Cold fusion is clearly composed of myriad forms that are seen on a continuum from the room temperature wet reactions Fleischmann and Pons revealed, to modestly to very hot dry reactions of many other researchers. Fleischmann made it clear that his wet room temperature fusion rates were greatly enhanced by modest temperature rise, as to the boiling point of his heavy water. My own experimental experience has paralleled Fleischmann’s cooking instructions and hotter is better.
My experiments at the bench started with my efforts and success to produce and observe prodigious heat 4He and 3He in warm wet cold fusion some 29 years ago. This was highly productive though the skeptics, trolls, and competitive cold fusioneers were and remain such a blathering bother with their trolling of banal arguments about helium contamination that I no longer engage in the inevitable toxic discussions on that anti-social topic. Once one departs from wet warm cold fusion to hot dry cold fusion experiments, which I did following the work of Bockris 25years ago where gammas were found, I then continued on the hot dry trail that has led to many experiments up to the present. Today, at last, having paid my dues, when I am at the bench I am much more able to observe the definitive gamma spectra evidence of the myriad minor cold fusion reactions, to say nothing of the major reactions. The trolls, so-called skeptics, and competing cold fusioneers are of course once again raging with their attempts to make toxic these definitive lovely gammas in hopes that their bluster might overwhelm real data. The absolute requirement for observing cold fusion beyond any shadow of doubt in ‘low’ and now ‘high’ resolution gamma studies I use today is that one must have prodigious cold fusion in hand. It’s all about signal to noise, if one has next to no signal the noise will overwhelm any attempt to use very conventional high resolution gamma spectra to study and understand the atom-ecology of cold fusion. For some reason, more mysterious than cold fusion itself, very few cold fusion cooks seem to be able to follow and improvise to improve even the simplest of recipes. As for how far back cold fusion goes there are some few examples that go back to well before the ‘atomic age.’ From: Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 6:43 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR was discovered in 1982/1983 (if not before) But Jones, That's not what I said (I don't think). What I was trying to get at was: Hot fusion = Almost all of the fusion energy is delivered in the form of neutron kinetic energy + energetic gamma energy Cold fusion = Almost none (lets say < 1E-6) of the fusion energy recorded is delivered in the form of neutron kinetic energy + energetic gammas Otherwise, if cold fusion produced the energetic neutrons and gammas of hot fusion, the future for it may not be as interesting. Whatever the "cold fusion" reaction is, it delivers fusion commensurate heat without the nasty energetic neutrons and gammas that makes it particularly interesting. These energetic neutrons and gammas are a real quagmire for the hot fusion programs. The 50% energetic neutrons will activate the machinery turning it all into radioactive waste. The machinery will have to be periodically replaced just due to neutron damage to the materials. Hot fusion reactors may not have runaway reaction danger, but it will still be proliferating radioactive waste (admittedly shorter half life). Also what is being turned into waste and having to be replaced will be expensive machinery. The energetic neutrons will make hot fusion energy expensive. On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 11:03 AM, JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net <mailto:jone...@pacbell.net> > wrote: Bob, Well, given that there are claims of small amounts of neutrons and gammas in cold fusion by a number of reputable experiments, one cannot arbitrarily define the reaction as being neutron-free or gamma free. From: Bob Higgins <mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> Jones - No, not humor. Lack of neutrons and gamma has been -a- defining difference between hot fusion and cold fusion. In hot fusion the energy is taken away by neutrons and gamma almost exclusively. In cold fusion, there are no neutrons and gamma commensurate with heat production (or dead graduate students). Instead, there are low rate side productions of neutrons and gammas in cold fusion systems, but that may be due to a small branching ratio or a small amount of 2-body hot fusion occurring. The input energy going into many cold fusion experiments is certainly commensurate with that going into a Farnsworth fusor, but the Farnsworth reaction is widely regarded as being 2-ion hot fusion. I have that report, but have only scanned it so far. It could be that the neutron and gamma rates reported were small compared to the energy released by the reaction - do you know? JonesBeene wrote: Bob, Did you mean that as humor? It would be almost “pathological” to define cold fusion in such a way as to exclude the known outputs of nuclear fusion in general. In fact, in terms of the applied heat, palladium fusion at 2 volts has the equivalent input temperature of 20,000°K per atom of reactant, whereas the combustion temperature of burning deuterium in O2 would be less.
