[extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings
hkhenson at rogers.com
Mon Jan 29 04:54:32 UTC 2007
At 01:31 PM 1/28/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>"Damien Broderick" <thespike at satx.rr.com>
> > Published: December 2, 2004
> > In a new review of cold fusion - the claim that energy can be
> > generated by running electrical current through water - the
> > Department of Energy released a report yesterday that says the
> > evidence remains inconclusive, echoing a similar report 15 years ago.
>The evidence for the existence of phlogiston is inconclusive too.
Read the Wikipedia article.
>newspaper report you quote was more than 2 years ago, computers have doubled
>in power in that time; so how have things changed in the cold fusion field in
>all that time? They haven't advanced one inch, zero nada zilch goose egg!
This is a real apples and oranges comparison. The physics behind computers
is reasonably well understood. There are not even any theories that
account for the behavior of these cells.
>It's still inconclusive.
Not exactly. If you build 100 identical cells and charge them exactly the
same way some fraction of them, typically about half, will exhibit
anomalous behavior in generating heat. Why do so do it and not
others? That's the maddening question besides what is actually happening.
>Prediction time: I predict we will be in exactly
>precisely the same situation 2 years from now, or 17. When something remains
>inconclusive for that long it's time to move on.
You might be right, but the evidence is fairly strong that we don't
understand something about physics. Is it important? I don't know.
>And the same could be said
>of ESP bullshit.
ESP is in a different category. You can reliably generate excess heat in
some subset of cells. ESP has (as far as I know) never generated such a
More information about the extropy-chat