Gauge Boson

Thank you, Butters. All that matters is tangible evidence. Nobody has demonstrated an excess power output that has withstood peer review and skeptical examination. Nobody has detected the telltale gamma rays coming from the experiments (there have been occasional claims of this, but these have been shown erroneous or fraudulent).

Chip, the reason I'm giving up is because I am simply banging my head against a wall trying to convince you that evidence is all that matters. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> Unless you can show me reproduceable evidence that has withstood peer review and critical scrutiny, you will not convince me. I do not claim that cold fusion is definitely false. However, you are making a positive claim so the burden of proof is on you. I am an a-cold-fusion-ist like I am an atheist: I lack belief in it because nobody has presented any good evidence for either.
Returning to your claim that fusion researchers are part of the conspiracy (assuming, for the sake of argument, that there is one)... This hot fusion research is based on our present understanding of nuclear physics. If cold fusion is demonstrated to be true, it will require a partial, though significant, rewriting of nuclear and particle physics (1). If these researchers were suppressing such a major discovery, they would be ostrasized by the rest of the physics community. Science does not progress without our current understanding being shown to need revision. This is why Nobel Prizes are awarded for knocking down our current models in favor of new ones, or showing preconceived notions to be wrong. Plenty of very controvercial theories that would mean current or past work would have to have been on the wrong track, or otherwise that would fundamentally alter our understanding of realtiy, are published in mainstream journals. Take, for example, MoND (2, 3), a thermodynamic model of cosmological expansion (4), variable 'constants' - which are a perfect example of something thought false that has quickly become accepted as fact in light of new evidence - (5, 6) , or doubly special relativity (7, 8). These are published because there is no way to discover the right answer without looking through many wrong ones. Cold fusion, as I have explained, used to be published in mainstream fusion journals (you know, the ones that would want to suppress it). But it was abandoned due to showing a consistent pattern of failure.

Now, if you don't mind, I have a physics test tomorrow to study for, so I bid you farewell.

Oh, yeah... Butters, those are definitely good books to recommend to Chip. But I'm sure he 'knows' the authors are really part of the conspiracy to suppress cold fusion.

(1) "Implications of Theoretical Ideas Regarding Cold Fusion". Abbas, Afsar. <a href="http://www.arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/9503029" target="_blank">Available on the arXiv e-print archive</a>. Note that since the publishing of this paper in 1995, the predicted data have not been found. There were a few reports of small indications of some of these, but they were either not statistically significant or collapsed under scrutiny. Unfortunately, papers on these findings are, like most papers, not available on <a href="http://www.arxiv.org/" target="_blank">arXiv</a>.
(2) "Modified Newtonian Dynamics as an Alternative to Dark Matter". Sanders, Robert H. and McGaugh, Stacy S. <a href="http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0204521" target="_blank">Available on the arxiv e-print archive</a>. NOTE: new observations seem to have put MoND to rest, but it may be altered yet again to fit the data. Bayin, Selcuk. <a href="http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0211097" target="_blank">Available on the arXiv e-print archive</a>.
(3) "Does Dark Matter Exist?" Sellwood, J.A. and Kosowsky, A. <a href="http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0009074" target="_blank">Available on the arXiv e-print archive</a>.
(4) "Missing Mass and the Acceleration of the Universe. Is Quintessence the Only Explanation?"
(5) "Time Evolution of the Fine Structure Constant". Murphy, Michael T.; Webb, John K.; Flambaum, Victor V.; and Curran, Stephen J. <a href="http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0209488" target="_blank">Available on the arXiv e-print archive</a>.
(6) "Black Holes May Not Constrain Verying Constants." Carlip, S. and Vaidya, S. <a href="http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0209249" target="_blank">Available on the arXiv e-print archive</a>.
(7) "Conservation Laws in Doubly Special Relativity". Judes, Simon. <a href="http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0205067" target="_blank">Available on the arXiv e-print archive</a>.
(8) "Doubly Special Relativity: A Kinematics of Quantum Gravity?" Kowalski-Glikman, Jerzy. <a href="http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0209264" target="_blank">Available on the arXiv e-print archive</a>.

NOTE: Just because I cite these articles does not mean I agree with them or that they have not run into any problems. You can find many non-technical articles on <a href="http://www.arxiv.org" target="_blank">the arXiv e-print archive</a>. I recommend reading opposing views and deciding for yourself based on the evidence. If you would like the addresses of any of these opposing articles, let me know - I have a bit of a collection of them.

Chip

Gauge Boson: "Oh, yeah... Butters, those are definitely good books to recommend to Chip. But I'm sure he 'knows' the authors are really part of the conspiracy to suppress cold fusion."

I suggest that you refrain from absurd allegations as it detracts from your otherwise intelligent presentation.

I can offer the following discussing the necessity for either new or corrected science to begin to explain these events: <a href="http://www.infinite-energy.com/IEHTML/faq.html" target="_blank">http://www.infinite-energy.com/IEHTML/faq.html</a>

Please realize that denouncing me as an extreme conspiracy theorist is claiming that the many individuals who are reporting CF evidence are conspiring to fool others and the public. The conspiracy that is alluded to when claiming that the evidence is falsified is more implied conspiracy in yours and Butters comments than mine.

I don't know what is true or not. I do know that if you and Butters wish to make totally irrational claims about me, it becomes more reasonable to find more dogmatism in your stance than mine.

Sincerely, Chip

Gauge Boson

Chip, that site is anything but reliable. It makes several deceiving statements. Especially bad is the non-answer to the question "if cold fusion cells are nuclear, why aren't they hot?" Radioactive decay is nothing like fusion of any form. If cold fusion actually puts out the amount of power they claim, it must be giving off easily measurable gamma rays. The lack of ionizing radiation, which they convineintly pretend is not a problem, demonstrates that no fusion is occuring. The only release of energy from any conversion of mass to other energy is in the form of gamma rays and kinetic energy. They still cite debunked P&F papers as evidence and every article I saw referenced that is less than four years old is from cold fusion journals, especially Infinite Energy. The older ones are almost exclusively from cold fusion only journals and organizations. Also, did you somehow miss the commercial aspect of the site? No science is presented by them and they completely avoid any real information. They make vague references to theoretical basis for cold fusion, but they hide the fact that these theories are not supported by evidence (though not all are shown incorrect - yet), and are mutually exclusive. Additionally, notice that the site you posted is for purely commercial purposes. Finally, unless they present evidence that this 'new/corrected science' is necessary, superior to current theories, and supported by the evidence, they are doing nothing but backhandedly acknowledging the fact that cold fusion is incompatible with observed facts. Their 'support' that the 'new science' is needed is basically as follows: current models preclude cold fusion. Cold fusion must be true (even though the evidence does not support this contention), so current models must be wrong. What nonsense.

Chip, when you claim a massive, unsupported conspiracy (don't even think about denying that), you indicate that you will dismiss any information that does not agree with your preconceived notions.

This reminds me of a story about a certain pot and tea kettle. I never claimed that there is a cold fusion conspiracy. Wishful thinking by most and independent, financially-motivated fraud by a few easily explain the unsupported claims. You have claimed that there is conclusive evidence of cold fusion. You have claimed that there is a worldwide conspiracy to suppress it. You are the one making claims. Therefore, you bear the burden of proof. I have implied no conspiracy. Perhaps you would like to think so, but that is utterly false! OTOH, you have made explicit claims of a massive anti-CF conspiracy. You have provided no evidence of either cold fusion or the consiracy.

Strange. You claim through this entire thread that you know that cold fusion is true and a massive conspiracy exists to suppress it. I made my position clear: I lack belief in cold fusion because nobody has shown me the requisite evidence. I do not claim that cold fusion is impossible and do not claim that a conspiracy exists to create the appearance of cold fusion. I have made that explicitly clear. That is the opposite of dogma. You, OTOH, continue to make the same unsupported claims ad nauseum. Your argument goes something like this:
Cold fusion exists because some people say so. There are also claims of it published in CF journals. No objective evidence exists demonstrating CF to be true, therefore there must be a massive worldwide conspiracy to suppress it. Additionally, some people claim that there is an anti-CF conspiracy, and they also claim that CF exists, so there must be a conspiracy.
Allow me to re-present you nonsense on the topic of alien visitors:
Aliens are visiting Earth because some people say so. Also, reports of UFOs and abductions appear in UFO journals. No objective evidence exists demonstrating this to be true, therefore there must be a massive worldwide conspiracy to suppress it. Additionally, some people claim that there is an anti-alien conspiracy, and they also claim that aliens visit Earth, so there must be a conspiracy.

I made no irrational claims about you. I simply made a hypothesis based on your claims and behavior. You didn't refute the hypothesis, however. You certainly made it clear that you consider physics journals and skeptics (i.e., anyone who does not automatically accept CF without evidence) to be part of the alleged conspiracy.

Chip, you have posted claim after claim after speculation after conspiracy theory after claim after claim - all unsupported. You have not posted any experimental evidence. I have also noticed that, apparently because you lack any defense against it, you ignore my position and instead set up a straw man. I state that the evidence does not (yet?) support the contention that cold fusion has been observed. You then 'refute' a position I have never claimed that cold fusion is impossible and thus all evidence of it must be ignored. I do not believe that you are intentionally deceitful, but rather duped. If you are not duped, but rather believe because of evidence, post that objective evidence from peer-reviewed journals!

You claim that the link you posted supports your contentions. If that is true, then <a href="http://www.ucsofa.com/" target="_blank">this link</a> supports perpetual motion.

This is really becoming a waste of time. Unless you continue lying about me, this is my last post. Farewell, <a href="http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame63.html" target="_blank">Ferrous Cranus</a>.

[ November 20, 2002: Message edited by: Gauge Boson ]</p>

Chip

Looks like there are about 200 papers detailing experimentation and critical analysis of past experiments at <a href="http://www.lenr-canr.org/LibFrame1.html" target="_blank">http://www.lenr-canr.org/LibFrame1.html</a>

Regards, Chip

Sidian

what was the experiment that was supposed to cause cold fusion to work?

can we maybe analyze this ourselves instead of posting links to people who analyzed it with varying results? if they shook up an etcha-sketch and out popped additional heat i'll be sad.

as far as flames go, this is a highly skeptical board and you're posting in the "science and skepticism" section of this highly skeptical board. yer asking for bias.

skepticism = no bias? no. if you are pre-determined to doubt something, you are set against it until you find proof for it (which is indeed asking alot). thus posting something that is not supported by current (correct?) science is going to get you flamed by the "unbiased" skeptics. of course, calling someone's science beliefs their "god" will earn you some decent bias too =)

hopefully CF works out. maybe we can show a reason why the experiment was affected by the areas it was conducted, or why it shouldn't have been affected and it's varying success is so suspicious.

someone explain what was tried.

enough "this scientist is for it" and "this scientist isn't" crap. lets see for ourselves.

Chip

The last link I gave <a href="http://www.lenr-canr.org/LibFrame1.html" target="_blank">http://www.lenr-canr.org/LibFrame1.html</a> which I also gave before Gauge's last flaming rant includes complete descriptions of experiments done from the beginning (1989) to this year (in PDF format) despite the erroneous claims that Gauge makes that no such stuff was posted here. The closest you could come to getting the evidence yourself is to conduct the experiments yourself. These papers include many that have been published in various journals and some that have not been published anywhere else but on that web site.

Regards, Chip

Mr. Sammi

Chip seeing you are such an expert on CF, can you not write a small paragraph detailing the physics upon which CF is grounded.

We all (i hope) know why fission works. We bust open certain matter (mass/energy) and energy pours out while the mass changes itz form leaving behind a HUGE MESS.

I wanna know if the by-products of CF will leave us in a far more unstable position than fissionable material.

Your physics may point this out so let us get down to the business of the CF business.


Sammi Na Boodie ()

Corwin

While we're at it a detailed quantum theory of gravitation would be nice....

Wups. You mean we haven't figured that one out yet either? Well then why are people bothering with it? It's only psudeoscience, after all.... &lt;/sarcasm&gt;

Sidian

i'm afraid i can only get a vague understanding of the experiment from link =(

i am not a scientist i just ask alot of questions. when they take off using phrases like "charged galvanostatically at low to intermediate current densities for prolonged periods of time." i lose track.

what is charging galvanostatically?
current density?

i didn't mean any of my original post to be insulting. no sarcasm. i seriously want to understand what they attempted.

Corwin

The basic idea of modern cold fusion experiments is to supersaturate an electrode made of palladium with deuterium. (The family of metals that includes palladium, platinum, titanium and nickel are all well known to be hydrogen sponges. Very porous to hydrogen, and by extention its isotope deuterium.) The idea is to concentrate a large amount of deuterium (ionized I think) into this electrode with electric current.

The language that's confusing you is.... ok it's a bit pretentious.