Cold Fusion?

On Feb 3, 6:32*am, Monkey Clumps wrote:
Unlike the old "water can be used as fuel" scam, which can be
dismissed outright, this has a slightly greater chance being real.
Still most likely a hoax, but if it were to be true we would
potentially have a viable fuel source to get us off fossil fuel.

http://www.minyanville.com/dailyfeed...-the-positive/

Why I don't believe cold fusion claims.

Our Sun is a fairly inefficient fusion reactor. Most of its
mass is not reacting. That is why its Hydrogen fusion
fuel is estimated to last it another 5 billion years. The
pressure of gravity in stars more massive than our Sun
creates higher internal 'temperatures' and 'pressures.'
These stars burn their Hydrogen into Helium faster than
our Sun does. The estimated lifetimes of heaver starts
can be as small as a few million years. They may start
with more fuel than our Sun, but they 'burn' their fuel
much faster.

So then, for stars the key to reacting their hydrogen
faster is more mass to generate higher internal
'temperatures' and 'pressures.' If the cold fusion
claims were true, there is some way to create fusion
without the high temperature and pressure conditions
of a stellar core, In fact the cold fusionists say
fusion happens at everyday temperatures and
pressures.

WELL THEN, the question is, "Why can't stars
use cold fusion?" If stars did, stellar astronomers
would be giving us entirely different data. Please
see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution