At 01:31 PM 3/22/2010, you wrote:
Roarty, Francis X wrote:
Science News in today's Science Daily 'Cold Fusion' Moves Closer to
Mainstream Acceptance
That's the ACS press release again. Those press releases have
traction. It is very helpful of the ACS to issue them.
Yes. However, so far we are only seeing regurgitation of the press
releases, not independent analysis. There might be more after the
conference is over.
It would be useful to notice the standard stupid arguments, as on
phys.org. A FAQ should be written to concisely skewer them.
One that I particularly love is the claim that this is useless unless
there is 10 times energy gain. Uh, anyone care about, um, physics?
What if there is, proven, 10% energy gain? *Any* energy gain not
obtainable by chemistry or other known physics? As some noted, nobody
doubts hot fusion because they haven't seen any energy gain, and cold
fusion has shown, regularly now, gains far higher than unity. But the
knee-jerk sceptics simply don't believe it.
"It's not reproducible" is such an article of faith that no matter
how many peer-reviewed papers are pointed out to them, they keep
repeating it. Repeating it like a liturgy, as if that will ward off
the evil cold fusion spirits.
"It's easy to make neutrons" was another wonderful comment. Really,
now? How, without nuclear reactions? Under the conditions of these
experiments? Even if it's not fusion, this alone would be of great interest.
I'm afraid the intelligence level of those commenting on phys.org was
pretty low. I don't blame people for being skeptical, but a real
skeptic would be asking questions, not making ignorant declarations
with the tone of Superior Wisdom.
