Friar Bellows

The fact is that hot fusion happens -- artifically and naturally. The same can't be said for cold fusion.

<img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />

Corwin

Then possibly you can explain the successes?

I freely admit that I can't explain why it doesn't always work. Can you explain why it sometimes does?

If not, then shut the hell up about it and let people figure it out.

tronvillain

Experimental and statistical errors.

Corwin

That's a start.

Now WHAT errors? And why are they consistent?

Again, I admit that it's possible... but looking at what's happened it's unlikely. (Unless totally different groups of researchers are making exactly the same mistakes at different times and with different equipment.)

elwoodblues

1) Experimental error and/or contamination.

2) Wishful thinking and/or willful deceit.

3) Some heretofor unknown mechanism at work.

If it's the third possibility, then there is some chance that this mechanism might be bent to do practical work, such as generation of power.

Myself, I think it's some combination of the first two factors. I'm not saying the third possibility is barred utterly, but it seems much less likely than the other two.

Corwin

Something new and undiscovered is less likely than a global conspiracy of physicists?

Pass me some of that willya?

elwoodblues

I was thinking more willful deceit from universities (pushing for publicity, first publication), wishful thinking from physicists (wanting to think they'd found a source of cheap energy). Yes, I think that's more likely, given the circumstances and the history of this 'discovery'.

Corwin

I keep hearing about this... but aside from a few slams by arguably biased sources... (such as MIT's high energy physics lab...) I don't see much in the way of substance. These are two well published and previously well respected chemists we're talking about here. If Art Bell had discovered it.... that argument would carry a lot more weight.

It seems to me that Pons and Fleischman's main error was in letting the University's PR department run the show.

Chip

I often consider the alienation of physicists and many others to be demonstrated by their stating that we have yet to learn how to use fusion as a power source when in fact it is the major power source we have always used. The sun has both fusion and fission reactions taking place. It is what gave us oil, coal and natural gas. The transuranium elements are thought to have been made and distributed throughout the universe via super novas so present fission reactors can be seen to be using elements that were derived from fusion reactions that took place long long ago. We know how to use fusion right now and our control has been to keep the reactions about 19 million miles away, a circumstantial and fortuitous happenstance for the existence of all life on earth. It would be wise for humanity to embrace our ability to use fusion energy but patents are bought out, research not funded (consider Olvshinsky's amorphous semiconductor materials that he had to go to Japan to get developed) in preference for energy sources that necessitate a few controlling and distributing energy distribution. It makes sense to concentrate tokens in the hands of a few at the expense of many (with consequential pollution, accident, and creation of weapons of mass destruction) to deny and suppress the development of personal and local community power sources while embracing those sources that guarantee mass dependency.

Is cold fusion not demonstrated in natural processes? Louis Kevran authored a book "Biological Transmutations" perhaps as much as half a century ago where he presents many experiments and observations where elements appear to undergo transmutations in nature. Others have repeated the experiments with similar results. The experiments and the theory has been totally denounced without counter experiments or explanation of the evidence. The evidence does not meet conventional theory so it is pronounced as wrong without counter evidence or explanation. Perhaps someday the willy-nilly denial of experimental evidence to match theory will not be the modus operandi of accepted science.

This leads me to postulate a way that CF may be happening though my ignorance is high in these regards. Might the critical mass needed for fusion and fission reactions be surmounted by catylitic reactions where enzymes and certain metalic elements facilitate bringing together very small amounts, perhaps atom or molecule by molecule, to critical conditions without the larger masses and consequent radiation of conventionally known reactions? I really don't know but I suspect that us humans will know eventually, one way or the other.

Just some very loose speculation.

Regards, Chip

Chip

Oh, I wanted to reiterate that the documentary film, Phenomenon volume II (hosted by Dean Stockwell) which I believe was released in 2000, with the subtitle "Heavy Watergate," is quite enlightening about the CF controversy. I just ordered a copy on DVD from BlockBuster online. One should be able to request it as a rental from them.

Regards, Chip