Yes, but unlike with cold fusion, we know the actual theory of hot fusion, how it works, why it works, etc.. We know the theory is valid, and the trick is coming up with mechanisms to make it controllable.
***Then with all that $250B there should have been progress.
We don’t have that with cold fusion. We don’t know even the theoretical “how” and “why” of it.
***Knowing the theory behind something isn’t a requirement for scientific description of a phenomenon. In most cases, the phenomena are described first, theory comes later. This is one of those cases.
All we’ve got, at best, are lab experiments of questionable reproducability, without even an underlying theory of why it should work at all.
***There is no underlying theory of superconducting, either. Yet tons of money are being poured into researching it. There is no underlying theory of gravity, yet apples still fall from the sky.
But what are you advocating, exactly?
***I am advocating proportionality. OUR money should be spent on energy research with an eye towards how many Joules of energy have been generated so far. With Cold Fusion, that is thousands of MJoules. With Hot Fusion, that is maybe 10-20 MJoules.
I’ve got no problem with private scientists, with private funding, continuing to work on it.
***Then where is your outrage for the $250B of PUBLIC MONEY that’s been spent on Hot Fusion, where the best experiment has produced 6MJoules?
Maybe they’ll find something useful and workable at some point. Maybe they won’t.
***EXACTLY what I’ve been saying about hot fusion. But our allocation of resources should be based upon how much energy has already been produced so far.
My objection is to the over-inflated hype, or expectation that it will produce something worthwhile.
***Then why aren’t you protesting in front of CERN or some other supercollider project, demanding accountability for the $250B in public money spent? My objection is to the over-inflated hype, or expectation that it will produce something worthwhile.
It's really more than that, though. You've actually got theories on why it can't work, and/or can't be what it is claimed to be. Which means that the end result may be a complete dead end not even possible in theory.
There is no underlying theory of superconducting, either. Yet tons of money are being poured into researching it.
If it is government funding, I oppose it. Otherwise, I don't care. And in any case, superconducting is far more reproducible than is CF.
There is no underlying theory of gravity, yet apples still fall from the sky.
I don't recall a lot of federal dollars being spent on that, nor do I see anyone promising it as some magical solution to energy needs.
I am advocating proportionality. OUR money should be spent on energy research with an eye towards how many Joules of energy have been generated so far.
I don't think OUR tax dollars should be spent on either. Whatever private parties choose to do is their business. And btw, I'm not here predicting that hot fusion is going to solve our energy problems either. Well, I suppose there is the element of solar power that comes from fusion reactions, though.
Then where is your outrage for the $250B of PUBLIC MONEY that’s been spent on Hot Fusion, where the best experiment has produced 6MJoules?
There have been traditional fusion reaction produce a heck of a lot more energy than that. But in any case, I didn't have outrage on HF because this wasn't an HF thread. Now that you've brought it up, I'll repeat that I oppose public funding for either. Let the market decide.