On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 17:40:05 +0000, Mike E. Fullerton wrote:
> MarkA wrote:
>> On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 13:45:32 -0700, george wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 2, 5:26 pm, "Mike E. Fullerton"
<inforequ...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> techie.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The dream is yours.
>>>>
>>>> http://peswiki.com/energy/Directory:Cold_Fusion
>>> Okay.
>>> Tell me then where the operating system is situated.
>
> Tell me where the economically viable hot fusion reactor is.
>
>>> There are a lot of experiments but nothing beyond the experimental
>>> state.
>
> Same as hot fusion for a lot longer, you think its bunk too?
>
>>> It's been about 20 years since this idea was first shot down
>
> Yes 20 years of the raving stupidity of pathological skepticism.
>
>> <sarcasm>
>> Let's not be too harsh, here. Just because an idea promises to
completely
>> revolutionize our energy infra-structure, and would have massive
>> implications not only for financial gain but also in our understanding
of
>> nuclear physics, there's no reason to expect there to be any measurable
>> progress towards having a working system within 20 years!
>> </sarcasm>
>
> The same can be said of hot fusion. Obscene amounts of money have been
> funneled into the hot fusion black hole for far more than 20 years yet
> this technology does not attract raving hordes of pathological skeptics
> that cold fusion does. Why the double standard?
For the simple reason that we *know* that hot fusion occurs. A ****ning
example rises in the east every day. The technological hurdle is to slow
down the reaction enough to make it useful for something besides blowing
big holes in the ground.
Though I am not a nuclear physicist, my understanding of cold fusion is
that it would require hydrogen nuclei to behave in a way that they have
never been known to behave. We know an awful lot about the way that
hydrogen nuclei behave, and to propose that they can do something entirely
new is a bit of a stretch.
That is not a double standard, nor is it "pathological skepticism." It is
appropriate skepticism. You may want to review the definition of
"gullibility".
--
MarkA
(This space tem****arily unavailable)
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
|
