Why not?
The process of making polymers from monomers requires some input of energy (heat & pressure) and in the case of teflon produces a slippery solid that is practically inert. You can apply heat and it doesn't ignite. Apply enough heat and it sublimates (turns from a solid into a gas with passing thru a liquid phase. You do not have a net energy gain (which is what you are looking for with any form of fusion).
Looking at what you are doing with polymerization, you are actually working on a molecular level, taking simple constructs of atoms and without messing with the atomic structure, linking them together to build a longer (usually) or bigger (3D) structure from the small components, rather like tinker toys. All of the atoms making up the molecule are unchanged.
When you attempt fusion you are working on a subatomic level. You are trying to force two hydrogen nuclei together to form a helium atom and release a great deal of energy. The sun does it by crushing hydrogen atoms with a huge gravity field. A thermonuclear bomb uses a fusion bomb to provide a radiation shock-wave to substitute for the gravity field to do the same thing. The forces that hold atoms together are immense but operate over very short distances. The forces that hold molecules together are so much smaller that a bit of heat (fire) will break down a molecular structure.
While fusion may look something like polymerization there are many orders of magnitude difference in the forces involved.
I think I have beaten this subject to death...
Regards,
GtG
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?