skip to main |
skip to sidebar
1. Actually scientist have known of fusion occurring at room temperature for decades. The subtext of the question is really the issue of whether it is one measure better than breakeven. Next the question may be is it lower in cost than other energy producing processes? So far the answer to those questions is yes for cold fusion but not yet for the later question. Muon-catalyzed fusion (μCF) is a process allowing nuclear fusion to take place at temperatures significantly lower than the temperatures required for thermonuclear fusion, even at room temperature or lower. It is one of the few known ways of catalyzing nuclear fusion reactions. This type of cold fusion has been known, at least theoretically, since before 1950. The great nuclear bomb scientist, Erico Fermi even worked on the science in this area
...
How can this be?
2. Most scientists, being scientific skeptics, test the reliability of certain kinds of claims by subjecting them to a systematic investigation using some form of the scientific method. In 1987 Marcello Truzzi revived the term specifically for arguments which use scientific-sounding language to disparage or refute given beliefs, theories, or claims, but which in fact fail to follow the precepts of conventional scientific skepticism. He argued that scientific skepticism is agnostic to new ideas, making no claims about them but waiting for them to satisfy a burden of proof before granting them validity. Pseudoskepticism, by contrast, involves "negative hypotheses" - theoretical assertions that some belief, theory, or claim is factually wrong - without satisfying the burden of proof that such negative theoretical assertions would require.[5][6][7][8] In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis—saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact—he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.
— Marcello Truzzi, "On Pseudo-Skepticism", Zetetic Scholar, 12/13, pp3-4, 1987[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoskepticism .
...
How can this be?
Again the subtext really is a question about efficiency and commercial viability. CR-39, or allyl diglycol carbonate (ADC), is a plastic polymer and its use includes a purified version that is used to measure neutron radiation, a type of ionizing radiation, in neutron dosimetry. U.S. Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWAR) reported detection of energetic neutrons using a heavy water electrolysis set-up and a CR-39 detector,[12][112] a result previously published in Die Naturwissenschaften.[113
...
How can this be?
Even Einstein originally said that a nuclear bomb would be impossible. It took Leó Szilárd to get Einstein going on this issue in a letter to the U.S. President.
...
How can this be?
my title text
MYTHS REGARDING COLD FUSION/LENR
1. There is no such thing as Cold Fusion!
You will change that to it is Science that provide at least one measure better than breakeven.
2. Its not SCIENCE! Cold Fusion/LENR are hoaxes, pathological science, pseudoscience, amateur science, deviant or fraudulent science, bad science, junk science, popular science, cargo-cult science, and voodoo science!
3. Is this right?
Answers
1. Actually scientist have known of fusion occurring at room temperature for decades. The subtext of the question is really the issue of whether it is one measure better than breakeven. Next the question may be is it lower in cost than other energy producing processes? So far the answer to those questions is yes for cold fusion but not yet for the later question. Muon-catalyzed fusion (μCF) is a process allowing nuclear fusion to take place at temperatures significantly lower than the temperatures required for thermonuclear fusion, even at room temperature or lower. It is one of the few known ways of catalyzing nuclear fusion reactions. This type of cold fusion has been known, at least theoretically, since before 1950. The great nuclear bomb scientist, Erico Fermi even worked on the science in this area/
Top
2. Most scientists, being scientific skeptics, test the reliability of certain kinds of claims by subjecting them to a systematic investigation using some form of the scientific method. In 1987 Marcello Truzzi revived the term specifically for arguments which use scientific-sounding language to disparage or refute given beliefs, theories, or claims, but which in fact fail to follow the precepts of conventional scientific skepticism. He argued that scientific skepticism is agnostic to new ideas, making no claims about them but waiting for them to satisfy a burden of proof before granting them validity. Pseudoskepticism, by contrast, involves "negative hypotheses" - theoretical assertions that some belief, theory, or claim is factually wrong - without satisfying the burden of proof that such negative theoretical assertions would require.[5][6][7][8] In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis—saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact—he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.
— Marcello Truzzi, "On Pseudo-Skepticism", Zetetic Scholar, 12/13, pp3-4, 1987[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoskepticism .
Top
3. a finishe product
Top
