On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Berke Durak <berke.du...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Right. Anything can be explained that way... > > Thank God you weren't there when they came up with quantum theory. > Except that when Planck tried to understand the ultraviolet catastrophe, he didn't just say: "Well it's new physics." He suggested E=hf, and showed that with that equation, blackbody radiation fit his predictions perfectly. Einstein didn't just say that the photoelectric effect disagrees with classical physics because it's new physics. He used Planck's E=hf in a new theory that fit experimental results perfectly. Bohr didn't just say only selected orbits are allowed because it's new physics (he did say that, but not *just* that). He showed that if he quantized angular momentum he could reproduce the Rydberg formula. Schrodinger and Heisenberg didn't just say the particle-wave duality is because of new physics. They developed formal theories which included the duality, and which represent two manifestations of the most predictive physical theory in history. Do you see a pattern there? It's all about suggesting specific new physics that fits the data, and can be tested. WL is not that. Again, that doesn't make it wrong. But at the moment, it has no experimental legs to stand on, and remains energetically highly implausible. > > > Maybe with new physics, but with old physics, the EM fields Rossi > > used do not control nuclear reactions. > > What do you know about the EM fields Rossi used? Are these described > somewhere? Only that they switched on a frequency producing device at low power. It's hard to imagine it as anything other than a coil of some sort, and not a high enough frequency to influence nuclear reactions. But, you're right. I don't know. Just wild speculation. > An X-ray tube produces directional photons using EM > fields. True, with a vacuum, and dc high voltage. No sign of any of that in the ecat. And x-rays are produced by atomic, not nuclear, reactions. > You cannot a priori assume spherical symmetry about an > unknown system that is known to be non spherically symmetrical. > No. But again, nuclear reactions in a powder triggered by heat are unlikely to be directional. > > As usual, you are making lots of implicit assumptions to debunk > something we don't have much information about. It's OK to complain > about lack of information, but it's not enough to debunk. To me it's not about debunking so much as denying evidence exists for bunking. > >> According to Nelson's slides, the gammas are in the 50 - 200 keV > >> range and are thermalized. > > > > Nelson didn't show data to support that. It was just wild > > speculation, and the range was probably chosen because Villa's > > cutoff was 200 keV. > > How do you know it's "just wild speculation?" The slide doesn't say > "My guess: 50 - 200 keV". Maybe you were at the LENR Workshop and > asked him? > If it's not supported by data, it's speculation. > > > > Right. But there are ways to detect photons between 50 and 200 keV. > > And NASA could probably avail themselves of the necessary > > technology. But they didn't show evidence of 50 - 200 keV gammas. > > Neither has Rossi. And neither did he suggest any reactions that > > might produce such low energy gammas. > > Rossi is not a physicist and has no business suggesting reactions. > He's been working with Focardi for a few years already. > > (2) If you read the chronology of Piantelli's work in the same > document, you'll see that Piantelli didn't always get radiation when > he got excess heat. > The one thing that's consistent in cf research is inconsistency. > > Remember that guy who measured a gamma spike while Rossi was adjusting > a reactor in the other room? > Right. The best evidence for cold fusion is some guy who saw something sometime. Rothwell loves to talk about the buckets of water that boiled away when no one was looking. Depending on anecdote just makes cold fusion seem needy.
