" wrote:

We can make energy out of matter, and matter out of energy. With cold
fusion, we will unlock the power of the atom,

Shame it doesn't exist.

Graham

On Jul 25, 9:25*pm, Eeyore
wrote:
" wrote:
We can make energy out of matter, and matter out of energy. *With cold
fusion, we will unlock the power of the atom,

Shame it doesn't exist.

Graham

Please list your credentials backing up this statement paying
particular attention to your study of physical laws and principles
that have not yet been discovered.

Or is it just that you "won' like us anymore" if we don't believe
every word you utter?

Of course you did say "doesn't exist" rather than "will never exist".
So now I'm wondering about the depth of your research into the various
claims of "cold fusion" by various people up to now. Since you have
obviously studied each one of these in depth to determine that none of
the claims are valid, I presume you are willing to discuss the various
experiments with us in great detail highlighting the various reasons
for failure.

"Richard Schultz" wrote in message
...
In sci.physics.fusion Benj wrote:
: On Jul 23, 7:07?pm, webpa wrote:

: Isn't it amazing? ?When it's too good to be true, and isn't, it MUST
: have been suppressed by a gigantic conspiracy.

: Isn't it amazing? When a reported discovery obviously has the
: potential to upend HUGE economic vested interests and suddenly seems
: to disappear into a black hole, a host of sheep always appear bleating
: that any suggestion of foul play is insanity.

Isn't it amazing? When a reported discovery violates fundamental
principles of physics, it suddenly seems to disappear into a black hole,
and anyone who suggests a connection between the two is accused (by people
who don't know anything about physics) of being part of some huge
secret conspiracy that only the accuser knows about.

-----
Richard Schultz
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University

And now a chemist knows all there is to know about nuclear physics.
Get real.

"Benj" wrote in message
...
On Jul 25, 9:25 pm, Eeyore

I presume you are willing to discuss the various
experiments with us in great detail highlighting the
various reasons for failure.

Why not be more positive? Perhaps you could start by discussing how you
think it might be made to work.

On Jul 26, 10:08 am, "Cwatters"
wrote:

Why not be more positive? Perhaps you could start by discussing how you
think it might be made to work.

Well since you are taking a reasonable approach, I see no reason why I
might not do the same! First let me say that I have not personally
investigated any of the "cold fusion" claims and research and am not
asserting that any of them actually work!

But your suggestion IS the correct one! Namely to first ask the
question "how COULD it work?" Or in other words is there any evidence
that it might be possible? I suggest that the answer to that one is
"yes".

Here's where I think so many physicists have jumped the track. Nuclear
reactions in the present era are well known to exist. Atomic bombs
and accelerators of various types have shown that if you "smash"
things together these kinds of reactions do occur. And it is widely
established that for these kinds of primitive reactions a lot of
energy is required to make them go.

This is in many ways analogous to ordinary chemical reactions which
can be made to operated with certain energies required. But we also
know that in the case of chemical reactions there are OTHER ways to
get them going! These ways include the use of catalysts and enzymes.
Enzymes are especially interesting in that through the use of
geometric conformity they induce reactions to take place (usually in
living things) that would be "impossible" in other circumstances. Now
we need to ask the question: "Could there possibly exist such a thing
as a "nuclear enzyme"? Is there any evidence that suggests that
possibility?

The answer to the earnest student of these subjects would be a
resounding "yes". I refer of course, to the "low energy
transmutations" proposed and studied by C. Louis Kervran and others.
Obtaining iron-clad proof, when living matter is involved is obviously
difficult at best, but I'd have to suppose far from "impossible".
Over his lifetime Kervran obtained strong evidence of nuclear
reactions taking place at plant and animal temperatures!
Transmutations of Calcium in chickens fed no calcium, transmutations
of elements in Oats or sea creatures, and outdoor transmutations on
the stones of monuments. In short a Host of suggested possibilities
for low energy nuclear reactions. He even examined possible physics
mechanisms to bolster this idea, though the nuclear physics is even
now not very well developed.

The evidence there is VERY strong that nuclear reactions can indeed
take place in two ways. First in the high energy smash them together
primitive way that all physicists are familiar with, but also in a
second more highly sophisticated and technological way that life
processes seem to know about.

So if you want a discussion of just HOW so-called "cold fusion" might
be possible, I'd say that HERE is a really good place to start. To
simply scream that such reactions without MeVs of energy is
"impossible" is to really make the claim that one is conversant with
ALL laws of physics including the one's not discovered yet. How stupid
is that?

Clearly the usual approach you find here of name-calling and bold
assertion that any such thing is "impossible" is not only ignorant and
counter productive, but also seems to smack of blatant propaganda
techniques. So that makes me ask the question: "Why is establishment
science so interested in "debunking" the idea of low energy nuclear
reactions?"

You don't suppose "national security" is involved, do you?

Now just where did I leave my tinfoil helmet?

Benj wrote:

On Jul 26, 10:08 am, "Cwatters"
wrote:

Why not be more positive? Perhaps you could start by discussing how you
think it might be made to work.

Well since you are taking a reasonable approach, I see no reason why I
might not do the same! First let me say that I have not personally
investigated any of the "cold fusion" claims and research and am not
asserting that any of them actually work!

Start here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion

Graham

"Benj" wrote in message
...
Here's where I think so many physicists have jumped the track. Nuclear
reactions in the present era are well known to exist. Atomic bombs
and accelerators of various types have shown that if you "smash"
things together these kinds of reactions do occur. And it is widely
established that for these kinds of primitive reactions a lot of
energy is required to make them go.

You really should learn some very basic physics before you
try to comment on this subject.

"Smashing things together" is a very crude and misleading description
of how an atomic bomb works. You might start by thinking about
what the term "critical mass" means.


The answer to the earnest student of these subjects would be a
resounding "yes". I refer of course, to the "low energy
transmutations" proposed and studied by C. Louis Kervran and others.

You mispelled "gullible" as "earnest" in the above.

Kervran's "theories" (which in truth never came close to meeting
the criteria to be considered "theories" in the scientific sense) are
among the most thoroughly debunked in the biological sciences.

Bob M.

In sci.physics.fusion Benj wrote:

: Isn't it amazing how when tools of the establishment show up to
: ridicule and "debunk" any topic that is to be discouraged from any
: reasonable discussion, they always have to have the last word?

The reasonable discussion of cold fusion was held roughly from 1989-1994.
If you have anything new to add to it, please feel free to go ahead.

-----
Richard Schultz
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
". . .Mr Schutz [sic] acts like a functional electro-terrorist who
impeads [sic] scientific communications with his too oft-silliness."
-- Mitchell Swartz, sci.physics.fusion article

In sci.physics.fusion Vince Morgan vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au wrote:
: "Richard Schultz" wrote in message
: ...

: Isn't it amazing? When a reported discovery violates fundamental
: principles of physics, it suddenly seems to disappear into a black hole,
: and anyone who suggests a connection between the two is accused (by people
: who don't know anything about physics) of being part of some huge
: secret conspiracy that only the accuser knows about.

: And now a chemist knows all there is to know about nuclear physics.
: Get real.

I have never claimed to know all there is to know about nuclear physics --
only enough about the fundamental principles of physics in general to
know that "cold fusion" violates them. Or, to put it another way, my
knowledge of nuclear physics is greater than zero; yours is equal to zero.

-----
Richard Schultz
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
". . .Mr Schutz [sic] acts like a functional electro-terrorist who
impeads [sic] scientific communications with his too oft-silliness."
-- Mitchell Swartz, sci.physics.fusion article

On Jul 26, 8:05 pm, "Bob Myers" wrote:

You really should learn some very basic physics before you
try to comment on this subject.

Perhaps you might learn a little bit about scientific research and
physics yourself before you start judging how much other people know.
This kind of comment is meaningless. You clearly have no knowledge of
basic physics yourself, save what you have read in "Wikipedia"! Sure,
that's the ultimate source of knowledge! Did you write the article on
"atomic bombs" yourself?

"Smashing things together" is a very crude and misleading description
of how an atomic bomb works. You might start by thinking about
what the term "critical mass" means.

This proves you are a moron. You clearly have no understanding of
nuclear physics and have very limited reading comprehension as well.
You can start by thinking about what the term "atom smasher" means.
You may use Wikipedia to find an answer.

Idiot.

The answer to the earnest student of these subjects would be a
resounding "yes". I refer of course, to the "low energy
transmutations" proposed and studied by C. Louis Kervran and others.

You mispelled "gullible" as "earnest" in the above.

And you misspelled "mispelled" you ignorant fool. Yeah spelling
flames, that wins the debate of who knows more science EVERY time!!!
I take it you call any student "gullible" who does not accept without
question each and every lie that falls from your spewing lips. Most
of us in science call accepting statements without data or proof
"gullible".

Schmuck.

Kervran's "theories" (which in truth never came close to meeting
the criteria to be considered "theories" in the scientific sense) are
among the most thoroughly debunked in the biological sciences.

Cite please? Do you speak fluent French? I heard that CIA employees
are often fluent in several languages. Oh, I get it. The old "proof by
assertion" where your opinion is so important that no other proof is
needed! Oh, I forgot, you won't "like me anymore" unless I accept
every statement you make without hesitation. Hint: I don't give a
rat's ass if you "like" me.

I can see that CWatters call for a sane, reasonable, and adult
discussion of this topic had no effect on you.

Clearly you are a shill attempting (as I so eloquently pointed out
above in this thread) to steer this topic away from any reasonable
discussions.

Or more likely:
Paid Shill.

Why don't you just take your flim-flam and bugger off?