On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote:
> The original question, though, has never been answered with any rigor at all: if the FPHE effect is not fusion, what is it? > The chemists say, largely, it's not chemistry, that's impossible, it must a nuclear reaction. Largely? Nathan Lewis is a chemist. Glenn Seaborg won the Nobel prize in chemistry. Both of them, and most other chemists do not believe P&F observed a nuclear reaction. > The nuclear physicists say, largely, it can't be a nuclear reaction, that's impossible, it must be chemistry. The claimed effect is a few orders of magnitude beyond what can be explained by chemistry, but 30 orders above what can be explained by nuclear physics. > "Cold fusion" is, at this point, a set of results in chemistry and thermodynamics. Practically none of the work involves the methods of nuclear physics. Nuclear physicists are, essentially, only competent to comment on *conclusions,* i.e., the conclusion of the chemists that it must be a nuclear reaction, and for the physicists to discount and discredit the competence of the chemists as to work well within their expertise was a major failure of scientific courtesy and process. One of the chief architects of the CF debunking slam-dunk was Nathan Lewis, a chemist. And physicists do lots of chemistry-type experiments on materials. Physicists invented transistors and lasers. The development of nuclear fission involved lots of chemistry. It's not that complicated.
