It is clearly demonstrable that there exist mechanisms (of unknown type) in room temperature condensed matter to create at least 10's of keV, check out the rather fascinating following video: http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/10588/X_Rays_from_Sellotape/
On 5 December 2011 15:52, Joshua Cude <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> JC wrote:**** >> >> “Say what? That's just gibberish. I seriously doubt that Zawodny has any >> idea what that sentence means, if it means anything at all. A physical >> effect is allowed by a breakdown in a mathematical approximation? What that >> sentence does is make people's eyes glaze over, and think it sounds >> sophisticated enough that it must be true.”**** >> >> ** ** >> >> That certainly is one possibility… but it’s just as plausible that your >> and MY’s eyes glaze over because you don’t have enough in-depth knowledge >> of the relevant physics to fully understand what’s being proposed. >> > > > But my failure to understand something does not make it any more plausible > to me. Someone could come along and claim to have a theory that explains > perpetual motion machines, but I wouldn't believe it just because he could > string a bunch of sophisticated buzz-words together into an > incomprehensible sentence. > > You need 780 keV at a single atomic site to induce electron capture by a > proton. This is allegedly induced by heating the lattice. So, random atomic > motion representing a fraction of an eV per atom is somehow supposed to be > concentrated by a factor of much more than a million by some resonant > phenomenon. No amount of jargon makes that plausible. WL present all sorts > of equations to justify the idea, but they don't actually calculate a > reaction rate for a given hydrogen loading in Pd or Ni. > > People are skeptical of cold fusion because of the Coulomb barrier. The > big selling point about the WLT is that it is supposed to be more plausible > because it avoids the Coulomb barrier. The problem is it introduces a much > bigger energy barrier. So then, the same skeptics should be more skeptical > of WLT, not less skeptical. Why should telling people they are not > sophisticated enough to understand the mechanism be any more effective for > the WLT than for breaching the Coulomb barrier? > > It's another matter to pitch it at theoretical physicists, but people like > Bushnell and Krivit pitch it at their lay audiences. And the last time I > checked, no theoretical physicists of any stripe were citing W&L, even > though it would be breakthrough physics if it were right. Even among LENR > advocates, the theoretical physicists like Hagelstein don't give it much > respect. > > > >> this was only an internal workshop. It was most likely background for >> others who might be interested in helping. It most certainly was NOT a >> full description of all the LENR work that they have done. How the hell do >> you know what data they have or don’t have? What experiments they’ve done >> or not done? >> > > It's true. It's possible they have evidence that he did not present. They > might have done an experiment where gamma rays that otherwise go right > through a nickel powder, are blocked when it's heated in an atmosphere of > hydrogen under pressure. Or other experiments that make WL more believable. > But if he's trying to attract helpers, wouldn't it make more sense to > present evidence like that? The presentation looks pretty similar to the > one he gave in 2009. No indication of progress at all. But again, maybe > he's got a reason for hiding it. Maybe, but I doubt it. > > Anyway, based on what's available, I remain skeptical. >
