Comments on: Do you have any questions for the cold fusion folks? http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/21/cold-fusion-60-minutes/ The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics Fri, 12 Mar 2010 13:11:37 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Wilmot McCutchen http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/21/cold-fusion-60-minutes/#comment-41227 Wilmot McCutchen Thu, 23 Apr 2009 19:55:25 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=5848#comment-41227 Open Mind -- Here is a study you may find interesting, concerning excess heat and He detection from cavitation in a Pd/deuterium system. http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StringhamRcavitationb.pdf Open Mind —

Here is a study you may find interesting, concerning excess heat and He detection from cavitation in a Pd/deuterium system. http://www.lenr-canr.org/ acrobat/ StringhamRcavitationb.pdf

]]> By: Open Mind http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/21/cold-fusion-60-minutes/#comment-41030 Open Mind Thu, 23 Apr 2009 03:25:43 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=5848#comment-41030 The streaking or pitting was on CR-39, a plastic specifically used to test for neutrons, I believe. Nothing in the articles I read about the palladium, you'll have to get the Navy SPAWAR lab's report to see about that. The streaking or pitting was on CR-39, a plastic specifically used to test for neutrons, I believe. Nothing in the articles I read about the palladium, you’ll have to get the Navy SPAWAR lab’s report to see about that.

]]> By: Wilmot McCutchen http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/21/cold-fusion-60-minutes/#comment-41025 Wilmot McCutchen Thu, 23 Apr 2009 02:50:55 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=5848#comment-41025 Recommended reading is Bad Science: The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion, by Gary Taubes (1993). No wonder the term "cold fusion" evokes such hostility. One question I have: for the cases where excess heat was detected, was there any pitting on the Pd electrode? Recommended reading is Bad Science: The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion, by Gary Taubes (1993). No wonder the term “cold fusion” evokes such hostility.

One question I have: for the cases where excess heat was detected, was there any pitting on the Pd electrode?

]]> By: Open Mind http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/21/cold-fusion-60-minutes/#comment-40929 Open Mind Wed, 22 Apr 2009 20:08:10 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=5848#comment-40929 Well, for one, the Navy recently did, including excess heat and evidence of nuclear reactions in the form of streaking. Many other labs have reproduced the heating effect - do the reading. Well, for one, the Navy recently did, including excess heat and evidence of nuclear reactions in the form of streaking. Many other labs have reproduced the heating effect – do the reading.

]]> By: Chaz http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/21/cold-fusion-60-minutes/#comment-40895 Chaz Wed, 22 Apr 2009 18:19:22 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=5848#comment-40895 Who specifically has reproduced Pons & Fleischmann's results???? They could not reproduce it either. It is a basic tenant of science that results can be reproduced by others. Who specifically has reproduced Pons & Fleischmann’s results???? They could not reproduce it either. It is a basic tenant of science that results can be reproduced by others.

]]> By: Open Mind http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/21/cold-fusion-60-minutes/#comment-40890 Open Mind Wed, 22 Apr 2009 18:05:26 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=5848#comment-40890 Understand first Joe that Fleishmann and Pons were very credible scientists who's reputations were destroyed by a knee-jerk and possibly coordinated campaign. The MIT study which was initially used to discredit their findings has itself been discredited. This is a scientific anomoly which has been replicated by many different scientists but cannot presently be explained. Calorimetry is notoriously tempermental and the types of materials used in various experiments are two critical problems which have led to the difficultly of replicating the effect of LENRs. Can't be explained by our Physics? Get in line! Why do you think we're looking for a unified theory? As Hamlet said: "there are more things under heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy Horatio" - this may be one of them. Understand first Joe that Fleishmann and Pons were very credible scientists who’s reputations were destroyed by a knee-jerk and possibly coordinated campaign. The MIT study which was initially used to discredit their findings has itself been discredited. This is a scientific anomoly which has been replicated by many different scientists but cannot presently be explained. Calorimetry is notoriously tempermental and the types of materials used in various experiments are two critical problems which have led to the difficultly of replicating the effect of LENRs.

Can’t be explained by our Physics? Get in line! Why do you think we’re looking for a unified theory?

As Hamlet said: “there are more things under heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy Horatio” – this may be one of them.

]]> By: Bob Wright http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/21/cold-fusion-60-minutes/#comment-40870 Bob Wright Wed, 22 Apr 2009 15:53:41 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=5848#comment-40870 Oops! Meant heavy water hydrolysis, not deuterium - and Deuterium molecules, not atoms. Oops! Meant heavy water hydrolysis, not deuterium – and Deuterium molecules, not atoms.

]]> By: Dill Weed http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/21/cold-fusion-60-minutes/#comment-40858 Dill Weed Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:54:27 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=5848#comment-40858 How about having them demonstrate they can do it? Rage against the power! Or, at least mumble under your breath. Dill Weed How about having them demonstrate they can do it?

Rage against the power! Or, at least mumble under your breath.

Dill Weed

]]> By: onymous http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/21/cold-fusion-60-minutes/#comment-40856 onymous Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:42:36 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=5848#comment-40856 Wikipedia has a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#Lack_of_accepted_explanation_using_conventional_physics" rel="nofollow">decent short summary</a> of why cold fusion would be in conflict with understood physics. (Maybe you already know all of this.) I think they would need a clear way of explaining how they get around these problems, to have any hope of convincing people what they're doing is real. I haven't looked into it much, but the attempted explanations I've seen a few places on the web have in common with climate denialists that they misunderstand basic physics and seem to have no sense of relative orders of magnitude of different effects. Wikipedia has a decent short summary of why cold fusion would be in conflict with understood physics. (Maybe you already know all of this.) I think they would need a clear way of explaining how they get around these problems, to have any hope of convincing people what they’re doing is real. I haven’t looked into it much, but the attempted explanations I’ve seen a few places on the web have in common with climate denialists that they misunderstand basic physics and seem to have no sense of relative orders of magnitude of different effects.

]]> By: Daniel Bergey http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/21/cold-fusion-60-minutes/#comment-40830 Daniel Bergey Wed, 22 Apr 2009 12:48:35 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=5848#comment-40830 I haven't done enough background reading to ask skeptical questions about their experiments. The obvious questions to me are: What role do they see cold fusion filling in the future? What work needs to be done to get there? What is a reasonable timeline? I haven’t done enough background reading to ask skeptical questions about their experiments. The obvious questions to me are: What role do they see cold fusion filling in the future? What work needs to be done to get there? What is a reasonable timeline?

]]>