On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote:
Lomax>>> The world is so complex that math can be useless, unless simplifying assumptions are made. It is certain simplifying assumptions that led to the conclusion that QM predicts that LENR is impossible. This was already a problematic assumption, because we already knew of a three-body example where fusion is known to take place, muon-catalyzed fusion, so the question then naturally arises if there might be other "exceptions." Cude>> What? Muons are exceptional in nature, and muonic atoms are exotic, but muon-catalyzed fusion in no way represents an exception to standard QM. Lomax>Nor did I claim so. It's an exception to the oft-stated claim that fusion at room temperature is impossible. I will repeat my response to this from elsewhere, since I know you say you don't read most of my posts. You are hung up on muons, but it's not as persuasive as you think. At least not for me. Look, absolute statements are rarely absolute. To be accurate, they usually requires some qualification. But often these qualifications are not stated explicitly because the context makes it obvious. For example, I might say I can't walk on water, and people will understand the implied qualifications that I mean I can't walk on liquid water with ordinary footwear at ordinary speed. Of course I and my audience will be fully aware that I can walk on ice, and that some people can skim on water on skis (or even barefoot) behind a fast boat, and others will believe that Jesus can walk on water, and so on, but this doesn't make my statement operationally false, except in a pedantic, irrelevant way. No one will say, that since I can walk on ice, *maybe* I can also walk on liquid water in ordinary footwear, at normal speed, without divine power. In the case of fusion, everyone who says fusion at room temperature violates known theory, is fully aware that muon catalyzed fusion at room temperature is possible, and that fusion with an accelerator at room temperature is possible, and that deuterium fusion at room temperature occurs, but at a vanishingly small rate. What they mean, and what most people will understand, since they also know these things, is that fusion in ordinary matter at room temperature, without accelerating the particles, (i.e. in the context of a CF experiment) is predicted to be far too rare to produce useful heat. The point these people are trying to make is that CF as claimed violates theory, so bringing up muon catalyzed fusion which is consistent with theory, hardly negates the claim. Just because the statement as spoken, is in some literal sense, false, doesn't mean the intended message as understood by the audience becomes false. It's a complete red herring > The only connection here is that if one form of catalysis is possible, with one catalyst, there might be others, unknown to us. Of course there is always a possibility that there are things unknown to us. The point of the skeptics is that it is highly unlikely, just like it is highly unlikely that a rock will fall up instead of down if I drop it, and the existence of muon catalyzed fusion has no bearing on that. > In fact, even if we didn't know about MCF, the principle that there might be something unknown is solid, Exactly. So you agree the MCF is a red herring. >> Physics is also extraordinarily successful at describing mathematically the properties of materials, crystals, and lattices, just the sort of environment cold fusion is supposed to take place in. > Actually, not quite, apparently. Apparent only if you believe the CF claims. >> That's revisionist balderdash. They were clueless about nuclear physics, and expected to find fusion, and said as much in interviews after the fact. > I'd love it if Cude would point to that. They spent 5 years looking for excess heat. I seriously doubt they were only interested in the science, or that they expected to find nothing. That scenario certainly doesn't come across in their early papers or in their early interviews. They sounded more like prescient sages who discovered what arrogant physicists missed. In an interview on Macneil Lehrer in 1989 he said "It is this enormous compression of the species in the lattice [which he earlier said was 10^27 atmospheres] which made us think that it might be feasible to create conditions for fusion in such a simple reactor." > They were looking for fusion, yes, but they understood very well that "nuclear physics," i.e., existing assumptions, based on certain approximations, predicted that it would be unobservable. Ever hear of testing hypotheses, Cude? Sure, but there is not enough time to test all conceivable hypotheses, so one has to choose wisely. Existing nuclear physics did not just predict that fusion would be unobservable, but that it was 30 orders of magnitude below observable. If P&F were really interested in the science, and not being seduced by free energy, and if they had a clue about nuclear physics, they would have looked for radiation signatures first. They are far easier to detect in ordinary fusion, and they had no reason to suspect it wouldn't be ordinary. It would be serendipity to the point of absurdity if they had the ingenious intuition to suspect that Pd might induce deuterium fusion because of the effective pressure, and then found heat, but it was in fact due to some exotic radiationless nuclear reaction that still eludes theorists after 20 years. But to be clear, it is not a distaste for serendipity and coincidence that produces skepticism in the mainstream. The furor in 1989 proved that. It is simply the lack of good evidence. >>> So what now? I'm willing to bet a significant chunk of my net worth on Rossi being real, >> That's what he's counting on. > (Perhaps Cude meant "that's what Rossi is counting on." Yes. He's counting on people like you to be willing to bet a significant chunk of their net worth. And he will keep the experiment inconclusive so it remains a gamble. He can't prove it's real, but he can keep people guessing for a long time.
