> A tokamak isn't "cold" as there's a clear and deliberate containment mechanism and a physical boundary delineating a macro environment of extreme energies within which fusion occurs.
Sure, but as you noted this definition becomes fuzzier at smaller and smaller scales, which IMHO reduces its usefulness quite a bit as it doesn't do a very good job at differentiating between hot and cold fusion beyond "how small of an apparatus can we build with current technology".
> and there's no chance mainstream science would ever attempt to qualify and quantify what counts as "cold" because the phrase "cold fusion" is already taboo
At least to me, it seems that there are at least two potential definitions of "cold fusion" already floating about (though to be fair, I don't know whether these are "mainstream" definitions):
1. Fusion which doesn't require high-energy/temperature nuclei
2. Fusion (maybe "regular" fusion, maybe not) which takes place at small-enough scales that large containment apparatuses are not necessary
The first definition might work for a (relatively) precise definition of cold fusion, while coming up with a similarly precise one for the second definition looks like it'd be harder.
The physicists in the article appear to be using the first definition, although I don't know whether that is the most widespread definition used among "mainstream" physicists. Fleischmann and Pon's setup seems to fall under the second category.
Granted, it looks like you're much more familiar with the subject matter than I am, so there's a good chance I messed up something or another.
> So that's why I say that today "it's not cold fusion" implies that a claimed result comes packaged with a plausible model, where in turn plausibility is partly a function of the need for new, fundamental physics.
That was an interesting dive into the historical aspect of things. I really appreciate you taking the time to type out all that explanation!
Sure, but as you noted this definition becomes fuzzier at smaller and smaller scales, which IMHO reduces its usefulness quite a bit as it doesn't do a very good job at differentiating between hot and cold fusion beyond "how small of an apparatus can we build with current technology".
> and there's no chance mainstream science would ever attempt to qualify and quantify what counts as "cold" because the phrase "cold fusion" is already taboo
At least to me, it seems that there are at least two potential definitions of "cold fusion" already floating about (though to be fair, I don't know whether these are "mainstream" definitions):
1. Fusion which doesn't require high-energy/temperature nuclei
2. Fusion (maybe "regular" fusion, maybe not) which takes place at small-enough scales that large containment apparatuses are not necessary
The first definition might work for a (relatively) precise definition of cold fusion, while coming up with a similarly precise one for the second definition looks like it'd be harder.
The physicists in the article appear to be using the first definition, although I don't know whether that is the most widespread definition used among "mainstream" physicists. Fleischmann and Pon's setup seems to fall under the second category.
Granted, it looks like you're much more familiar with the subject matter than I am, so there's a good chance I messed up something or another.
> So that's why I say that today "it's not cold fusion" implies that a claimed result comes packaged with a plausible model, where in turn plausibility is partly a function of the need for new, fundamental physics.
That was an interesting dive into the historical aspect of things. I really appreciate you taking the time to type out all that explanation!