Known Physics That Could Make Cold Fusion Possible?

catsmate1 said:
Good. Then I'll go back to waiting for those who believe in cold fusion to show it actually works before worrying about a mechanism.
Click to expand...

The LENR people recognize that until they have a workable theory, they are NOT likely to be able to get it to work reliably. Trying to work backwards is a legitimate form of investigation, find a mechanism and see if it is relevant.

You rely on a sanitized version of science. In physics and cosmology a lot of problems have been papered over with assumptions and clever mathematical sophistry. They have given up on trying to understand what is really happening. "Dark Matter" is a PERFECT example of this.

If the science you quote were perfect, they should be able to explain everything.

It would not surprise me if some of the arrogant responses were from scientists, that would explain a lot about how we got to this point :(
 
DeathDart said:
The LENR people recognize that until they have a workable theory, they are NOT likely to be able to get it to work reliably. Trying to work backwards is a legitimate form of investigation, find a mechanism and see if it is relevant.
Click to expand...

You know what else makes it hard to "get something to work reliably"? Using crappy instrumentation to diagnose whether or not it's working.

Imagine if Brattain had set out to understand the first transistor, but instead of using a voltmeter he'd used a wire stuck into a frog's leg.
  • A frog leg plugged into Device #1 didn't twitch. This means either the device would have been a transistor but was faulty; OR the leg was dead; OR there's no such thing as a transistor. Can't tell which.
  • A frog leg plugged into Device #2 twitched twice. This means either that the device worked AND was a transistor, OR that the leg was too fresh. Can't tell which.
  • Boy, it sure is hard to tell whether transistors are possible or not! I blame the lack of a theory.
 
DeathDart said:
The LENR people recognize that until they have a workable theory, they are NOT likely to be able to get it to work reliably. Trying to work backwards is a legitimate form of investigation, find a mechanism and see if it is relevant.

You rely on a sanitized version of science. In physics and cosmology a lot of problems have been papered over with assumptions and clever mathematical sophistry. They have given up on trying to understand what is really happening. "Dark Matter" is a PERFECT example of this.

If the science you quote were perfect, they should be able to explain everything.

It would not surprise me if some of the arrogant responses were from scientists, that would explain a lot about how we got to this point :(
Click to expand...

What?
 
catsmate1 said:
It's the desperate anti-science rhetoric of the true believer.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It is like a religion,i.e., believing in something without any proof. Isn't Death Dart a Holocaust denier too? Or Am I confusing him with somebody else?
 
catsmate1 said:
It's the desperate anti-science rhetoric of the true believer.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

A. I am not desperate. I find the lack of a satisfactory resolution irritating.

B. I make my living using science.

C. Institutional Science has gotten lost in some areas. Particularly because of assumptions that led to the group delusional scenario of "Dark Matter". I am afraid that an entire generation of scientists were sent down a dead end.

D. LENR is being held back by resource limitations. Seeing inside condensed matter has never been easy or cheap. Look at the resources devoted to Hot Fusion. They have enough laser power there to put 100's of kilograms into orbit. Though I don't think their lasers are designed for continuous operation. A space craft launcher would require either continuous or a high pulse repetition rate for several minutes.
 
dafydd said:
It is like a religion,i.e., believing in something without any proof. Isn't Death Dart a Holocaust denier too? Or Am I confusing him with somebody else?
Click to expand...

I think you just stepped into a minefield, have a nice day :)
 
DeathDart said:
D. LENR is being held back by resource limitations.
Click to expand...

Yep. Just like perpetual motion! Every time someone gets a perpetual-motion machine almost working, they discover that their hobbyist-budgeted, garage-quality machine doesn't quite break even---the bearings overheat or something. Obviously a money problem.

Or Bigfoot. The Tevatron got a billion dollars to look for the top quark, but the Bigfoot hunters are stuck tying dental-floss tripwires to $50 cameras. Under the circumstances, it's surprise that we haven't found Bigfoot conclusively.

While we're waiting, I guess we need more perpetual-motion theorists, right?
 
ben m said:
You know what else makes it hard to "get something to work reliably"? Using crappy instrumentation to diagnose whether or not it's working.

Imagine if Brattain had set out to understand the first transistor, but instead of using a voltmeter he'd used a wire stuck into a frog's leg.
  • A frog leg plugged into Device #1 didn't twitch. This means either the device would have been a transistor but was faulty; OR the leg was dead; OR there's no such thing as a transistor. Can't tell which.
  • A frog leg plugged into Device #2 twitched twice. This means either that the device worked AND was a transistor, OR that the leg was too fresh. Can't tell which.
  • Boy, it sure is hard to tell whether transistors are possible or not! I blame the lack of a theory.
Click to expand...

False argument

The people who built the transistor had a theory of operation, it did take a while for the materials science people to catch up.

LENR we have a material, but we don't have a theory that explains the results. Without a theory, what are the people on the materials side of the problem going to do?

In LENR we have a transistor (a material with odd properties) but no theory of operation, no theory of lattice holes, no theory of N and P type semiconductors. The people who designed the transistor had at least the tube as a model. Modern FET devices are very closely analogous to a solid state tube.

Most LENR researchers can only measure macroscopic properties of the test sample. So if you are saying that the lousy results are the product of lousy equipment, then I would agree.
 
DeathDart said:
LENR we have a material, but we don't have a theory that explains the results. Without a theory, what are the people on the materials side of the problem going to do?
Click to expand...

We have a theory that perfectly explains the results:

Experiment: A bunch of idiots pointed some inappropriate sensors, with the usual noise and systematics, at some warm nickel (or palladium or whatever), and, given the large error bars, produced results consistent with no fusion.

Theory: Normal materials science and nuclear physics worked. This predicts that no fusion should have occurred, which is in agreement with the experimental data.

Done.
 
DeathDart said:
B. I make my living using science.

C. Institutional Science has gotten lost in some areas. Particularly because of assumptions that led to the group delusional scenario of "Dark Matter". I am afraid that an entire generation of scientists were sent down a dead end.
Click to expand...
I am afraid that C kind of rules out B :rolleyes:!
If you used science you would know that dark matter is a set of observations, not assumptions.
The evidence that dark matter exists is overwhelming. The properties of dark matter are well established.
Exactly what dark matter is is still to be determined.
 
dafydd said:
It is like a religion,i.e., believing in something without any proof. Isn't Death Dart a Holocaust denier too? Or Am I confusing him with somebody else?
Click to expand...
Well religion is a form of woo so it has common characteristics with conspiracy theories, homeopathy, UFOlogy et cetera.
I'm afraid I haven't visited the Holocaust denial mega-thread in a while but DD seems to be a 911 CT wooster in addition to his science nuttery.
 
Reality Check said:
I am afraid that C kind of rules out B :rolleyes:!
If you used science you would know that dark matter is a set of observations, not assumptions.
The evidence that dark matter exists is overwhelming. The properties of dark matter are well established.
Exactly what dark matter is is still to be determined.
Click to expand...

Thank you, a real question.

The creation of Dark Matter was a consequence of the anomalous velocities in galactic velocity curves.
The evidence that dark matter exists is overwhelming. The properties of dark matter are well established.
Click to expand...

The properties of dark matter are?

The MOND people were closer. They thought the problem was with gravity. Gravity is a strong as conventional theory says it is at that distance, the assumption was about another variable.

What other variable could be different in a very low gravitational field?
 
DeathDart said:
The creation of Dark Matter was a consequence of the anomalous velocities in galactic velocity curves.
Click to expand...

That's one observation. Can you name the other ten?

The MOND people were closer. They thought the problem was with gravity. Gravity is a strong as conventional theory says it is at that distance, the assumption was about another variable.
Click to expand...

Nope. This was tested and ruled out very thoroughly.
 
ben m said:
We have a theory that perfectly explains the results:

Experiment: A bunch of idiots pointed some inappropriate sensors, with the usual noise and systematics, at some warm nickel (or palladium or whatever), and, given the large error bars, produced results consistent with no fusion.

Theory: Normal materials science and nuclear physics worked. This predicts that no fusion should have occurred, which is in agreement with the experimental data.

Done.
Click to expand...

No fusion that we are familiar with will produce these results. Correct

Normally we should be killing the experimenters with radiation. Dead experimenters=Fusion

I would like to believe the transmutation results, but that could be contamination, or an unknown mechanism of molecular transport.

Though the hydrogen series of tests revealed no transmutation.

The S-Process is based upon >iron nuclei absorbing Alpha Particles and moving up the Elemental/Isotope ladder. Maybe there is some detail missing in the S-Process description that allows a short cut under certain conditions.
 
ben m said:
That's one observation. Can you name the other ten?



Nope. This was tested and ruled out very thoroughly.
Click to expand...

That is the observation that really counts.


What was tested and ruled out, your statement is ambiguous?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom