Posted on 08/21/2011 11:17:19 AM PDT by Kevmo
Maybe it never happened and Dr. Swartz is just a convenient invented identity
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:JET_Thermal_Products
Looks like you couldn’t find it on mit.edu either. Maybe they just rented a room on campus.
Let me see if I understand you. You describe in admirable detail the differences between fusion reactions, which involve overcoming the repulsive forces between atomic nuclei, and, therefore, very high temperatures and pressures, and the chemical reactions that must take place in order to produce Teflon; chemical reactions, which, as they involve energy transactions between electrons instead of nucleons, can take place at temperatures and pressures achievable under ordinary industrial conditions. That's good, and I think you did a good job of explaining the difference between the two types of reactions.
But earlier, I asked you "if teflon is the 'real deal,' why isn't it observed in nature?" The reason I asked this question -- which, I admit, was ironic in nature -- was because you, expressing a degree of skepticism as to the reality of cold fusion in general, said this:
If cold fusion is the "real deal" why hasn't it been observed in nature?
My question about Teflon, made in jest, was meant to illustrate the point that things that can be made to happen in laboratories -- or, for that matter, in factories -- don't necessarily have to be observed to happen in nature. Teflon is an example of this, as are any number of other chemicals that are manufactured every day.
You took my ironical question at face value. I'm sorry I mislead you. Irony doesn't come across well in text form.
This was my question: why do you require evidence in the form of naturally-occuring low-intensity fusion reactions in order to believe them possible, yet you have no such skepticism about the existence of Teflon (irony here) even though it's not found in nature?
On this point, I don't find the energy-pressure difference to be persuasive, large though it may be. After all, the proponents of low-temperature fusion are claiming to have found a way to achieve fusion without these extremely high temperatures and pressures; that's the whole point. Your answer to my "why not" question hinges entirely on the vast differences in energy scale for fusion reactions compared to chemical reactions, but the supporters of low intensity fusion are saying they don't need these extreme conditions to achieve fusion; the nτ "Lawson Criterion" is met by making τ (confinement time) very large, so the temperature can be very small, compared to that seen in naturally occurring fusion reactions.
This idea doesn't seem unreasonable to me. After all, there are numerous examples of chemical reactions that require high temperatures and pressures to proceed "naturally," but, in the presence of a catalyst, take place under far more sedate conditions. Why couldn't something like this work for fusion?
I couldn’t find the global warming goofballs conference either, and I looked just as hard. I did find the word ‘insufferable’ which reminded me of you.
02/01/2011 Daily Report: Geographic Focus
Feb 1, 2011 ... Westport Announces Third Quarter Fiscal 2011 Conference Call for Tuesday, ......
with it outright lies Which insufferable Senators Not Republicans Seems to
...... developed in partnership with the Massachusetts Institute Of Technology
in .... US pushes nuclear energy, but its projects lag - The MIT ...
climatechange.carboncapturereport.org/cgi...//dailyreport_kml?...02...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.