Interestingly enough you still cannot admit that perhaps you have been sold some snake oil.
Gamow’s work is currently used today for successful predictive work. It is based on real data and real science. Your initial comments were about how Gamo’s work was nothing but theory. When I show you otherwise then you say but but but.. Seems to me you are the only one inconsistent
You claim to have done work at and for LLNL. I seriously doubt it. Nothing in anything you have said would lead me to believe that they would consult with you on anything-—unless of course you are one of the GSE types.
Look fusion happens in nature... not at room temps but at high temps and high pressures. Most of all science is spent trying to understand these natural processes well enough to be make the predictions useable in everyday ways.
When you say quote experimental data I am not interested in calorimeter measurements since those may or may not be meaningful. What I would like the low energy fusion folks to do is show me where they have produced the gamma radiation that is a characteristic by product. There has been none.
You can suggest all you want to that the low energy folks have a new form of fusion... it has yet to be proven ( sorry you saying it has is not sufficient nor are articles showing up in reviews started by the very people claiming cold fusion.)
Where are the raw data from any of these experiments so they may be evaluated (as all good science is)? Where is the information about experimental set up which is sufficient to allow another to replicate the experiment?
Experiments which are temperamental and do not reliable happen even for the advocates of low energy fusion are not convincing.
Continue to post your stories. I am still waiting for deliverables
You just don't get it, do you. Sure, Gamow's work has been predictive, and will continue to be. So has and is Newton's. But there are areas where Newton's do not work. The same will prove to be true of Gamow's.
I suspect that in this big, wide universe, there will bethings discovered that will contradict even Einstein.
"You claim to have done work at and for LLNL. I seriously doubt it. Nothing in anything you have said would lead me to believe that they would consult with you on anything-—unless of course you are one of the GSE types."
I can guarantee you that I "did" both consult for and work with LLNL. Look up a guy named Fred Milanovich. At the start of the project, he was "head honcho" of the project area, though he retired in the middle of the work. Great guy. A REAL scientist.
"Look fusion happens in nature... not at room temps but at high temps and high pressures. Most of all science is spent trying to understand these natural processes well enough to be make the predictions useable in everyday ways."
And the same is true for the solid state and highly ordered systems, which behave very differently.
"When you say quote experimental data I am not interested in calorimeter measurements since those may or may not be meaningful. What I would like the low energy fusion folks to do is show me where they have produced the gamma radiation that is a characteristic by product. There has been none.
IOW, you'll ignore data that doesn't fit your prejudices instead of looking at all the data. That, old boy, is pseudoscience. And yes, gamma rays "have" been detected...just not in the quantities predicted by "standard hot fusion model physics". As have the reaction products and by products. But you're "read all the work publised on cold fusion".
"You can suggest all you want to that the low energy folks have a new form of fusion... it has yet to be proven ( sorry you saying it has is not sufficient nor are articles showing up in reviews started by the very people claiming cold fusion.)"
But you've read every paper published on cold fusion....NOT
With every comment here, you are proving that you have NOT done that.
"Where are the raw data from any of these experiments so they may be evaluated (as all good science is)? Where is the information about experimental set up which is sufficient to allow another to replicate the experiment?
In peer reviewed publications, of course. Many of these can be accessed through LENR-CANR.org. And likewise in the data books of those doing the research. To quote just one incident that is typical of how folks like you work. When Bockris first replicated Pons and Fleischmann's work back in the late 1980's (producing tritium), he invited other scientists to come to his lab and examine the process and the data......nobody took him up on it. They "just knew" it had to be wrong.
"Experiments which are temperamental and do not reliable happen even for the advocates of low energy fusion are not convincing."
Again, you show that you know virtually nothing about the recent advances in the field. The fact that the "advocates" are also publishing their negative results, IMO, goes a long way to prove their scientific credibility. It's what a GOOD scientist does. MUCH science has started out with very "temperamental" experiments. CF is following exactly the same progression.