On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 1:31 AM, Alain dit le Cycliste < alain.sep...@gmail.com> wrote:
> for those that repeat that CF is impossible , Not impossible, just unlikely, in the absence of good evidence. > I can answer simply : > - it breaks no basic rule of todays most validated models : Quantum Physic > Reference Frame, and generel Relativity (unlike Opera neutrinos, perpetual > movement, usable antigravity). it only breaks usual approach to compute. > Right. The usual rules, using QM, predict a reaction rate 10^30 times too low to explain claimed heat. > - it is no more, no less explained by todays physics than is High > temperature superconductivity , and that was classic superconductivity and > super-fluidity before BCS. > I don't agree. SC was not understood, but the idea that quantum transitions could be inhibited at low temperature was not contrary to any calculations of reaction rates or anything, and was certainly not implausible given the understanding of the time. And of course the evidence that it happened was unequivocal. The mechanism was just not conceived of. Exothermic nuclear reactions in non-radioactive material require a lot of concentrated energy, and that is highly unlikely. It is of course possible that some method not conceived of can make it happen, but concentrating thousands of times ordinary chemical bond strengths in single atomic sites is far less plausible (yes, in hind-sight) than some kind of pairing phenomenon to make electrons look like bosons. But most importantly, the evidence for it does not justify a need to reject current predictions of reaction rates. > anyway, that is not a proof, just on reason to say those that critics CF > on it's impossibility, are Right. No one claims that cold fusion has been proven impossible. The claim is that its existence has not been proven. on the explanation, it seems that no theory is convincing, maybe because > the best physicians, and the mass of world physicians, did not work on it. Proponents claim hundreds of professional scientists have been working on it for 22 years. Maybe they are not the best, but then one should ask why the best consider the pursuit not worth their time. anyway, how many years between superconductivity is observed, quantum > physics is established, and BCS paper? > Many decades, no doubt. How many years between fire and an explanation for it? Many more. The question to ask is how many years between the discovery of SC and the acceptance of the reality of the phenomenon? That happened fast. How many years between the discovery of high-temp SC and the nobel prize? About 1 or 2. Cold fusion's problem is not just the absence of a consistent theory. It's the absence of strong evidence. > > however it seems to works, Not in the opinion of mainstream science, or the DOE panel enlisted to study the best evidence in 2004.
