Replies

Can't and won't. I read widely and don't keep track of what particular facts I saw where. I read for my own benefit and edification, not to track URL's to win (or even further) arguments.

Yep, I figured as much. The thing about legitimate science is that I don't have to have a list of esoteric websites to "prove" my point. Real scientific evidence is documented so widely and repetitively that a simple Google search will return any number of hits. My problem is never in digging up corroborating references; it's in choosing a reference which is accurate yet explains the material in language that a layperson can understand. If you can't find a single legitimate reference from a reputable source to support the claims of cold fusion (LENR, or whatever you want to call it), that's pretty telling.

You can't hide your inability to provide any references to naturally occurring cold fusion with vague remarks about neutrons and earthquakes. Neutrons result from nuclear decay, which is not cold fusion. Apparently, a few groups are trying to determine if fluxes in the natural neutron flow are predictive of earthquakes. I wish them luck; so far, no one has succeeded at finding a method of predicting earthquakes. Also, it is unclear why you would mention isotopic abundances. As I recall reading, the one time Rossi actually allowed any isotopic analysis of claimed cold fusion reaction products, the "products" turned out to have the identical isotopic profile as mined nickel and copper--and the isotopes one would have expected were not found. Now Rossi refuses to allow isotope analysis.

Since, as I recall, this work was in geology, it is quite unlikely to be posted in an "established physics journal". There are other fields of science besides physics that are just as legit. And less hobbled by the erroneous notion that "if theory forbids it, it cannot exist".

*All* hard sciences are physically based. No exceptions. It doesn't matter whether the science is nuclear physics, astronomy, biology, geology, genetics, or whatever. Physical laws are universal and immutable.

"The thing about legitimate science is that I don't have to have a list of esoteric websites to "prove" my point. Real scientific evidence is documented so widely and repetitively that a simple Google search will return any number of hits. My problem is never in digging up corroborating references; it's in choosing a reference which is accurate yet explains the material in language that a layperson can understand."

LOL. It's not about "inability" to find such references, it is simply that fact that I am not willing to waste the time to do so. I have other things to do, like learn about how the world works, and to contribute to that effort through my research.

I note that Kevmo's post 58 provides sources that he apparently found pretty quickly.

"If you can't find a single legitimate reference from a reputable source to support the claims of cold fusion (LENR, or whatever you want to call it), that's pretty telling.

Nice try at attempting to change the subject. The topic is "instances of LENR FOUND IN NATURE", which you brought up as a reason why LENR couldn't exist. NOT the broad category of LENR. Of course, your very logic is bogus, because many discoveries in science were not "previously found in nature"....superconductivity and semiconductivity to name only two.

There are MANY research reports on the experimental evidence for LENR in peer reviewed journals (Naturwissenschaften to name just one). You just assume they don't exist and/or refuse to look at them. And no, I'm not going to hunt up direct links and post them for your edification. Read Beaudette, then you can find them yourself. Or Storms. Or the papers linked through LENR-CANR.

"You can't hide your inability to provide any references to naturally occurring cold fusion with vague remarks about neutrons and earthquakes. Neutrons result from nuclear decay, which is not cold fusion.

See above point about wasting my time. Lady, I've worked with Pu-Be, Cockroft-Walton accelerator, and Californium-252 neutron sources. I think I have a slight idea about what neutrons are and where they come from. Note that two of those sources do NOT come from "radioactive decay". Neither does the fourth major category of usable neutrons, which are fission reactors. Also note that the neutrons from Cf-252 come from "spontaneous fission"....NOT normal radioactive decay.

If, after spending another couple of hundreds of billions of dollars, your heroes the "hot physics" boys ever deliver a working reactor, then we will have a fifth major neutron source. Of course, having all those neutrons around is actually a major NEGATIVE if you want to generate power long-term, as neutrons make bad thing happen to reactor structures.

"Apparently, a few groups are trying to determine if fluxes in the natural neutron flow are predictive of earthquakes. I wish them luck; so far, no one has succeeded at finding a method of predicting earthquakes. Also, it is unclear why you would mention isotopic abundances."

Because the theories of nucleoynthesis all assume that the formation of all elements (and hence all isotopes) result from "thermonuclear" (high energy) reactions, either from the big bang, or from supernovae. Having isotopic abundances in nature (which is the case) that differ from what those mechanisms could yield says that there must be another method of nucleosynthesis.

"*All* hard sciences are physically based. No exceptions. It doesn't matter whether the science is nuclear physics, astronomy, biology, geology, genetics, or whatever. Physical laws are universal and immutable."

What you SAID was "peer-reviewed references in established reputable physics journals", not "physically based". Geological research, ipso facto, will not be published in physics journals. Please at least TRY to debate honestly.