User talk:Edpell

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Useful links

Welcome!

Hello, Edpell, and welcome to Conservapedia!

We're glad you are here to edit. We ask that you read our Editor's Guide before you edit.

At the right are some useful links for you. You can include these links on your user page by putting "{{Useful links}}" on the page. Any questions--ask!

Thanks for reading, Edpell!


DorMouse 21:17, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

Cold Fusion

I am going to revert a substantial part of your edits. Cold fusion, sans the immense pressure and heat, is still an impossible task. You can catalyze fusion, with Muons, or with High Z nuclides. If you can find references for them, by all means, add them, but for now, that cannot be said.DorMouse 21:17, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

This was a major error. "Cold fusion" is a popular name for "low energy nuclear reactions," and it is not known for sure if the reaction is "fusion." There are other theories. However, this much is known: the heat produced by the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect, for palladium deuteride experiments, is accompanied by the production of helium, the correlation is unmistakeable, across many experiments, and across the work of many research groups. See the article I just linked from Cold fusion. That article represents a watershed, because Storms decided to call it cold fusion, because some kind of fusion -- mechanism still unknown -- is highly likely. The fuel is apparently deuterium and the ash is helium. If you can think of something other than fusion doing that, well, you might be able to win a Nobel Prize. Some people say that neutrons are being generated and that other effects mask the expected gamma rays, but this is considered unlikely by most researchers.
"Fusion," early on, was an unsupported hypothesis, because the effect, for the first year or two, was purely anomalous heat, at levels considered too high -- by chemists -- to be chemistry. That argument continued to rage, but the extreme skeptical position has entirely disappeared from the scientific literature, after the mixed review by the U.S. Department of Energy in 2004, and peer-reviewed papers on low-energy nuclear reactions are now being routinely published. Some journals created a policy years ago that they would not publish anything in the field, and those journals are still holding to that policy, but the largest scientific publishers in the world, Elsevier and Springer-Verlag, are covering the field. Naturwissenschaften, founded in 1913, is a highly prestigious multidisciplinary journal that covers all the natural sciences (including chemistry and physics), Einstein published in it, and the editor requested the review by Storms that I linked from the article.
Yes, Storms is Low Energy Nuclear Reactions editor at Naturwissenschaften, and that is sometimes asserted to imply that there was some conflict of interest, but, in fact, that Naturwissenschaften even needed such an editor -- they were starting to get many submissions and needed a subject matter expert -- represents a major shift. Storms did not review his own paper.
Some journals had published all along, there are over a thousand peer-reviewed papers in the field, and many thousands of conference papers.
DorMouse, since blocked, was essentially ignorant. Muon-Catalyzed Fusion is a known form of cold fusion (it was originally called that, long before the FPHE was discovered), but I'm unaware of any high-Z nucleide catalysis. The production of very high-Z nucleides, by collision of lower-Z nucleides, is sometimes called "cold fusion," but it's at temperatures that are *almost* those of hot fusion. This has nothing to do with the topic which is well-known as "cold fusion," which is about low-temperature reactions, well below 1000 degrees C, often at room temperature, instead of the millions of degrees necessary for hot fusion. --Abd 20:36, 31 July 2012 (EDT)