On Feb 10, 2011, at 5:57 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Harry Veeder <hlvee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The theory is the helium is the end of a sequence of fissions
initiated by palladium nuclei absorbing neutrons.
(end quote of Harry Veeder, Jed continues ...)
Ah. I see. And I gather it involves lithium as well. Does it
consume deuterium and produce helium at the same rate as DD fusion
would? I guess the lithium depletes, but you could not detect that
with the experiments done so far.
Experts Tell Me (off line) that technically this would not be
called fusion, so score one for Krivit.
This is nonsense. We have seen W&L's reactions. The chains all
start with
energy + p + e -> n + neutrino
so the reaction chains are of the form or include multiple
occurrences of the form:
energy + p + e + X -> n + neutrino + X -> Y + neutrino
and it is perfectly valid to call them fusion reactions, regardless
of what Y does following the fusion. W&L state that the intermediate
neutron state is ultra low momentum, has a short half-life, and
doesn't move far within the lattice. It is merely an interim and
partial catalytic state within the overall reaction.
That said, it is probably irrelevant as Jed says, because my opinion
so far is the theory itself makes no common sense at all:
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg38261.html
I think the notion of super heavy electrons suppressing gammas and
other neuron activation radiation, especially delayed neutron
activation gammas, is totally non credible. If it were credible we
could create a film with heavy electrons in it, say by initiating the
subject reaction conditions, and then simultaneously sending a beam
of gammas through the film to see how much the gamma attenuation
actuaally changes. Not enough to be of any practical consequence I
expect! If so then this would prove the WL theory completely wrong.
However, continuing with the assumption the WL theory has some
validity, most common definitions of nuclear fusion include,
technically, the equation:
energy + p + e + X --> n + neutrino + X --> Y + neutrino
as an example. The issue is at best a matter of opinion. See:
http://www.google.com/search?
hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&q=define:nuclear+fusion&defl=en&sa=X&ei=-
N9UTaOTIYiqsAOB3qm7BQ&ved=0CAUQowMoAQ
fusion: a nuclear reaction in which nuclei combine to form more
massive nuclei with the simultaneous release of energy
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
The combining of the nuclei of small atoms to form the nuclei of
larger ones, with a resulting release of large quantities of energy;
the process that makes the sun shine, and hydrogen bomb explode
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nuclear_fusion
The combination of the nuclei of certain extremely light elements,
especially hydrogen, effected by the application of high temperature
and pressure. Nuclear fusion causes the release of an enormous amount
of heat energy, comparable to that released by nuclear fission. ...
college.cengage.com/geology/resources/geologylink/glossary/n.html
the process used by stars to generate energy: less-massive nuclei are
fused together under extremely high temperatures and densities to
form more-massive nuclei plus some energy. The energy comes from the
transformation of some of the mass into energy.
www.astronomynotes.com/glossary/glossn.htm
A process in which two smaller atomic nuclei fuse into one larger
nucleus and release energy; the source of power in a hydrogen bomb.
www.mhhe.com/biosci/pae/glossaryn.html
a nuclear process whereby several small nuclei are combined to make a
larger one whose mass is slightly smaller than the sum of the small
ones. The difference in mass is converted to energy by Einstein's
famous equivalence E=mc2. ...
nineplanets.org/help.html
joining of two atomic nuclei to form a new nucleus
mccroan.com/Glossary/n.htm
The process of releasing energy from the nucleus of a small atom by
fusing it together with the nucleus of another small atom.
www.eon-uk.com/EnergyExperience/559.htm
One of the two main processes in a star in which hydrogen is blown
outward from the star's center.
www.rdrop.com/users/green/school/glossary.htm
The process by which the nuclei of atoms fuse together, thereby
creating new, larger atoms.
www.wwnorton.com/college/geo/earth2/glossary/n.htm
Mechanism of energy generation in the core of the Sun, in which light
nuclei are combined, or fused, into heavier ones, releasing energy in
the process.
lifeng.lamost.org/courses/astrotoday/CHAISSON/GLOSSARY/GLOSS_N.HTM
a process in which substances fuse to from new substances and
releasing large amounts of heat and light energy.
www.wsd1.org/southd/science/glossary.htm
I consider the following definition just plain wrong:
is the supposed stellar process by which the nucleii of four hydrogen
atoms collide with sufficient energy to coalesce forming a single
helium nucleus having slightly less mass than the original hydrogen. ...
www.quantavolution.org/vol_05/solaria-binaria_glossary.htm
Further, to say that "cold fusion" is strictly defined as D+D -->
4He in a Pd lattice, which Fleischmann and Pons initially
hypopthesized, is nonsense. This is like saying analyzing
microfossils is not part of paleontology because it doesn't involve
digging big bones out of the ground and making museum exhibits out of
them. Fields expand horizons.
Fleischmann and Pons used D in Pd, but that was just the beginning of
the field. When you put hydrogen in atomic lattices you sometimes
get anomalous nuclear events. The Ni-H system was early on
considered part of cold fusion. That is not D+D fusion. Heavy
element low energy transmutation, also discovered early on in the
field, is not D+D fusion. The discovery of heavy transmutations was
a direct outcome of cold fusion studies. It is part of the
phenomenon, and shares the mysterious characteristics of low
initiating energy and low signature energy. Remember Bockris and
TAMU? These things were all lumped under the same "cold fusion"
umbrella until terms like LENR, CANR, LANR, CMNS were invented.
Even after invention of these new terms, each of which has distinct
and useful meaning, all the same physical things continued to be
discussed on sci.physics.fusion under the "fusion" umbrella, and
reported on at ICCF - The International Conference on Cold Fusion.
Yes, Cold Fusion, then and now. The new terms each have distinct
meanings, but still fall under the umbrella of the general field of
cold fusion. Cold fusion is the fusion of atomic nuclei without the
kinetic energy to overcome the Coulomb barrier, and without the high
energy signatures or branching ratios of similar reactions in high
kinetic energy environments. The fathers of the field are Fleischmann
and Pons. Everything in the field of cold fusion followed from their
seminal experimental work. Theories mean little at this point,
because none are widely accepted.
This is said with the clear knowledge that muon catalyzed fusion was
also called cold fusion, at least at one time. This I think is
outside the definition of cold fusion because the branching ratios
are conventional and the signatures are not suppressed - but it is
debatable since both the Pd-D and Jones' muon catalyzed fusion
announcements then or shortly after had the term universally applied
to both of them. History counts for something. Despite this, most
cold fusion antagonists are probably happy to exclude muon catalyzed
fusion from the cold fusion umbrella, and stigma!
This recent tendency to divorce special nooks of the field from the
definition of the field seems utterly nonsensical - unless perhaps it
is an attempt to steal credit, or establish intellectual property
rights or bragging rights in some way by creating false boundaries.
There is also the attempt by some to escape the stigma associated
with the term "cold fusion". Again, nonsense! The journalists have
lumped Rossi's experiments and patent applications under that
umbrella, despite his statement that it is not cold fusion. You put
hydrogen in metals and get nuclear changes - bingo! It's cold
fusion. To say otherwise is merely confusion. Otherwise, all papers
not about D-D fusion in Pd should be banned from ICCF - now that's
nonsensical isn't it!
There is a vast range of cold fusion reactions feasible, depending on
reaction conditions. See:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/dfRpt
I think an end should be put to the con-fusion, and everyone should
own up to the origins of the field and not be changing definitions
for political or financial gain. Fusion is fusion. Cold fusion is
nuclear fusion - cold. This is true regardless the events which
might precede or follow the creation of any intermediate fused
nucleus within a lattice, be they weak reactions, fissions, or other
reactions. When the field comes to fruition, the vindication will
be even more sweet, for those cold fusion scientists still alive to
see it.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
