As far as I can tell, no aspect of nuclear science does not allow the possibiliy of LENR. What must be modified is the prejudices of the nuclear scientists.
As it stands, the current theory of the Coulomb barrier does not allow fusion at low temperatures
Sure it does. Check out muon catalysed fusion. And if there is one path, there may well be other only dimly seen paths. I've seen a number of proposed methods. Most if not all of them involve some involvement with electrons fully or partially neutralizing the proton (or deuteron).
Additionally, there is some debate about whether what the H:Ni crowd have been working on is fusion at all. Some would call it transmutation.
parallel wrote:and there is no well accepted theory explaining how else to get anomalous heat.
True, but there is no well accepted theory to show that it cannot happen either. I've seen a number of folks make baseless states along that line, but when I ask for data, none emerges.
parallel wrote:Particularly without high radiation.
Check out the phenomenon called (IIRC) internal conversion. It dumps binding energy that would normally go into gamma into electrons instead. Not beta particles which originate in the nucleous but electrons from the inner shell of the atom. And if this LENR involving H&Ni is in fact due to an electron escorted proton, seems that there will be a HIGH probability that there will be an electron there for internal conversion.
The fact remains main stream scientists do not accept cold fusion or LENR or whatever, actually exists. It is still classed as "pseudo science," measurement error, delusion, etc. Hence people like tomclarke. Hence no grant money.
The fact remains main stream scientists do not accept cold fusion or LENR or whatever, actually exists. It is still classed as "pseudo science," measurement error, delusion, etc. Hence people like tomclarke. Hence no grant money.
That is exactly what I said! Nuclear PHYSICS allows for it. Nuclear PHYSICISTS do not. You needn't change the science, just the scientists.
We don't quite agree. I contend it is both the lack of theories and the experimental results that combine to put the mainstream scientists off. The front runner appears to be Widom & Larsen, at least that is what NASA is following. I don't find that convincing myself.
So it needs new theories as well. Rossi is absolutely correct that the only way to get it accepted in the present climate is make and sell commercial units that work. Much harder to shoot that down.
We don't quite agree. I contend it is both the lack of theories and the experimental results that combine to put the mainstream scientists off. The front runner appears to be Widom & Larsen, at least that is what NASA is following. I don't find that convincing myself.
So it needs new theories as well. Rossi is absolutely correct that the only way to get it accepted in the present climate is make and sell commercial units that work. Much harder to shoot that down.
How do you get "experimental results" when you are a pariah for even SUGGESTING it be studied? And without validated data, how in the world is anyone going to make accepted theories. (I like Kim's more than WL but I like my Konjecture most! )
The "responsible" scientists make the subject a classic Catch 22.
We don't quite agree. I contend it is both the lack of theories and the experimental results that combine to put the mainstream scientists off. The front runner appears to be Widom & Larsen, at least that is what NASA is following. I don't find that convincing myself.
So it needs new theories as well. Rossi is absolutely correct that the only way to get it accepted in the present climate is make and sell commercial units that work. Much harder to shoot that down.
Not the only way, calorimetry would also be a good indicator.
Not the only way, calorimetry would also be a good indicator.
Good but not convincing. Remember the 18 hour, no phase change experiment? We've been through this at least twice already. There is always some reason that the results are not acceptable.
The up-coming test is Sweden will probably be better.
Not the only way, calorimetry would also be a good indicator.
Good but not convincing. Remember the 18 hour, no phase change experiment? We've been through this at least twice already. There is always some reason that the results are not acceptable.
Ok, maybe he should have said "competent calorimetry would also be a good indicator"!
Getting royal, or merely full of yourself? Very Happy
we = you and I.
English a problem for you?
English is a problem for EVERYONE!
Sorry, I read "we don't quite agree with you" as an implied "us versus you". I usually reserve "we" for mutually identified groups and would have phrased your statement, "you and I don't quite agree". Neither is wrong. Sorry for the confusion.
PS: I do, however, use the phrase "We'll have to agree to disagree". Ah the wonders of interpreting the English language, especially as used in America.
Ok, maybe he should have said "competent calorimetry would also be a good indicator"!
There was nothing known to be wrong with the calorimetry. The argument seems to have been either the thermometer was touching the casing (foreigners are all idiots) or "just because Levi claimed it doesn't prove a thing."
Ok, maybe he should have said "competent calorimetry would also be a good indicator"!
There was nothing known to be wrong with the calorimetry. The argument seems to have been either the thermometer was touching the casing (foreigners are all idiots) or "just because Levi claimed it doesn't prove a thing."
One more idiotic flowmeter would also be very useful.
The real problem is that the experiment should have been carried out by a reliable group, like the MIT group who fudged the results to hide the anomalous heat when they tried to replicate Fleischmann and Pons. I believe Dr. Mallove resigned in protest at the time.
See http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/p ... report.pdf
We must have a reliable group to protect the science that academics have taught for the last 22 years and most importantly, the huge amount of grant money flowing to hot fusion research. There are whole government departments like DOE that simply can't be shown to be wrong. Heads might roll...Nah that would never happen.
)
