
> physics. Let's not get into the quantum effects.
>
> What I am asking for is evidence for the commonly stated claim that
> cold fusion is physically impossible. If you can't produce such
> evidence, then please qualify that claim with "almost certainly".
It happens all the time in a Deuterium container. The problem is
simply that the Coulomb barrier is so high that the tunneling rate is
utterly, utterly, utterly negligible for any practical purposes.
Franz
news:cf4rid$hs6$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>
>
> In article <21d9ee84.0408070703.2fa6df16@posting.google.com>,
> branen1 <branen1@yahoo.de> wrote:
> >
> >> The proofs that cold fusion is IMPOSSIBLE have as
> >> much handwaving as the proofs that it occurs.
> >
> >????? There is no need to prove that is is "IMPOSSIBLE" to have
cold
> >fusion. If you claim to have found a new phenomenon you better
provide
> >some evidence for it.
>
> Yes. If you claim that cold fusion (except muon-catalysed) is pure
> snake-oil, fine. But the original poster claimed that it was
> impossible - that is a claim of a negative physical phenomenon (just
> like the one that perpetual motion machines can't exist).
>
> Now, the latter claim has been justified, at least in classical
> physics. Let's not get into the quantum effects.
>
> What I am asking for is evidence for the commonly stated claim that
> cold fusion is physically impossible. If you can't produce such
> evidence, then please qualify that claim with "almost certainly".
It happens all the time in a Deuterium container. The problem is
simply that the Coulomb barrier is so high that the tunneling rate is
utterly, utterly, utterly negligible for any practical purposes.
Franz
J. J. Lodder
Aug13-04, 08:36 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no,location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\nNick Maclaren <nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:\n\n> What I am asking for is evidence for the commonly stated claim that\n> cold fusion is physically impossible. If you can\'t produce such\n> evidence, then please qualify that claim with "almost certainly".\n\nBut it is certainly possible, and there is little doubt that it happens.\nEvery once in a while the nuclei in a D2 molecule will tunnel\nthrough the potential barrier, and fuse.\n\nYou can even calculate the probability for it to happen.\nIt is just that the answer turns out to be -very- small,\nso small in fact that the process has never been observed.\n\nWhat is lacking is any plausible idea at all\nabout how that potential barrier might be lowered.\n(except by using muons)\n\nJan\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Nick Maclaren <nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> What I am asking for is evidence for the commonly stated claim that
> cold fusion is physically impossible. If you can't produce such
> evidence, then please qualify that claim with "almost certainly".
But it is certainly possible, and there is little doubt that it happens.
Every once in a while the nuclei in a D2 molecule will tunnel
through the potential barrier, and fuse.
You can even calculate the probability for it to happen.
It is just that the answer turns out to be -very- small,
so small in fact that the process has never been observed.
What is lacking is any plausible idea at all
about how that potential barrier might be lowered.
(except by using muons)
Jan
> What I am asking for is evidence for the commonly stated claim that
> cold fusion is physically impossible. If you can't produce such
> evidence, then please qualify that claim with "almost certainly".
But it is certainly possible, and there is little doubt that it happens.
Every once in a while the nuclei in a D2 molecule will tunnel
through the potential barrier, and fuse.
You can even calculate the probability for it to happen.
It is just that the answer turns out to be -very- small,
so small in fact that the process has never been observed.
What is lacking is any plausible idea at all
about how that potential barrier might be lowered.
(except by using muons)
Jan
Nick Maclaren
Aug13-04, 08:36 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no,location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\nIn article <cfgl7d\\$aje\\$1@titan.btinternet.com>,\n"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> writes:\n|>\n|> > What I am asking for is evidence for the commonly stated claim that\n|> > cold fusion is physically impossible. If you can\'t produce such\n|> > evidence, then please qualify that claim with "almost certainly".\n|>\n|> It happens all the time in a Deuterium container. The problem is\n|> simply that the Coulomb barrier is so high that the tunneling rate is\n|> utterly, utterly, utterly negligible for any practical purposes.\n\nThe normal context for that term implies a sustainable reaction,\nnot a few isolated events. It is often claimed that such a\nreaction is physically impossible at NTP, and it is that claim I\nam saying lacks proof.\n\nIf it does not, then let\'s hear it.\n\n\nRegards,\nNick Maclaren.\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In article <cfgl7d$aje$1@titan.btinternet.com>,
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> writes:
|>
|> > What I am asking for is evidence for the commonly stated claim that
|> > cold fusion is physically impossible. If you can't produce such
|> > evidence, then please qualify that claim with "almost certainly".
|>
|> It happens all the time in a Deuterium container. The problem is
|> simply that the Coulomb barrier is so high that the tunneling rate is
|> utterly, utterly, utterly negligible for any practical purposes.
The normal context for that term implies a sustainable reaction,
not a few isolated events. It is often claimed that such a
reaction is physically impossible at NTP, and it is that claim I
am saying lacks proof.
If it does not, then let's hear it.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> writes:
|>
|> > What I am asking for is evidence for the commonly stated claim that
|> > cold fusion is physically impossible. If you can't produce such
|> > evidence, then please qualify that claim with "almost certainly".
|>
|> It happens all the time in a Deuterium container. The problem is
|> simply that the Coulomb barrier is so high that the tunneling rate is
|> utterly, utterly, utterly negligible for any practical purposes.
The normal context for that term implies a sustainable reaction,
not a few isolated events. It is often claimed that such a
reaction is physically impossible at NTP, and it is that claim I
am saying lacks proof.
If it does not, then let's hear it.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Douglas Natelson
Aug14-04, 07:58 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no,location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\nNick Maclaren wrote:\n\n[regarding \'cold fusion\']\n> The normal context for that term implies a sustainable reaction,\n> not a few isolated events. It is often claimed that such a\n> reaction is physically impossible at NTP, and it is that claim I\n> am saying lacks proof.\n>\n> If it does not, then let\'s hear it.\n\nWhat do you mean by \'proof\', and what do you mean by\na \'sustainable reaction\'? The deuterium tunneling example\nmentioned earlier is certainly sustainable; it just occurs\nat an infinitesmal rate. Fusion reactions are not\nself-sustaining in the same sense as fission reactions.\nThat is, one fission releases neutrons that can cause\nanother fission event. Fusion doesn\'t work like that.\nIf two nuclei can overcome the potential barrier provided\nby their Coulomb repulsion, they can fuse, releasing neutrons,\ngammas, alphas, etc. None of those reaction products directly\ncause another fusion event between two nuclei.\n\nAre you trying to make the point that one can\'t prove a\nnegative? Or that physicists sometimes use imprecise\nlanguage?\n\nAs others in this thread have said, there is no known\nphysical mechanism that can produce large rates of fusion\nevents at NTP for, e.g., deuterium. Similarly, there is\nno known mechanism that can cause the 10^25 atoms in the\nbook in front of me to simultaneously tunnel one foot to\nthe right. No conservation law forbids it; it\'s just so\nfantastically unlikely that we physicists tend to call events\nlike that \'impossible\'.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Nick Maclaren wrote:
[regarding 'cold fusion']
> The normal context for that term implies a sustainable reaction,
> not a few isolated events. It is often claimed that such a
> reaction is physically impossible at NTP, and it is that claim I
> am saying lacks proof.
>
> If it does not, then let's hear it.
What do you mean by 'proof', and what do you mean by
a 'sustainable reaction'? The deuterium tunneling example
mentioned earlier is certainly sustainable; it just occurs
at an infinitesmal rate. Fusion reactions are not
self-sustaining in the same sense as fission reactions.
That is, one fission releases neutrons that can cause
another fission event. Fusion doesn't work like that.
If two nuclei can overcome the potential barrier provided
by their Coulomb repulsion, they can fuse, releasing neutrons,
gammas, alphas, etc. None of those reaction products directly
cause another fusion event between two nuclei.
Are you trying to make the point that one can't prove a
negative? Or that physicists sometimes use imprecise
language?
As others in this thread have said, there is no known
physical mechanism that can produce large rates of fusion
events at NTP for, e.g., deuterium. Similarly, there is
no known mechanism that can cause the 10^25 atoms in the
book in front of me to simultaneously tunnel one foot to
the right. No conservation law forbids it; it's just so
fantastically unlikely that we physicists tend to call events
like that 'impossible'.
[regarding 'cold fusion']
> The normal context for that term implies a sustainable reaction,
> not a few isolated events. It is often claimed that such a
> reaction is physically impossible at NTP, and it is that claim I
> am saying lacks proof.
>
> If it does not, then let's hear it.
What do you mean by 'proof', and what do you mean by
a 'sustainable reaction'? The deuterium tunneling example
mentioned earlier is certainly sustainable; it just occurs
at an infinitesmal rate. Fusion reactions are not
self-sustaining in the same sense as fission reactions.
That is, one fission releases neutrons that can cause
another fission event. Fusion doesn't work like that.
If two nuclei can overcome the potential barrier provided
by their Coulomb repulsion, they can fuse, releasing neutrons,
gammas, alphas, etc. None of those reaction products directly
cause another fusion event between two nuclei.
Are you trying to make the point that one can't prove a
negative? Or that physicists sometimes use imprecise
language?
As others in this thread have said, there is no known
physical mechanism that can produce large rates of fusion
events at NTP for, e.g., deuterium. Similarly, there is
no known mechanism that can cause the 10^25 atoms in the
book in front of me to simultaneously tunnel one foot to
the right. No conservation law forbids it; it's just so
fantastically unlikely that we physicists tend to call events
like that 'impossible'.
Franz Heymann
Aug14-04, 10:45 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no,location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n"Nick Maclaren" <nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message\nnews:cfi8n1\\$rif\\$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...\n>\n>\n> In article <cfgl7d\\$aje\\$1@titan.btinternet.com>,\n> "Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> writes:\n> |>\n> |> > What I am asking for is evidence for the commonly stated claim\nthat\n> |> > cold fusion is physically impossible. If you can\'t produce\nsuch\n> |> > evidence, then please qualify that claim with "almost\ncertainly".\n> |>\n> |> It happens all the time in a Deuterium container. The problem is\n> |> simply that the Coulomb barrier is so high that the tunneling\nrate is\n> |> utterly, utterly, utterly negligible for any practical purposes.\n>\n> The normal context for that term implies a sustainable reaction,\n> not a few isolated events. It is often claimed that such a\n> reaction is physically impossible at NTP, and it is that claim I\n> am saying lacks proof.\n>\n> If it does not, then let\'s hear it.\n\nI doubt if such a proof is possible.\nWhat is known is that all the attempts to provide a background theory\nfor such cold fusion as have been claimed to have been seen always\ninvolve gross contortions in our understanding of solid state physics.\n\nFranz\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Nick Maclaren" <nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:cfi8n1$rif$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>
>
> In article <cfgl7d$aje$1@titan.btinternet.com>,
> "Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> writes:
> |>
> |> > What I am asking for is evidence for the commonly stated claim
that
> |> > cold fusion is physically impossible. If you can't produce
such
> |> > evidence, then please qualify that claim with "almost
certainly".
> |>
> |> It happens all the time in a Deuterium container. The problem is
> |> simply that the Coulomb barrier is so high that the tunneling
rate is
> |> utterly, utterly, utterly negligible for any practical purposes.
>
> The normal context for that term implies a sustainable reaction,
> not a few isolated events. It is often claimed that such a
> reaction is physically impossible at NTP, and it is that claim I
> am saying lacks proof.
>
> If it does not, then let's hear it.
I doubt if such a proof is possible.
What is known is that all the attempts to provide a background theory
for such cold fusion as have been claimed to have been seen always
involve gross contortions in our understanding of solid state physics.
Franz
news:cfi8n1$rif$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>
>
> In article <cfgl7d$aje$1@titan.btinternet.com>,
> "Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> writes:
> |>
> |> > What I am asking for is evidence for the commonly stated claim
that
> |> > cold fusion is physically impossible. If you can't produce
such
> |> > evidence, then please qualify that claim with "almost
certainly".
> |>
> |> It happens all the time in a Deuterium container. The problem is
> |> simply that the Coulomb barrier is so high that the tunneling
rate is
> |> utterly, utterly, utterly negligible for any practical purposes.
>
> The normal context for that term implies a sustainable reaction,
> not a few isolated events. It is often claimed that such a
> reaction is physically impossible at NTP, and it is that claim I
> am saying lacks proof.
>
> If it does not, then let's hear it.
I doubt if such a proof is possible.
What is known is that all the attempts to provide a background theory
for such cold fusion as have been claimed to have been seen always
involve gross contortions in our understanding of solid state physics.
Franz
J. J. Lodder
Aug16-04, 01:56 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no,location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\n\nFranz Heymann <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote:\n\n> "Nick Maclaren" <nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message\n> news:cfi8n1\\$rif\\$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...\n> >\n> >\n> > In article <cfgl7d\\$aje\\$1@titan.btinternet.com>,\n> > "Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> writes:\n> > |>\n> > |> > What I am asking for is evidence for the commonly stated claim\n> that\n> > |> > cold fusion is physically impossible. If you can\'t produce\n> such\n> > |> > evidence, then please qualify that claim with "almost\n> certainly".\n> > |>\n> > |> It happens all the time in a Deuterium container. The problem is\n> > |> simply that the Coulomb barrier is so high that the tunneling\n> rate is\n> > |> utterly, utterly, utterly negligible for any practical purposes.\n> >\n> > The normal context for that term implies a sustainable reaction,\n> > not a few isolated events. It is often claimed that such a\n> > reaction is physically impossible at NTP, and it is that claim I\n> > am saying lacks proof.\n> >\n> > If it does not, then let\'s hear it.\n>\n> I doubt if such a proof is possible.\n> What is known is that all the attempts to provide a background theory\n> for such cold fusion as have been claimed to have been seen always\n> involve gross contortions in our understanding of solid state physics.\n\nYou can make at least a handwaving argument\nsuggesting it must be impossible.\nFor tunneling of deuterium nuclei into each other\nto occur at an appreciable rate they must be fairly close,\nhence repulse each other strongly.\nThe repulsion energy can only be lowered by shielding:\nthat is, by confining electron(s) between the deuterium nuclei.\nHowever, this involves confining electrons into a fairly small volume.\nThe inevitable result (by the uncertainty principle)\nis that they must acquire a large zero-point energy.\n\nAnd there you have it in a nutshell:\neither the energy of repulsion of the deuterium nuclei\nis to high for solid state energies,\nor the electrons between them must have too high zero-point energies\nto be compatible with their being confined\non a solid state energy scale.\n\nIt is possible to somewhat more precise,\nbut of course not to the point of making it a theorem,\n\nJan\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Franz Heymann <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> "Nick Maclaren" <nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:cfi8n1$rif$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
> >
> >
> > In article <cfgl7d$aje$1@titan.btinternet.com>,
> > "Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> writes:
> > |>
> > |> > What I am asking for is evidence for the commonly stated claim
> that
> > |> > cold fusion is physically impossible. If you can't produce
> such
> > |> > evidence, then please qualify that claim with "almost
> certainly".
> > |>
> > |> It happens all the time in a Deuterium container. The problem is
> > |> simply that the Coulomb barrier is so high that the tunneling
> rate is
> > |> utterly, utterly, utterly negligible for any practical purposes.
> >
> > The normal context for that term implies a sustainable reaction,
> > not a few isolated events. It is often claimed that such a
> > reaction is physically impossible at NTP, and it is that claim I
> > am saying lacks proof.
> >
> > If it does not, then let's hear it.
>
> I doubt if such a proof is possible.
> What is known is that all the attempts to provide a background theory
> for such cold fusion as have been claimed to have been seen always
> involve gross contortions in our understanding of solid state physics.
You can make at least a handwaving argument
suggesting it must be impossible.
For tunneling of deuterium nuclei into each other
to occur at an appreciable rate they must be fairly close,
hence repulse each other strongly.
The repulsion energy can only be lowered by shielding:
that is, by confining electron(s) between the deuterium nuclei.
However, this involves confining electrons into a fairly small volume.
The inevitable result (by the uncertainty principle)
is that they must acquire a large zero-point energy.
And there you have it in a nutshell:
either the energy of repulsion of the deuterium nuclei
is to high for solid state energies,
or the electrons between them must have too high zero-point energies
to be compatible with their being confined
on a solid state energy scale.
It is possible to somewhat more precise,
but of course not to the point of making it a theorem,
Jan
> "Nick Maclaren" <nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:cfi8n1$rif$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
> >
> >
> > In article <cfgl7d$aje$1@titan.btinternet.com>,
> > "Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> writes:
> > |>
> > |> > What I am asking for is evidence for the commonly stated claim
> that
> > |> > cold fusion is physically impossible. If you can't produce
> such
> > |> > evidence, then please qualify that claim with "almost
> certainly".
> > |>
> > |> It happens all the time in a Deuterium container. The problem is
> > |> simply that the Coulomb barrier is so high that the tunneling
> rate is
> > |> utterly, utterly, utterly negligible for any practical purposes.
> >
> > The normal context for that term implies a sustainable reaction,
> > not a few isolated events. It is often claimed that such a
> > reaction is physically impossible at NTP, and it is that claim I
> > am saying lacks proof.
> >
> > If it does not, then let's hear it.
>
> I doubt if such a proof is possible.
> What is known is that all the attempts to provide a background theory
> for such cold fusion as have been claimed to have been seen always
> involve gross contortions in our understanding of solid state physics.
You can make at least a handwaving argument
suggesting it must be impossible.
For tunneling of deuterium nuclei into each other
to occur at an appreciable rate they must be fairly close,
hence repulse each other strongly.
The repulsion energy can only be lowered by shielding:
that is, by confining electron(s) between the deuterium nuclei.
However, this involves confining electrons into a fairly small volume.
The inevitable result (by the uncertainty principle)
is that they must acquire a large zero-point energy.
And there you have it in a nutshell:
either the energy of repulsion of the deuterium nuclei
is to high for solid state energies,
or the electrons between them must have too high zero-point energies
to be compatible with their being confined
on a solid state energy scale.
It is possible to somewhat more precise,
but of course not to the point of making it a theorem,
Jan
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.