Re: THE WORLD NEEDS COLD FUSION.

Please list your credentials backing up this statement paying particular attention to your study of physical laws and principles that have not yet been discovered.

Or is it just that you "won' like us anymore" if we don't believe every word you utter?

Of course you did say "doesn't exist" rather than "will never exist". So now I'm wondering about the depth of your research into the various claims of "cold fusion" by various people up to now. Since you have obviously studied each one of these in depth to determine that none of the claims are valid, I presume you are willing to discuss the various experiments with us in great detail highlighting the various reasons for failure.

Why not be more positive? Perhaps you could start by discussing how you think it might be made to work.

Well since you are taking a reasonable approach, I see no reason why I might not do the same! First let me say that I have not personally investigated any of the "cold fusion" claims and research and am not asserting that any of them actually work!

But your suggestion IS the correct one! Namely to first ask the question "how COULD it work?" Or in other words is there any evidence that it might be possible? I suggest that the answer to that one is "yes".

Here's where I think so many physicists have jumped the track. Nuclear reactions in the present era are well known to exist. Atomic bombs and accelerators of various types have shown that if you "smash" things together these kinds of reactions do occur. And it is widely established that for these kinds of primitive reactions a lot of energy is required to make them go.

This is in many ways analogous to ordinary chemical reactions which can be made to operated with certain energies required. But we also know that in the case of chemical reactions there are OTHER ways to get them going! These ways include the use of catalysts and enzymes. Enzymes are especially interesting in that through the use of geometric conformity they induce reactions to take place (usually in living things) that would be "impossible" in other circumstances. Now we need to ask the question: "Could there possibly exist such a thing as a "nuclear enzyme"? Is there any evidence that suggests that possibility?

The answer to the earnest student of these subjects would be a resounding "yes". I refer of course, to the "low energy transmutations" proposed and studied by C. Louis Kervran and others. Obtaining iron-clad proof, when living matter is involved is obviously difficult at best, but I'd have to suppose far from "impossible". Over his lifetime Kervran obtained strong evidence of nuclear reactions taking place at plant and animal temperatures! Transmutations of Calcium in chickens fed no calcium, transmutations of elements in Oats or sea creatures, and outdoor transmutations on the stones of monuments. In short a Host of suggested possibilities for low energy nuclear reactions. He even examined possible physics mechanisms to bolster this idea, though the nuclear physics is even now not very well developed.

The evidence there is VERY strong that nuclear reactions can indeed take place in two ways. First in the high energy smash them together primitive way that all physicists are familiar with, but also in a second more highly sophisticated and technological way that life processes seem to know about.

So if you want a discussion of just HOW so-called "cold fusion" might be possible, I'd say that HERE is a really good place to start. To simply scream that such reactions without MeVs of energy is "impossible" is to really make the claim that one is conversant with ALL laws of physics including the one's not discovered yet. How stupid is that?

Clearly the usual approach you find here of name-calling and bold assertion that any such thing is "impossible" is not only ignorant and counter productive, but also seems to smack of blatant propaganda techniques. So that makes me ask the question: "Why is establishment science so interested in "debunking" the idea of low energy nuclear reactions?"

You don't suppose "national security" is involved, do you?

Now just where did I leave my tinfoil helmet?

Start here.

Graham

You really should learn some very basic physics before you try to comment on this subject.

"Smashing things together" is a very crude and misleading description of how an atomic bomb works. You might start by thinking about what the term "critical mass" means.

You mispelled "gullible" as "earnest" in the above.

Kervran's "theories" (which in truth never came close to meeting the criteria to be considered "theories" in the scientific sense) are among the most thoroughly debunked in the biological sciences.

Bob M.

Yes, of course. And if he spins MMX he'll get a positive result.

Why did Einstein say the speed of light from A to B is c-v, the speed of light from B to A is c+v, the "time" each way is the same?

"Easy: he did NOT say that." - cretin snipped-for-privacy@epfl.ch According to moron van lintel, Einstein did not write the equation he wrote.

According to xxein: It is an artefactual/superficially imposed yin-yang of sorts.

According to Lamenting Shubert: Why do you want to know?

" In neither system (meaning frame of reference in modern-day terminology) is the speed of light c-v or c+v. In both systems the speed of light is c."

-- cretin Jimmy Black snipped-for-privacy@organization.edu. According to the imbecile Jimmy Black, Einstein did not write the equation he wrote.

According to Dork Bruere "I don't give a damn what Einstein wrote."

"Bill Miller" wrote in message news:DG_jk.140669$ snipped-for-privacy@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... | | "Richard Schultz" wrote in message | news:g6m555$fac$ snipped-for-privacy@news.iucc.ac.il... | > In sci.physics.fusion Ken S. Tucker wrote: | >

| > : Hi Richard, I presume your questions | > : below are rhetorical, otherwise please | > : spec which are serious. | >

| > This is not rhetorical: top-posting is considered very bad form. I | > meant for you to think about all of the questions that I asked in the | > (presumably vain) hope that you might be able to reach the obvious | > conclusion on your own once you were given enough clues. | >

| > :> How long did it take from Budnorz and Muller's announcement of "high-T" | > :> superconductivity in cuprates for someone to reproduce their results? | > :> How long did it take to find a material that it is superconductive at | > :> T > 77 K (i.e. above the boiling point of N2)? How long did it take to | > :> develop a device that used a high-T superconductor? | > :>

| > :> How many of those developments depended on a detailed theory of the | > behavior | > :> of high-T superconductors? | > :>

| > :> How long has it been since Pons and Fleischmann claimed to have a | > :> *working* cold fusion water heater? | >

| > : If I were to suggest in 1935 that a metal can explode with 1,000,000x | > more | > : energy/weight than TNT, | >

| > H.G. Wells suggested it in 1902. | >

| > : I'm sure you would have scoffed, but with a great effort of theory and | > : experiment the A-bomb and H-bomb were developed. | >

| > That is completely irrelevant to the point I was making. Why don't you | > answer the questions above and then think about why what you wrote about | > the A-bomb was a straw man. | >

| > ----- | > Richard Schultz snipped-for-privacy@mail.biu.ac.il | > Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel | > Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University | > ----- | > "You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing." | | It seems the the presence or absence of He is a key "pointer" to fusion -- | cold or otherwise. It seems that without He, it is clear that fusion has NOT | occurred. | | Is the inverse true? | | The reason for my question is that there are several Helium wells in the | world. It is a scarce (but essentially useless) element whose only | commercially viable use is for lighter-than-air devices. (Novelists | attention: What would have happened if the US had agreed to sell the Third | Reich Helium? For one, the Hindenburg would not have blown up.) But I | digress. | | Where does this Helium come from? Three sources I can think of: | | 1. It is left over from a few Billion years ago when the Earth was still hot | enough for fusion. | 2. It is generated by some non-fusion process that I do not understand. | 3. It is/was generated by some natural "cold" fusion process. | | Could someone comment, please, on these three obvious sources of Helium? | | Bill Miller | | (Of course, there is a fourth possible source. Aliens visited the Earth some | years back and buried a few fusion plants in selected locations around the | world. There are probably more, but they cannot be located unless one looks | for them using a forked willow tree branch. Aluminium foil hat is optional.) |

Fission. The alpha particle is a helium nucleus.

=A0I

ts?

at

take

,000x

and

you

out

=A0 = snipped-for-privacy@mail.biu.ac.il

ty

--

ird

the

Dhuh!

Do anyone of your asshole following idiots would realize if 'Cold Fusion' were realitity if 'Cold Fusion' were to be a fact? No, I doubt if they do consider the ramifications. Maybe this will help...

Consider a plant totally lifeles, free of all organic life and fusing under the reamining the cold fusion reaction of the very last remaining components of hydrogen remaining on earth. After 'cold hyrogen reactions', earth would be simply another lifelies orbital void in orbit about the sun.

Don't some of you clueless scienifically disadvantageaidiots realize that this would be be the conseuence of hydrogen fusion, cold, hot, or otherwise?

Harry C.

So how many books on atomic weapons or power have you written ?

What's your view on fast and slow neutrons and suitable moderators ? The Wigner effect is a bitch isn't it ?

Graham

None, of course. But I have corrected blatant errors in numerous Wikipedia articles! :-)

ergy

My "view"? Gosh, I don't know. Giant blocks of paraffin always seemed to work pretty well for me. But then I wasn't trying to build a bomb.

The point, Graham, is that I said that the mistake in physics over things like "cold fusion" and "low energy transmutations" is that all the establishment "debunkers" immediately go on a tirade (like you are) dragging up all manner of "high energy" facts that are supposed to "disprove" these proposed effects. Clearly, these effects cannot be part of the high energy handbook of reactions. You are all trying to prove to me that heavier than air aircraft can never fly! Just weigh some metal and then try to get it to float! I tell you guys that ONLY when you come over to my house and demonstrate a huge block of Aluminum that is lighter than air, will I EVER believe that heavier than air aircraft will EVER be possible and even then it will probably take a hundred years for a working version to actually be developed. So just where is this so-called "flying machine" that the Wright brothers claim they have invented? It's been years since they said they could build it and I haven't seen anything yet! It's all bunk I tell you!

Do you have ANY sense at all of the point I've tried to make here?

: The point, Graham, is that I said that the mistake in physics over : things like "cold fusion" and "low energy transmutations" is that all : the establishment "debunkers" immediately go on a tirade (like you : are) dragging up all manner of "high energy" facts that are supposed : to "disprove" these proposed effects.

What part of "fusion has been observed at low temperature and behaves exactly as it does at high temperature" is too difficult for you to follow?

If you can't get that, then asking you to compare the average kinetic energy of a 4He nucleus at, say 10^6 K, to the excitation energy of a

----- Richard Schultz snipped-for-privacy@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University

----- ". . .Mr Schutz [sic] acts like a functional electro-terrorist who impeads [sic] scientific communications with his too oft-silliness." -- Mitchell Swartz, sci.physics.fusion article

Which, of course, is the rough equivalent of saying "I have painted over graffiti I didn't like the looks of with my own."

Bob M.

Prove it.

As Carl Sagan so frequently noted, the burden of proof is on the one making the extraordinary claim. I can't prove conclusively that Santa Claus doesn't exist, either, but until someone shows up with some pretty good evidence of toys coming out of a workshop run by elves and situated somewhere near 90 deg. N, I'm sure not going to worry much about him.

Bob M.

Thats not even scientific. Proof of opposite is extremley strong science and a challenge.

At the moment, the proof of the opposite to cold fusion is very weak. You could point at an old MIT paper for instance to get it rubbished by MIT themselves.

The case for cold fusion gets stronger by the day.

The patterson cell works 100% on every demo.

The Fleishman Pons cell worked 1:10 time when it went on demo first. Now its slightly better than 2:3. Not enough research work has gone to improve it further because a lot more people and funding are needed to extend the studies further.

Do beggers still need horses?

Bill

-- Most people go to college to get their missing high school education.

They'll probably ride on the flying pigs instead.

The most important reason for having cold fusion to work is hot fusion. Not because I think that hot fusion will never work but I have serious doubts the commercial hot fusion power will ever be practical. Think about how do you'd contain a hunk of Sun? Then think about how you'd contain a hunk of super nova, more like modern Tokama temperatures. How would you open up your superconducting coils to repair the scalded wall every week, or more? We barely have the technology to protect the Space Shuttle during re-entry how in the world can we protect billions of dollars of super- conductors from a self-contained super-nova?

What is the biggest scam: cold fusion or the promise of controlled, commercial hot fusion?

I'd love to see cold fusion become usable, but have my doubts about it ever working. However, if it does actually work, how do you plan to produce usable electrical power from it? If cold fusion is now reproducible, as some are claiming, let's see some usable energy actually generated from it...