>From Stephen: > The "theory of cold fusion" would be a theory explaining > how such nuclei join, not simply the assertion that they do > join. The assertion that fusion happens at room temperature > is a simple binary statement, and is either true or false; > it's quite different from what is meant by a "theory".
> The question of whether "cold fusion" -- the joining of like- > charged nuclei at room temperature -- actually happens is a > simple question of fact and, assuming it does, one would hope > strongly that the fact of its existence is eventually accepted. > In any case the existence of cold fusion wouldn't require > the abandonment of "many ... generally accepted theories" any > more than the existence of superconductivity did. Extensions > to theories, for sure, but that's all -- it's not at all like > the hydrino, whose non-existence is directly predicted by > modern quantum theory. I agree that often "sacred" theories end up getting tweaked and adjusted to fit the actual evidence at hand. As is obvious to many, there are issues having to do with the use of word "fusion" to explain the excessive heat that has been documented countless times. The "cold fusion" community seems to be hampered by the simple fact that the phenomenon has been labeled "cold fusion", and the combination of THOSE two simple words used together to explain the phenomenon seem to have produced enormous confusion and distraction of an adverse kind, especially within the rest of the scientific community. This confusion has been going on for decades. Of course, that's where other terminology like "LENR" and "CANR" hope to fix such popular misunderstandings. I will be very curious to see how the Widom-Larsen theory is either accepted or rejected by the "cold fusion" community as a whole. Can it survive, and/or evolve into something even more robust? I gather lines have already been drawn in the sand. Nevertheless, this theory does seem to have its supporters. Some of the things I find intriguing about the theory, from what I've read so far, is the fact that it seems to do a decent job of explaining a lot of "cold fusion" phenomenon without the need of having to introduce a lot of new untested-theoretical physics. Perhaps one of the biggest things this theory seems to have going for it is the fact that it completely does away with having to deal with the nasty coulomb barrier issue. The implication is that there really is no traditional FUSION going on. It's my understanding that the theory explains how free low energy neutrons are "generated", which in turn can easily -merge- with nearby atoms, which in turn immediately changes the atomic weight and possibly the atomic number when certain nuclear reactions subsequently occur/decay. The result: lots of usable heat is generated. A key point is the fact that neutrons are not subject to the coulomb barrier in the same manner that positively charged protons are. ...While I agree that some may academically disagree with the following conclusion, it would seem that the W-L theory does this all without having to introduce "fusion" (at least "fusion" as it is traditionally thought of as) into the recipe. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
