From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Subject: Why should it be simple?
Reply-To: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 04:22:59 GMT

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG

Jon is the one-zillionth person to come up with the weird, naive, and
counter-intuitive argument that the CF reaction cannot exist because it
happens too easily, in too many places, under too many conditions, with too
many different products. Huizenga said to me, "first you say it happens in
palladium, now nickel. Which is it? Make up your mind!" Is there a rule it
can't be both? What on earth makes people think that a natural phenomena
must be simple, straightforward, and can only work in one fashion? Why must
there be one and only one way to start a CF reaction? Let us have a look
at another well know reaction:

Me: "Look here: I have dried grass and sticks. I can start a 'fire' by
rubbing the sticks together, or by focusing sunlight with this magnifying
glass, or even by striking these pieces of flint together near the grass.
It has to be flint, though; other kinds of rocks don't work."

Skeptic: "You must be talking about three different phenomena. The
conditions that trigger this reaction are totally different: friction is
nothing like sunlight, and your rock experiment can't be right. Why should
it work with flint but not with granite or sandstone? If it works with one
kind of rock, it should work with all the others the same way. So anyway,
how do you quench the reaction?"

Me: "Now, that brings up a very odd point: To quench the reaction, I pour
water on it. But, I have observed, there is a slow, long term version of
fire that works in just the opposite fashion. You get a large pile of dried
grass, wet it down, bale it up, and put it in a barn. In a couple of
months, it is likely to burst into flames spontaneously. It doesn't happen
every time, it is not as predictable as the 'fast' methods. To avoid the
'slow' reaction, be sure the grass is nice and dry before you bale it, and
throw some salt on the bales to help keep it dry. But, if you do get this
water-induced fire, you can quench it by putting a much larger amount of
water on it: several orders of magnitude larger."

Skeptic: "First of all, this is crazy and contradictory! How can water stop
the reaction in one case and promote it in another?!? Furthermore, how can
there be 'slow' fire that takes weeks to get going, and 'fast' fire that
you start in a few minutes by banging rocks together. [Slow Pd CF, fast Ni
CF]. It has to work the same way, at the same speed, or it is not the same
reaction."

Me: "Look, it's complicated, I don't know why or how it works. But come and
observe, or try it yourself. It will burn if you do it right. Just remember
the recipes and rules of thumb: dry for fast fire, wet for slow. Don't use
any rock but flint. If you want to use the stick rubbing method, don't wet
or lubricate the stick to make it go faster, but do rub it as fast as you
can. For a slow fire, compress the grass into tight bales [high loading],
but for a fast fire, make a loose pile of grass to allow plenty of air,
and..."

Skeptic: "Stop giving me all these ad hoc, contradictory rules! I don't
have to look. I can see that the whole story is full of contradictions, and
it is far too complicated. It can't work in so many different ways under
different conditions! Nature is always simple, straightforward and logical.
If I cannot understand this phenomenon merely by thinking about it, and
comparing it to previously discovered phenomena according to the known
laws, then it can't exist. I don't have to do any experiments, I am an
expert already."

Moral: If you don't understand a phonomenon, then it does not appear to make
any sense. CF looks far more complicated than it really is. *After* we learn
what CF is, and how it works, all of the appearent, mind-boggling
contradictions will vanish, the disparate data will fit together, and CF will
fit in neatly with everything else we know about nature.

Note: every statement here has a close analogy in the CF debate. "All rocks
must work the same way" equates to Morrison's Law: "Palladium and nickel are
the same thing." I write these analogies carefully.

This, by the way, will be my last posting for a while, as my many Gentle
Readers will be pleased to hear. I thank you for your responses here, and
by private e-mail.

- Jed


Distribution:
  >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG