Although many things are possible (even if we don't know/understand now), for me (and others) to believe it, the experiment has to be repeatable. It would be like you working on a condensing unit, pull the disconnect, and the thing stilll runs. You then tell your HVAC buddies about this magical condensing unit and come back and find that either the disconnect was bypassed, you had pulled the wrong disconnect, or now it doesn't run when the disconnect is pulled (the cold fusion thing is most like the last option). You swear up and down that it was working that way, but you can't prove it.
Although many things are possible (even if we don't know/understand now), for me (and others) to believe it, the experiment has to be repeatable. It would be like you working on a condensing unit, pull the disconnect, and the thing stilll runs. You then tell your HVAC buddies about this magical condensing unit and come back and find that either the disconnect was bypassed, you had pulled the wrong disconnect, or now it doesn't run when the disconnect is pulled (the cold fusion thing is most like the last option). You swear up and down that it was working that way, but you can't prove it.
So, there are claims from legitimate and reputable sources that say they have seen cold fusion work, but cannot repeat the results? I was under the impression that all cold fussion successes were either found to be wrong data or deliberately falsified data.
Once again, this completely supports that any proof of cold fusion thus far is considered to be erroneous at the best. Please note the terms used to describe cold fusion and it's data I have highlighted;
Cold fusion refers to a proposed nuclear fusion process of unknown mechanism offered to explain a group of disputed experimental results first reported by electrochemists Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons. It is sometimes termed "Low Energy Nuclear Reaction" (LENR) or Chemically Assisted Nuclear Reaction (CANR) to avoid the negative connotations associated with the original name.[1][2] The field originates with reports of an experiment by Martin Fleischmann, then one of the world's leading electrochemists,[3] and Stanley Pons in March 1989 where they reported anomalous heat production ("excess heat") of a magnitude they asserted would defy explanation except in terms of nuclear processes. They further reported measuring small amounts of nuclear reaction byproducts, including neutrons and tritium.[4] The small tabletop experiment involved electrolysis of heavy water on the surface of a palladium (Pd) electrode.[5]
The media reported that nuclear fusion was happening inside the electrolysis cells,[5] and these reports raised hopes of a cheap and abundant source of energy.[6] Hopes fell when replication failures were weighed in view of several reasons cold fusion is not likely to occur, the discovery of possible sources of experimental error, and finally the discovery that Fleischmann and Pons had not actually detected nuclear reaction byproducts.[7] By late 1989, most scientists considered cold fusion claims dead,[8] and cold fusion subsequently gained a reputation as pathological science.[9] However, a small community of researchers continues to investigate cold fusion[8][10][11][12] claiming to replicate Fleishmann and Pons' results including nuclear reaction byproducts.[13][14] These claims are largely disbelieved in the mainstream scientific community.[15] In 1989, the majority of a review panel organized by the US Department of Energy (DOE) found that the evidence for the discovery of a new nuclear process was not persuasive. A second DOE review, convened in 2004 to look at new research, reached conclusions similar to the first.[16]
In other words, there is no concrete evidence that cold fusion has ever occured.
Correct. As I said, the results could not be reproduced. Whether it actually happened doesn't really matter if the results could not be reproduced. It could have been a matter of that they believed it happened, but the instruments were giving false readings. For any experiemental results to be valid, one must be able to reproduce them under the same conditions.
As far as we know, it didn't happen, but who knows? There are a lot of things that are used today that were discovered by accident and many of which that were thought to be impossible 50-100 years ago.
Correct. As I said, the results could not be reproduced. Whether it actually happened doesn't really matter if the results could not be reproduced. It could have been a matter of that they believed it happened, but the instruments were giving false readings. For any experiemental results to be valid, one must be able to reproduce them under the same conditions.
As far as we know, it didn't happen, but who knows? There are a lot of things that are used today that were discovered by accident and many of which that were thought to be impossible 50-100 years ago.
I agree that we should not give up on seeking out cold fusion, just that it cannot be verified as actually having occured.
This is the largest fusion reactor ever built. We have to wait a bit to see it work. First plasma not expected until ~2019. This unit won't produce electricity, but is a stepping stone towards commercial plasma power. Don't expect plasma generated electricity to hit the grid until 2040-2050 or later.
This is the largest fusion reactor ever built. We have to wait a bit to see it work. First plasma not expected until ~2019. This unit won't produce electricity, but is a stepping stone towards commercial plasma power. Don't expect plasma generated electricity to hit the grid until 2040-2050 or later.
I don't have time to read any of this site, but isn't this the circular collision machine that was feared might create a black hole until it was tested last year?
I don't have time to read any of this site, but isn't this the circular collision machine that was feared might create a black hole until it was tested last year?
Little black holes are good. Big black holes are not. Mind you little and big are both relative.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by KCA
