I don’t think it’s unusual from a theory but, the one touted for several years here on FR can’t be replicated.
A third-party verification report was recently published of a product that will hit the market this year, showcasing a cold fusion cell that was hot enough to create dry steam (which is necessary to generate electricity). The results show that energy density (i.e. the amount of energy by weight) was 5 orders of magnitude (tens of thousands of times) over that of fossil fuel. [6] That inventor has said that the time for words is over, and the proof will be when a cold fusion product is introduced to the market. If that is the case, then we won’t have to wait long for proof
The third party is not identified. There is no link to the report. The inventor is not identified. His claims are not substantiated. No scientific or technical paper is referenced. Etc, etc, etc, etc.
pathological skepticism is hardly what freepers here have on this subject.
we’d all love to see it work. we’d love for’it to be true.
however when you have the most recent guy pushjing it, that has a checkered past of running scams, it isn’t patholigical skepticism not to simply’take his word on it. the independent tests have never run the way they said they would, some have ended early, there’s always been external power supplies used instead of at somepoint allowing some of the power of the ‘reaction’ itself to be used to power any safeguards or elements of the experiment that need power.
people have a right to be skeptical of a guy who has been involved in prior scams. a person like this is not the best poster child for trusting a never-before-seen energy source that appears to be too good to be true.
we would love for it to be true.
It used to be the only way to shut down debate when people had opinions that differed from yours was to call them "racist" and they were obligated to STFU.
Now we have another magic word to make people STFU... skeptopath!
It seems that dozens of those skeptologists flock to these LENR threads.
This mischaracterizes the opinions of those who question "cold fusion".
The problems, or potential problems, with this theory are that it does not conform to the standard model of nuclear interactions.
That, by itself, would be fine - science is all about overturning the standard model.
But when the standard model is robust, as the various nuclear energy models are, most of us require some sort of theoretical construct and a lot of good data to sign on to rejecting it.
None of this is present in "cold fusion".
It's an ice cream flavor.