NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #30/NN_1992_30.iso/spool/sci/physics/fusion/3021

Text File | 1992-12-17 | 3.5 KB | 73 lines

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!ames!pacbell.com!tandem!zorch!fusion
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Words for cold fusion
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Scott Hazen Mueller)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:51:24 GMT
Lines: 61

Jed Rothwell is trying to use words to paper over several weak points
in the case for cold fusion so let's examine a few of his arguments with
some words of our own.

    <With all due respects, 'All known fusion reactions' does not
    <include those reactions which scientists catalogue thereafter,
    <or fail to catalogue at all.

This is an unbeatable argument.  I have no factual basis for asserting
that there is no such thing as an Abdominal Snowman until every remote
mountain on earth has been searched.  All I ask of Jed (and others
resorting to this argument) is that they respect existing data equally
with anything new they wish to put forward.  Beyond that they should
stop trying to shift the burden of proof away from where it properly
belongs, with those asserting that they have evidence for a new
phenomenon.  In any case, Jed, it has been some time since anyone
has made any very explicite suggestions as to what the cold fusion
reaction is in detail.  Maybe, that is because there is no possible
reaction that will explain the mess of contradictory results that
have been offered as evidence for cold fusion.

    <Cold fusion reactions are neutron-penic, that is, these
    <reactions appear to be deficient in the expected number
    <of neutrons...

So we have a new word to play with here.  Cold fusion advocates
have been trying to have their cake and eat it too with regard
to neutron detection.  They want to use an assortment of poor
attempts at neutron detection as evidence for the occurance of
nuclear fusion without owning up to the fact that all these
attempts at neutron detection are really indicating a null
result.  Say "neutron-penic" and the contridiction goes away
without any thought as to what degree of magic is required to
keep most, but not all, neutrons hidden.  It's is pure bunk!

    <Proof that neutrons must be emitted...

This goes back to what basic laws of physics do you seek to overturn.
Let us start by assuming the conservaton of energy, baryon number,
lepton number, linear and angular momentum.  Then there are some
things more specific to nuclear reactions such as time reversal
invariance, parity conservation, and the basic symmetries, strengths,
ranges, of strong, weak, and electromagnetic interactions.  In
this context you may suggest nuclear processes that are not expected
to emit neutrons.  The difficulty is in coming up with any evidence
to support the notion that those reactions are occuring, and at the
same time finding any possible reason for their being favored.

    <Instruments show a delta T.... therefore cold fusion is real

It's the logic that fills in the .... you need to work on.  An
excellent instrument in the hands of a bumbling fool can provide
a false reading.  Unfortunately it is not essential that you be
a bumbling fool in order to obtain an experimental result that is
faulty.  It is neccessary that each measurement be evaluated in the
context of our present understanding.  The reality of cold fusion
can never be established by calorimetry alone, at least not by
calorimetric measurements of less than the highest caliber.

Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU