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.
We don't have that with cold fusion. We don't know even the theoretical "how" and "why" of it. All we've got, at best, are lab experiments of questionable reproducability, without even an underlying theory of why it should work at all.
But what are you advocating, exactly? I've got no problem with private scientists, with private funding, continuing to work on it. Maybe they'll find something useful and workable at some point. Maybe they won't. My objection is to the over-inflated hype, or expectation that it will produce something worthwhile.
Really. Then read up on the latest example of interference. Hagelstein had landed a grant from a private company for further investigation into LENR to be done at MIT (with lots of overhead bucks going to MIT itself). An MIT "hot physics" prof worked (successfully) to get that funding killed. So said MIT physics prof WORKED AGAINST the interests of MIT to stifle a few thousands of bucks of PRIVATE research funding going to LENR.
This is compared to the $250 BILLION already spent on hot fusion (which is why the hot physics guys are so scared of CF......they blew it).
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.