What’s the difference between creationism and cold fusion?


Science — cold fusion has it, and creationism doesn’t.

One of my favorite comebacks to creationism advocates is pointing out that creationism is biology what cold fusion is to physics, except for the deep experimental results supporting cold fusion.  It usually makes creationists bluster, because they hate to be compared to something they think is pseudo-science.

To be sure, cold fusion’s corpse remain’s pretty cold.  It’s not a science that will soon spring to life to deliver safe, cheap energy to your refrigerator.

But it’s still alive, and research is still being done on cold fusion — in stark contrast to creationism/intelligent design, which remains colder than cold fusion.  Bob Park reminded us of another missed anniversary that passed last Monday:

4. COLD FUSION: TWENTY YEARS LATER, IT’S STILL COLD.
Monday was the 20th anniversary of the infamous press conference called by the University of Utah in Salt Lake City to announce the discovery of Cold Fusion.  The sun warmed the Earth that day as it had for 5 billion years, by the high temperature fusion of hydrogen nuclei. Incredibly, the American chemical Society was meeting in Salt Lake City this week and there were many papers on cold fusion, or as their authors prefer LENR (low-energy nuclear reactions). These people, at least some of them, look in ever greater detail where others have not bothered to look. They say they find great mysteries, and perhaps they do. Is it important?  I doubt it.  But I think it’s science.

The Texas State Board of Education failed to require that Texas kids learn about cold fusion in their high school science classes.  But had they done so, they’d have been on better, more truthful, more accurate and better researched ground than their rants against Big Bang, DNA and common descent.

About these ads

4 Responses to What’s the difference between creationism and cold fusion?

  1. energyguru says:

    Just read this interesting article on of all place the Huffington Post about Cold Fusion and the Automotive Industry. here is a link.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/patt-cottingham/goodbyehello-6-retooling_b_196315.html

    Like

  2. Ed Darrell says:

    I have a collection of 1,200 peer-reviewed journal papers on cold fusion, that I copied from the libraries at Los Alamos and Georgia Tech.

    Shhhh! Don’t say that so loud! Creationists will get jealous and come steal them from you!

    That’s about 600 times as many papers as there are for creationism/intelligent design. That’s my point.

    Like

  3. Jed Rothwell says:

    Cold fusion is more solid that Park admits, and probably closer to a practical source of energy than you realize. It is not a sure thing, by any means, but cold fusion cathodes weighing a few grams have produced 100 W continuously for months, adding up to 50 to 150 MJ, which is far more energy than any Tokamak ever produced. The gas loaded cells have no input power, so it is a “fully ignited” reaction as the plasma fusion people call it.

    Cold fusion have been replicated in thousand of experimental runs, in over 200 major labs such as Los Alamos and BARC. I have a collection of 1,200 peer-reviewed journal papers on cold fusion, that I copied from the libraries at Los Alamos and Georgia Tech. (As you point out they do not have 1,200 peer reviewed papers on creationism at these libraries — difference number one!) I have 2,000 other papers from conference proceedings and official reports published by the Navy, BARC, the ENEA and others. I put this bibliography on line, along with 500 full-text papers. You should have a look:

    http://www.lenr-canr.org/

    You will see that a great deal of progress has been made. Power density and temperatures are sometimes as high as a fission reactor. Tritium has been measured at levels as high as 10E8 over background. Helium is commensurate with plasma fusion, although the other products are not. Output used to be typically 10% to 30% of input (for powered, electrolysis cells — not gas or ion beam loading). Now, in the best recent runs it 2500% (25 times input).

    This research has cost about $100 million but I think it has been worth it. It would cost a lot more to make it practical, and there is no guarantee it would work, but I think it is worth trying. I wrote an e-book about that subject, which was recommended by Arthur C. Clarke and many distinguished professors. See:

    http://www.lenr-canr.org/BookBlurb.htm

    Like

  4. blueollie says:

    One of the “experts” on cold fusion is a professor at Le Tourneu University in Longview, Texas.

    I once had a cold fusion troll visit my blog; he was upset that I called it “discredited nonsense.” :-)

    Like

Please play nice in the Bathtub -- splash no soap in anyone's eyes.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,420 other followers

%d bloggers like this: