>> The trick they use is to use a very energetic gamma rays that colides (indirectly) with one deuterium, and this deuterium is very fast that is the same effect you get when you have a very hot deuterium.
That notion of "hot" is not the norm. Most of us think in terms of temperature, not "energy". Would you want to get an X-ray if it were described in a way that sounded like high temperatures going to fry you? No.
When the original cold fusion work was published, physicists across the board declared it impossible, insisting that high temperatures (and/or pressures?) were absolutely required for fusion to happen. The notion of a desktop fusion reaction was categorically ridiculed. Now it's OK so long as we change our conventional definitions to make those earlier denials not seem ignorant. BTW I'm not saying the origial CF worked, just that those rejecting it used words that would also exclude the possibility of LCF (or LENR or whatever we call it now).
That notion of "hot" is not the norm. Most of us think in terms of temperature, not "energy". Would you want to get an X-ray if it were described in a way that sounded like high temperatures going to fry you? No.
When the original cold fusion work was published, physicists across the board declared it impossible, insisting that high temperatures (and/or pressures?) were absolutely required for fusion to happen. The notion of a desktop fusion reaction was categorically ridiculed. Now it's OK so long as we change our conventional definitions to make those earlier denials not seem ignorant. BTW I'm not saying the origial CF worked, just that those rejecting it used words that would also exclude the possibility of LCF (or LENR or whatever we call it now).