Jed would say to this that there was no money involved in denying any of the phenomena brought as example. And he would be right, of course.
It must also be pointed out that superconductivity, and the color of Au, and the color of silver nanoparticles depend on quantum mechanical effects whose application to the electron-nucleus interaction has been "understood" much after the observation of the phenomena. No such understanding appears to exist for similar effects inside the nucleus. Therefore, to refuse to consider CF evidence (and it appears that some people are doing that, even while denying it) because it does not match not even theory from first principles, but rather empirical rules derived from the results of experiments testing completely different situations, is just non-scientific. Physics and chemistry are experimental sciences. The theory must explain the observations, not the other way around. If one runs a test 1000 times and gets one result 999 times and another 1 tiime, that one time also must be explained, especially if the parameters of the exepriment cannot all be perfectly controlled. On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 1:31 AM, Alain dit le Cycliste < > alain.sep...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> for those that repeat that CF is impossible , > > > Not impossible, just unlikely, in the absence of good evidence. > > >> I can answer simply : >> - it breaks no basic rule of todays most validated models : Quantum >> Physic Reference Frame, and generel Relativity (unlike Opera neutrinos, >> perpetual movement, usable antigravity). it only breaks usual approach to >> compute. >> > > Right. The usual rules, using QM, predict a reaction rate 10^30 times too > low to explain claimed heat. > > >> - it is no more, no less explained by todays physics than is High >> temperature superconductivity , and that was classic superconductivity and >> super-fluidity before BCS. >> > > I don't agree. SC was not understood, but the idea that quantum > transitions could be inhibited at low temperature was not contrary to any > calculations of reaction rates or anything, and was certainly not > implausible given the understanding of the time. And of course the evidence > that it happened was unequivocal. The mechanism was just not conceived of. > Exothermic nuclear reactions in non-radioactive material require a lot of > concentrated energy, and that is highly unlikely. It is of course possible > that some method not conceived of can make it happen, but concentrating > thousands of times ordinary chemical bond strengths in single atomic sites > is far less plausible (yes, in hind-sight) than some kind of pairing > phenomenon to make electrons look like bosons. But most importantly, the > evidence for it does not justify a need to reject current predictions of > reaction rates. > > >> anyway, that is not a proof, just on reason to say those that critics CF >> on it's impossibility, are > > > Right. No one claims that cold fusion has been proven impossible. The > claim is that its existence has not been proven. > > on the explanation, it seems that no theory is convincing, maybe because >> the best physicians, and the mass of world physicians, did not work on it. > > > Proponents claim hundreds of professional scientists have been working on > it for 22 years. Maybe they are not the best, but then one should ask why > the best consider the pursuit not worth their time. > > anyway, how many years between superconductivity is observed, quantum >> physics is established, and BCS paper? >> > > Many decades, no doubt. How many years between fire and an explanation for > it? Many more. The question to ask is how many years between the discovery > of SC and the acceptance of the reality of the phenomenon? That happened > fast. How many years between the discovery of high-temp SC and the nobel > prize? About 1 or 2. Cold fusion's problem is not just the absence of a > consistent theory. It's the absence of strong evidence. > >> >> however it seems to works, > > > Not in the opinion of mainstream science, or the DOE panel enlisted to > study the best evidence in 2004. > >
