2011/11/24 Joshua Cude <[email protected]> > Not impossible, just unlikely, in the absence of good evidence. > > >> >>
> > 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, > not absolutely, because tunnel effect exists, like virtuel bosonic agragate, and SC is an example of such. HiTemp SC is still not explainable. We just accept it, because nobody told the press it is a fake by frauding labs. If skepticism was so deep with HTSC, sure it would be ignored, because there can be a fraud justification of anything, especially if the researcher that succeed in reproducting the experimenst are accused immediately of fraud. 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. > > > 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. > many more on HTSC, no results yet. I agree my argument is weak... maybe is it simply no luck. > 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. > you hit the hard point. for me it could be normal science, with normal skepticism, except that here, the press decided that it was a fraud. I say the press, not the hot physics lobby, because after believing all from F&P, the press heard the good arguments from the physicists, and some bad, to decide definitely that it was a fake. then the politicians follow, the establishment in science follow cowardly... unable to go back. then it became as evident as geocentric system. many experiments were done, with better tools, un questionable heat results... but impossible to pass the "consensus" barrier... today, i don't say that it might be true, I say that I cannot imagine a physical/psychological/sociological theory, based on experience of the past and knowledge of (human) nature, to explain what is happening, except that CF exists. Rossi migh event make a scam, defkalion too, with a probability lower than you and me are financed by Exxon, but many other facts stays in the back... And I'd rather think antennas cause cancer and alien are raping humans, than imagine it can be a complete fraud from the beginning... anyway, there is a mystery for me ... why is it not evident to everybody having informations ? Maybe I'm missing something, but the solution is not in the (tech) details, but in the (sociological) system. there can be complete self-feed scam, on large scale, but it follow some rule, and one is real (despite not evident) consensus. another is a complex ecosystem of parasites (finance, industry, workers, researcher of various domains, NGO, politics). clearly CF does not have such ecosystem, rather the opposite (maybe the opposition to CF follow the honest scam scheme... hum, an idea).
