Slashdot Mirror
Cold Fusion Conference Counts Eleven Labs
James Salsman writes: "From an American Physical Society conference session held a week ago, there appear to be now eleven institutions actively publishing cold fusion results: Research Systems (Arlington, VA), SRI International, ENEA (Italy), JET Energy (Welleslley, MA), Middle Tennessee State Univ., Russian Academy of Sciences, U. of Il. at Urbana-Champaign, U.S. Navy's SPAWAR Systems Center in San Diego, First Gate Energy (Woodside, CA, and a few blocks from my house), New Energy Research Lab. (NH), and MIT. Credible or crackpot? You be the judge."
Let's see. You told this guy to stop ranting. He said he wasn't ranting, that the evidence was there. You then told him to stop ranting, and that the evidence wasn't there. So he sites a bunch of sources that support his side. You tell him "it is common to claim that people who disagree with you have not read enough".
Hmmm. It is common to provide a non-sequitor and resort to name-calling when one is obviously losing an argument. Mr. Lindahl, your arguments are trite and consist of complete non-sequitors. Stop the name-calling (i.e. "child"). It doesn't add much to the discussion (nor does my reply, but I felt your comments warranted more than a simple moderation).
For the record, aminorex never stated that "the evidence is clear". Instead, he stated, "The evidence is there" and to "Get off the couch and go read the papers". He is not stating that the evidence is incontrovertable. He is merely stating there is a wide body of evidence that supports the claims of cold fusion.
Greg, your debating skills are weak and you retreat to simple name calling and the use of non-sequitors when you are losing. It is not aminorex that is dilluting this discussion; instead, it is you.
--Be human.
There are many different types of fusion being researched right now that are given a fairly good chance of success eventually. The only requrement is a demonstration that shows, under scrutiny, that a positive output can be obtained. This has been obviously seen in stars and nuclear bombs, hence the two main thrusts of research are with hot plasmas and explosions.
The problem is, due to their release of bad data through public media, all of this research is tainted, inside and outside the scientific community. This has hurt the funding of all types of fusion research.
It might turn out that cold fusion is profitable sooner than any other type. The paper on sono-fusion certainly suggests that. But until those research kits are delivered, the effects you mentioned will remain laboratory anomalies, unable to disproove the statistical calculations showing the improbability of a positive energy gain (which is highly improbable!).
On the other hand, the mechanics of these collisions are not well understood. It's possible, as the first paper suggests, that other processes are at work here which allow a positive energy gain. These are similar effects to what is already accepted for certain types of fusion in stars.
In either case, it's important for the scientific community to support at least the understanding of these anomalous processes... it might not lead to fusion, but it could lead to something else.