Crawdaddy wrote: KitemanSA wrote: Simple questions for you, yes or no:
Is D+D=He "fusion"?
Is Ni+p=Cu "fusion"?
That is a simple question.
So why not answer them?
Crawdaddy wrote: Unfortunately, they are both obviously not happening in either the Rossi or the P&F experiments.
Wow, All hail Crawdaddy the all knowing.
Crawdaddy wrote: Since in the former case there would be large amounts of radioactive waste created
Say what? Preposterous. Too big a word? How bout "sillier than monkey sh!t".
Crawdaddy wrote:and in the latter there would be a lethal flux of neutrons generated.
And this is even sillier than the last. Neutrons?
Crawdaddy wrote: Both situations are much more complicated than your simple implied dichotomy. Fleischmann, one of the most accomplished electrochemists of his generation, was well aware of the problematic reaction mechanism and thus resisted the "Cold Fusion" name.
Good for him. So what?
Crawdaddy wrote: You are free to continue to claim that the Pd and Ni systems work by entirely different mechanisms but that implies that there are two mechanisms by which nuclear reactions can occur at low temperature. A claim that is much less likely than a single mechanism common to both material systems.
Nice contention, but groundless. HOT Nuclear reaction happen though many mechanisms, why must "cold" be relegated to ONE?
Crawdaddy wrote: Feel free to call the reaction whatever you want, Pons and Fleischmann won't mind, they're lives are already destroyed. I am sure Rossi (who cannot hold a candle to Fleischmann as a scientist) would have come up with his e-cat all by himself if they had never existed.
O...M...G!!! Plucking heart strings and sobs all around! By the way, what are you trying to say with this inanity?