Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Transmutations observed from pressure cycling palladium

sciencedirect.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 73 posts

Re: Transmutations observed from pressure cycling palladium

#41

Post by versteegen »

hansvm wrote: post #38
jacobwilliamroy wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I can tell, the only reason cold fusion is even a thing is because someone published a paper that has never been reproduced. P=NP is at least possible: it has to be true or untrue. I'm not even sure if our current understand of physics even supports cold fusion. I guess maybe it does seeing as how I got downvoted? Presumably by amazing scientists who have developed cold fusion technology? Or at least have a…

Fwiw, P=NP could be independent from our current commonly used axioms; it doesn't have to be purely true or false.

My understanding is it's necessarily either true or false, but may not be provably true or false. This could allow us to actually have an algorithm that solves all NP problems in P time, but ZFC can't prove it works for all inputs.

Edit: So in that case, what would it mean to add an axiom that P=NP? See https://mathoverflow.net/questions/50023/independence-of-p-n... especially the answer by Andreas Blass. Basically, you could add axioms that change the meaning of 'Turing machine' (ie 'computation') by changing the meaning of 'natural number' resulting in an algorithm witnessing P=NP that maybe can't be run on physical computers.

Way off topic...

Re: Transmutations observed from pressure cycling palladium

#42

Post by ncmncm »

raziel2701 wrote: post #39
jiggawatts wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the opposite. Heat is notoriously difficult to measure accurately, especially when small amounts are being produced or if the experiment runs over a long time. Heat can also have many sources, some of which aren't expected by even highly experienced experimenters. For example, hydrogen has spin isomers , and the conversion of orthohydrogen into parahydrogen releases energy. Metals like palladium can also release…

Yeah but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Right now the easiest explanation is contamination, ordinary and easy to explain.

No. Claims Require Evidence. Maybe it's contamination. Maybe it is something interesting. Ordinary evidence will reveal which.

Demanding extraordinary evidence is just defending turf, and not science.

Re: Transmutations observed from pressure cycling palladium

#44

Post by torotonnato »

Old paper about excess Helium in D loaded Palladium - http://www.fusione.enea.it/pubblications/TR/2002/RT-2002-41-...

I don't understand why experts cannot accept the challenge. There is something happening that is unexpected (modulo some reproducibility issues)? Investigate, jeez

Re: Transmutations observed from pressure cycling palladium

#45

Post by gnufx »

robocat wrote: post #32
raducu wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shouldn't there be some kind of radiation detectable if fusion did occur?

It could easily be that the radiation is well below the noise floor for background radiation or cosmic rays. The experiment doesn’t allow for selecting the type of radiation, and if the fusion is different from normal then the signature could be strange. Detecting elements can be done for incredibly small amounts, but instead the problem is avoiding contamination.

It's a characteristic of this stuff claiming to be doing nuclear physics that you actually avoid real nuclear physics (gamma and neutron detection) and possibly hand-wave it away like that. I used to study sub-barrier fusion reactions with palladium and sensitive detectors, and all this business was risible from the start.

Re: Transmutations observed from pressure cycling palladium

#46

Post by gnufx »

torotonnato wrote: post #44

Old paper about excess Helium in D loaded Palladium - http://www.fusione.enea.it/pubblications/TR/2002/RT-2002-41-... I don't understand why experts cannot accept the challenge. There is something happening that is unexpected (modulo some reproducibility issues)? Investigate, jeez

In the absence of real nuclear physics data, the only thing available for experts to criticize if the lack of those data.

Re: Transmutations observed from pressure cycling palladium

#47

Post by gnufx »

jiggawatts wrote: post #24
dumbfoundded wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends. The transmuted elements could be viewed as contaminants while it'd be hard to explain away excess heat. There are so many sources of potential contamination. Random heat signatures not so much.

It's the opposite. Heat is notoriously difficult to measure accurately, especially when small amounts are being produced or if the experiment runs over a long time. Heat can also have many sources, some of which aren't expected by even highly experienced experimenters. For example, hydrogen has spin isomers , and the conversion of orthohydrogen into parahydrogen releases energy. Metals like palladium can also release…

Right, but the simple, reliable measurement is the nuclear radiation if someone is claiming a nuclear process.

Re: Transmutations observed from pressure cycling palladium

#48

Post by torotonnato »

gnufx wrote: post #46
torotonnato wrote: post #44

Old paper about excess Helium in D loaded Palladium - http://www.fusione.enea.it/pubblications/TR/2002/RT-2002-41-... I don't understand why experts cannot accept the challenge. There is something happening that is unexpected (modulo some reproducibility issues)? Investigate, jeez

In the absence of real nuclear physics data, the only thing available for experts to criticize if the lack of those data.

Absence is a bit of a stretch. Look at that paper, it's interesting

Re: Transmutations observed from pressure cycling palladium

#49

Post by pfdietz »

jacobwilliamroy wrote: post #27
dumbfoundded wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's like trying to prove P = NP. Maybe it's technically possible, but no one in their right mind thinks it's going to happen.

As far as I can tell, the only reason cold fusion is even a thing is because someone published a paper that has never been reproduced. P=NP is at least possible: it has to be true or untrue. I'm not even sure if our current understand of physics even supports cold fusion. I guess maybe it does seeing as how I got downvoted? Presumably by amazing scientists who have developed cold fusion technology? Or at least have a…

The weird thing about the field is that a negative result should REDUCE the estimate of how likely something is. And yet, after P&F, people took it more seriously.

Re: Transmutations observed from pressure cycling palladium

#50

Post by pfdietz »

torotonnato wrote: post #44

Old paper about excess Helium in D loaded Palladium - http://www.fusione.enea.it/pubblications/TR/2002/RT-2002-41-... I don't understand why experts cannot accept the challenge. There is something happening that is unexpected (modulo some reproducibility issues)? Investigate, jeez

The experts don't have time to wade through an endless stream of bad science.

At some point, this will all go the same way as the Victorian fad of photographs of faeries.

Post reply on HN