Researchers claim they produced a nuclear fusion reaction with a 50-percent net energy...

[mbrowne5061]

You miss the point. Please supply evidence that cold fusion must stay cold. The point I am arguing is the definition of cold fusion.

My work team consists of phd’s that have worked in or around this field and they agree a fusion reaction causes heat as a by product. They also agree that cold fusion is not related to the action after the fusion is started, but the starting of the fusion process.

The experiment referenced in wikipedia is discredited, but it made popular and defined the term cold fusion. It was discredited as it could not be replicated. Not the terminology.

Now I point to every dictionary definition of cold fusion and the wikipedia article defining the term cold fusion. None of them saying the reaction once started must stay “cold” all stating the start of the reaction is at or near room temperature.

Also what energy are we looking to harvest in fusion? Heat! Just like fission. Just cleaner.

Then the next step is a continuation fusion to fission and back again, a perpetual energy machine. Also theoretical.

Nope. You first. You're the one claiming cold fusion does not violate the laws of thermodynamics, so the burden of proof lies with you. Everything I've claimed can be studied in any Intro to Thermodynamics course, or even the Wikipedia article on the laws of thermodynamics, if you're particularly determined to learn it on your own.

Why don't you ask one of the PhDs "on your team"? I'm sure they have some recent, peer-reviewed papers and articles on the topic they can share.

Also what energy are we looking to harvest in fusion? Heat! Just like fission. Just cleaner.

But this in particular: even if it did work (which it doesn't), Cold Fusion would naturally have less energy - heat - to harvest.

 

[Aus spot]

But this in particular: even if it did work (which it doesn't), Cold Fusion would naturally have less energy - heat - to harvest.

Ok you are now arguing cold fusion doesn’t produce heat while claiming it would produce less heat to harvest.

You can’t even keep a consistent story. You can’t support what you say. Face it you have no idea what you are talking about and you got caught out.

I’m not going to waste more time with you. I feel the readers have enough information to make an educated decision on the definition of cold fusion.

 

[mbrowne5061]

Ok you are now arguing cold fusion doesn’t produce heat while claiming it would produce less heat to harvest.

You can’t even keep a consistent story. You can’t support what you say. Face it you have no idea what you are talking about and you got caught out.

I’m not going to waste more time with you. I feel the readers have enough information to make an educated decision on the definition of cold fusion.

... you don't understand anything about even basic thermodynamics or heat transfer, do you?
1. Useful work can only be taken from an energy differential. If the reaction is at room temperature, and is being cooled by the room itself, where is the differential to extract work from?
2. If the room temperature reaction is being cooled with something that is either cooler and/or has a greater capacity for storing energy than room temperature air (such as water), then it would have less useful work than, say, a 'regular' fusion reaction that is at millions of degrees

You can’t support what you say. Face it you have no idea what you are talking about and you got caught out.

I’m not going to waste more time with you. I feel the readers have enough information to make an educated decision on the definition of cold fusion.

And you have supported your claims? Your one example was a discredited "experiment"