Which is exactly why a dimwitted individual such as yourself cannot begin to understand what a pile of hogwash those papers are.
***Then we both agree, it should be a simple matter to counter the scientific arguments in those papers. And the reason why you aren’t doing it is... you’re lazy? Not enough time? Not really smart enough to do it? Then why don’t those putrid excuses apply to piling invective on other freepers?
In physics you don’t make up for quality by piling up [excrement] until spontaneous combustion burns up the whole pile of crap.
***Here you again demonstrate that you lack critical thinking skills. The sentence says nothing useful, is only really good for creating invective. You’re good at creating invective but you can’t seem to draw from your own PhD level nuclear physics training to counter these theories. It’s enough to question your credentials, as far as I can tell.
I don’t have to publish anything.
***You probably don’t know how, judging on your posting behavior.
I just have to point out, as I have already, that Sinha’s theory violates the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
***He mentions that in his paper. He claims it is modified by the fact that the atom is stuck inside a lattice, and you claim that it is not modified by anything. Based upon my interactions with you, I’m inclined to think that he knows what he’s talking about and you do not.
The onus then shifts to Sinha either to show that I was in error (though he admits this problem)
***The onus does not shift until you publish your criticism, mr. PhD.
or to demonstrate theoretically and experimentally that the HUP does not always hold, which he has not done, nor has anyone else.
***And when I get round to pointing out that experimentally, there are 14000 replications of the Pons Fleishmann effect, you go silent. There is very little reason for lurking freepers to listen to you unless you use your training and publish what you have. I doubt you’ll do that, you’re too lazy and too much of a wimp; you’ll just stay here on an anonymous forum and be a sniper.
Now, as for personal responsibility, you are the one claiming the extraordinary result that this stuff works.
***I’m claiming the ordinary result that 14000 times, the effect has been replicated. When I ask you if you accept that as a fact, you go silent. That’s extraordinary unscientific behavior for a scientist.
it is incumbant upon you to demonstrate it.
***I see why you prefer not to publish. Your critical thinking skills are just absent. It is not incumbent on me to publish anything because I don’t claim to be an authority in this field, but you do.
Please, go ahead and prove us all wrong.
***I would be happy to, if I had access to the level of resources that you do.
Build your cold-fusion microwave or self-propelled vehicle and cook my steak or drive me around the block and I will be a believer.
***Again your lack of critical thinking skills shows itself. How are we supposed to take your word that you’re a PhD holder if you can’t even refrain from freshman level straw argumentation? Everyone knows that the state of LENR is not yet at the point that you can put it in a car, but you extend that requirement to LENR just so you can ridicule it. Where are our hot-fusion cars? Why do you raise the bar for cold fusion but not for hot fusion?
But you have not and cannot nor can any of the rest of your assorted crowd of cheats, frauds and
***They are in the process of demonstrating the validity of LENR. If you’re so smart and capable, then you should be able to point out where it’s a fraud, but we don’t see you doing that. It leads one to believe you’re either a liar or incapable, yourself.
unschooled lowlifes.
***oh, so then you’re an elitist
I have done so already. Sinha's so-called theories violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle amongst a lot of other problems. Clean, neat, simple. Done.
That is all it takes, which you would understand if you had any physics understanding.
And since, as you admit, you lack the education to understand that point, you blather on, and on, and on, and on, and on, full of sound a fury, saying nothing on point.
The only thing that would be on point would be a series of experiments demonstrating the the HUP can be violated by 100 orders of magnitude. Equivalently you can provide experimental data showing the measured properties of one of these so-called fictitious "locons." You do that by scattering electrons, or phonons or neutrons or radio waves off of the locon generating elementary excitations whose properties you then measure. Physicists have been doing that for a century. There are a 100,000 folks who could do those measurements, could that is, if locons existed, which they don't, since you cannot measure anything about them or someone would have by now.
But you, as you admit, are untrained and inexperienced and have no clue what anyone is talking about, yourself included, so you will blather on and on, and on, and on and on and on and say nothing on point.
***He mentions [the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle] in his paper. He claims it is modified by the fact that the atom is stuck inside a lattice, and you claim that it is not modified by anything. Based upon my interactions with you, I’m inclined to think that he knows what he’s talking about and you do not.
Yeah well, the HUP is not modified by anything. It is an underlying principle that applies to all quantum mechanical systems, and an electron in a lattice is as good an example of a quantum mechanical system as we have.
Do you even know what the HUP states: it is simple really? It states that the more you try to localize a quantum in space the higher its momentum must be: mathematically, δxδp>h/4π
When you try to confine an electron to a volume approximately the size of a nucleus, you get momenta that require energies of 100's of MeV, but there is nothing that can bind an electron with that kind of energy. For instance the bound state energy of an electron in a deuterium atom (hydrogen atom) is about 13.6eV. The bound state of an electron intermediating between two such atoms in a molecule is much lower than that (a couple of eV, which is the typical molecular binding energy).
But any simpleton who took a sophomore general physics course could run these numbers - and as you admit you cannot.
So stop blathering aboout that which is way way way over your poor little head.
Rossi is claiming to be ready to demonstrate a 10kW generator. You have cited 14,000 papers claiming to have produced 100's of Megajoules of excess energy. There is nothing subtle about that much energy. It burns things down, blows things up, fries the dumb electrochemist who forgot about radiation effects (or would have if it worked).
And you and your crowd keep up this lie about the bar for hot fusion being lower than for cold fusion. It is every bit as high, but first, hot fusion has demonstrated a process that produces fusion (D+T= neutron + alpha + lots and lots of energy). Cold fusion asserts that none of the known reaction pathways operate (in defiance of every phisicl principle known to man) but cannot demonstrate that the pathway they claim to be operational actually exists.
Anyone can go to any hot fusion research facility and take a geiger counter or a neutron monitor, or whatever and measure lots of radiation. Hot fusion has not reached breakeven (except in nuclear weaponry - which does work you keep forgetting - by well understood principles and reaction pathways you keep forgettting). Indeed, you can do this measurement very simply. Take a copper (it must be copper) penny and tape it to the outside of the hotfusion facility. After a claimed event that produces neutrons take your penny to a radiation counter and plot the count rate vs time. Knowing the activation cross-section of copper, the area of the penny, and the measured decay rate you can infer the total number of neutrons produced in the system. Indeed, these measurements are done every day and the results are published and are open to scientific peer review. Such reviews happen frequently.
But no one claims that there is any credibility to any claim that hot fusion is ready to power cars or put electicity on the grid.