Photo-fusion is a new type of fusion that was demonstrated at the turn of this century using high powered lasers. It is not hot and it might well be cold. If photon energy can be concentrated to bring the threshold for Photo-fusion into the range of non-laser infrared photon power levels, cold fusion (aka low energy photo fusion) is the result.
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 3:26 PM, <pagnu...@htdconnect.com> wrote: > Eric, Axil, Jones, > > I just want to make a couple of brief remarks. > > First, there appear to be ways to greatly concentrate energy in "cold" > environments, e.g., superfocusing of e-m waves by plasmons in nano- > structures, various focusing phenomena, superoscillations, ... > > On the "hot" vs. "cold" distinction - > I believe this is partly hard to define since "kinetic energy" is > itself ambiguous. For example, read - > "How Much of Magnetic Energy Is Kinetic Energy?" > http://puhep1.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/kinetic.pdf > Let's not forget, too, that a slow compressed quantum wave function > can possess more K.E. than a fast moving wide, smoothly varying one. > > On whether "heavy electrons" can split gammas - > If I understand correctly, an electron becomes "heavy" in strong fields > when it accrues a entourage (or "dressing") of a "swarm" of photons > of field energy/momentum. It's a really difficult QED problem to > determine cross-sections and scattering probabilities. > Try googling "semi-bare electrons" or "two photon bremsstrahlung" or > "multi-photon bremsstrahlung" - electrons are not femto-billiards. > > -- LP > > Eric Walker wrote; > > On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 7:37 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> > wrote: > > > > To be brutally honest, this makes no sense. You cannot have it both ways. > >> The underlying reaction is either hot or it isn't. Plus, the larger > >> problem: Boltzmann's tail (of the Maxwellian distribution). > >> > > > > I think we agree more than may be apparent. I've probably used > > "thermalization" incorrectly, or at least in a confusing way. > > [...] > >
