Mark Gibbs <mgi...@gibbs.com> wrote: Let's see if I'm understanding this correctly: The theory was that nuclear > reactions cannot occur in a system such as P&F's. This theory was falsified > which means that nuclear reactions can (and did) occur. >
That is not a theory. It is an assertion. "nuclear reaction cannot occur." It is based on various theories, but that statement by itself does not constitute a theory. An assertion can be proved or disproved by a single experiment. It can be voted up or down, as it were. A theory is usually too multifaceted for that. For example, cold fusion does not prove that plasma fusion theory is wrong; it only proves that the theory does not apply to a lattice. That assertion was proved wrong when cold fusion experiments produced tritium and heat beyond the limits of chemistry. As Abd emphasizes, later on it was shown that cold fusion produces helium in the same ratio to the heat as plasma fusion does, which proves it is fusion. > Correct? If it is correct, then my original statement stands: There is no > theory yet that explains what is called cold fusion. > There is no theory, but there is a clearly stated set of claims which were confirmed. See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHdevelopmen.pdf "EPRI PERSPECTIVE This work confirms the claims of Fleischmann, Pons, and Hawkins of the production of excess heat in deuterium-loaded palladium cathodes at levels too large for chemical transformation. However, the phenomena were obtained in only about half the cells. From the conditions of loading, initiation time, and current density on the successful observations of excess heat, it is understood why the phenomena are so difficult to attain." There are no statements relating to theory here, except conventional chemical theory which shows that a chemical reaction occurs with electron bonds and is limited to ~4 eV per atom. - Jed
