I mentioned Rossi not at all. I was referring to LANR as a technology area. "Nice try, though".
"And by the by Feynman would have laughed at you... He is no doubt spinning in his grave"
LOL, and he'd probably whack YOU "upside the head". I'm advocating science, you're advocating pseudoscience.
"Atkinson and Houtermans and later Gamow and Teller used the Gamow factor to derive the rate at which nuclear reactions would proceed at the high temperatures believed to exist in the interiors of stars. The Gamow factor was needed in order to estimate how often two nuclei with the same sign of electrical charge would get close enough together to fuse and thereby generate energy according to Einstein’s relation between excess mass and energy release.”
Note bolding. In LANR, the situation is totally different. "Nice try, though". Try actually quoting experimental data...not theory.
I'll ask the simple question once again.....where are the LANR experiments incorrectly done and why is the data from same wrong. This is THE ONLY THING that counts. You can quote Gamow's THEORIES (who, like Feynmann, would likely join in with the head-slap) all you like.
"I am not a huckster...You have misstated my comments completely."
IMO, you are. I "mis-stated" nothing.
"What I have suggested is that the folks making grand claims of low temp low pressure fusion have yet to produce data was can be independently verified (including such things as reproducibility of the actual set up)."
Sorry, bubba....wrong. See Arata, Ahearn, and McKubre. But you're "read every report on cold fusion".......SUUURRRREE you have.
"There have been continuous claims of “deliverables” on various dates which have come and gone."
Irrelevant to the question of the scientific validity of LANR.
"And again I suggest simply that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. That has not been resented. Will it ever be? who knows time will tell."
You can "suggest" all you like. The statement is bullshit. Real science requires no such thing. ONE well-documented study validating an experiment is sufficient. But every statement you have made proves you are NOT in any way familiar with the research in LANR, and especially the recent work.
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