Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Environment & Energy

Progressive dog

(6,899 posts)

3. beta decay huh to gamma and then heat

Reply to OKIsItJustMe (Reply #2)

Tue May 28, 2013, 01:19 PM

May 2013

There is no physics to verify. That is what someone else on DU has described as a word salad.
Transmutations-- didn't this used to be called alchemy?
There have been no scientifically verifiable results to cold fusion, period. At some point real scientists give up.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

38 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nicke… [View all] OKIsItJustMe May 2013 OP

cold fusion again Progressive dog May 2013 #1

Actually, there may be something to “Cold Fusion” as well… OKIsItJustMe May 2013 #2

beta decay huh to gamma and then heat Progressive dog May 2013 #3

Transmutation is what fusion does phantom power May 2013 #4

Yes it does and it's what fission does too Progressive dog May 2013 #5

Strange… my reaction is different than yours OKIsItJustMe May 2013 #6

Maybe Rossi could cooperate with this guy? FogerRox May 2013 #8

Not just one person at NASA OKIsItJustMe May 2013 #11

Whoa. FogerRox May 2013 #26

50,000,000 degrees to add energy necessary for 2 protons to fuse Progressive dog May 2013 #9

Did you actually read what you replied to? OKIsItJustMe May 2013 #12

Neutron stars are about the only place this happens Progressive dog May 2013 #14

Then, some other explanation (other than LENR) must be found for the results OKIsItJustMe May 2013 #15

One experiment does not a theory make Progressive dog May 2013 #17

Right, however, it’s not just one experiment OKIsItJustMe May 2013 #18

LENR the new explanation for bad science Progressive dog May 2013 #23

Yup. Things like iron are the end of the cycle FogerRox May 2013 #27

This may help you OKIsItJustMe May 2013 #13

IT is not a theory Progressive dog May 2013 #16

And, of course, experiments never overturn existing science OKIsItJustMe May 2013 #19

Real scientists publish methods, unlike these Progressive dog May 2013 #21

Look, I'm not going to try to convince you of anything OKIsItJustMe May 2013 #29

I hate it when "scientists" make up stuff so Progressive dog May 2013 #32

Thousands say no but a handful are "successful" Progressive dog May 2013 #24

I guess we will need to define “theory” in order to decide whether it is one or not OKIsItJustMe May 2013 #20

There is a scientific definition and a lay definition of theory Progressive dog May 2013 #22

I just read, rather than skimmed the supposed NASA crap Progressive dog May 2013 #34

"So we are left with exactly what we started with, but miraculously have gained energy." OKIsItJustMe May 2013 #36

Nah, I think it's pretty simple and I mean simple nt Progressive dog May 2013 #37

Rossi has been pushing this for a few years now FogerRox May 2013 #7

But, at this point, it is not just Rossi OKIsItJustMe May 2013 #10

Someone else is making E-cats? FogerRox May 2013 #25

Did you read the paper? OKIsItJustMe May 2013 #28

Patent it? Done. OKIsItJustMe May 2013 #30

The E-Cat Testing Team, Real or Ringers? OKIsItJustMe May 2013 #31

Great endorsements of Rossi's team Progressive dog May 2013 #33

I'm on board too - a skeptic would have too much to lose wtmusic May 2013 #35

We should be finding out some results soon. bluedeathray Jun 2013 #38