Harry Veeder wrote:
Jed Rothwell wrote:
The cold fusion article at Wikipedia has grown too large, so it must
be split up.
Someone asked me to assist with the sub-article "cold fusion
controversy." I should not waste my time on this sort of thing, but I did.
The skeptics will soon trash this and erase it, but I had a lot of
fun writing it. Have a look before it is gone:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion_controversy
Here is a passage from Jed's article in the Wikipedia.
Calorimetry is based upon the laws of thermodynamics. Since most
skeptics agree that autoradiographs, the laws of thermodynamics and so on are
valid, cold fusion researchers feel the skeptics should should agree that cold
fusion experiments are valid, and that the burden of proof is on those who
claim these techniques and laws are inoperative.
It got me thinking...
Suppose the excess heat is evidence that the second law of thermodynamics
is some how violated. In other words the various apparatus that CF
researches employ are able to produce usable heat (i.e. excess heat) without
an effective temperature difference.
Harry
The thermodynamics laws are safe they are based on our understanding of
entropy and times arrow and can't be wrong. Whether we have counted all
the available energy is another matter. All the thermodynamics laws can
be correct yet seem wrong if we have missed an energy flux. ZPE is the
best example there; if it is really a radiation and not an illusion of
probability then we do have potential energy. If it is not totally
isotropic and isothermal or can be made locally non isotropic then we
have energy to burn. I happen to believe that Dr Eugene Podkletnov has.
Still the ballance of probabilities and Occam's razer both imply that we
have a 'simple' case of electron screened fusion; not anything else.
KISS Keep it simple stupid.
**
