Wesley Bruce wrote: > 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
I sense some confusion here regarding the difference between laws and definitions. The thermodynamic laws aren't based on our understanding of entropy. Entropy is a defined property, and it is suppose to change in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics. For comparison, the logical status of entropy is similar to the logical status of inertia. Inertia is a defined property and it is suppose to change in accordance with the laws of motion. Newton clearly distinguishes between laws and definitions in his Principia. Before the chapter entitled "The Laws or Axioms of Motion" is a chapter devoted to definitions. > 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. > > ** It easier to question an "axiom" then a "law", don't you think? Harry
