You have no professional knowledge or experience or training or education in the physical sciences. You argue like a conspiracy theorist and not like a scientist or engineer. You simply have nothing technically useful to say on this subject.
***I’m an engineer. I got an A in nuclear physics. Admittedly, I have never used the information professionally. You argue like someone who has never taken a critical thinking class.
Come on, in one post you claim that the H-bomb backs up your claim and then in another post you say exactly what I’ve been saying, that “No one is claiming that hot fusion has demonstrated that it is or that it can be a viable controlled source of energy”.
I have one question for you:
Do you accept the observation that excess heat has been generated in these LENR Experiments?
http://www.lenr-canr.org/LibFrame1.html
If not, then it is useless to discuss with you that some “law” is violated because it is obvious that these experimental observations are in direct contrast with what a bunch of phycisists think.
If yes, then why do you make such a big deal about a “law” being contradicted. The “law” is just a work of man, the statement that describes relationships among phenomena, which needs to be updated similar to how Einstein updated Newtonian Physics because the observations of the day were contradicting the “laws” as they knew them.
Thank you. We are done. The laws of physics are not just the work of man to be repealed at the next sitting of the legislature. These guys have "updated" no law. They are making specious claims in violation of every known physical principal. Einstein did not contradict Newton. He just showed that Newton's theory was a restricted case of a more general theory, relevant at small relative velocities. Einstein did not overturn conservation of energy or conservation of momentum. In fact he (and it had been demonstrated by Poincare before Einstein) showed that Maxwell's equations were self-consistent only if you invoked the special theory of relativity. The change was profound but it was not a wholesale reversal of a position.
Not only do you confuse law and models and explanations, but now you confuse fundamental processes and appliations in devices. And you are postulating that even though the device does not work, it actually does but you cannot measure anything showing that it works and the reason is that all the laws of physics require updating.