RE: [Vo]:LENR was discovered in 1982/1983 (if not before)
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 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 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
RE: [Vo]:LENR was discovered in 1982/1983 (if not before)
Hi Robin, Your post makes me think that we would be facing a terrible crisis (in terms of nuclear terrorism) if it turns out that Mills, Holmlid and now Glass are accurate. There could be a form of UHW – or “ultra heavy water” which is composed of oxygen and dense deuterium so that the molecu;e is both fuel and catalyst when arranged in the most efficient configuration with D+O as the explosive trigger. From: mix...@bigpond.com >A high resolution scintillator-detection system measured the neutrons and >y-rays resulting from the fusion of deuterium. Several approaches were used to >initiate fusion in deuterium. >The simplest and most direct proved to be in a stoichiometric mixture of >deuterium-oxygen Note also that this will create both atomic D and molecular water, which is apparently Mills' preferred catalyst, making it an ideal environment to shrink D, thus making DD reactions possible. >QUOTE: this is the only known work where fusion neutrons were produced by >chemical energy in a direct manner. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk
Re: [Vo]:LENR was discovered in 1982/1983 (if not before)
In reply to Bob Higgins's message of Thu, 12 Jul 2018 11:43:11 -0600: Hi, [snip] >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. Use carbon for the inner wall. It is relatively cheap, neutron addition to C12 turns it into C13 which is stable, it can withstand high temperatures, and will act as a neutron moderator, slowing the neutrons so that they may be more easily captured by the next Li layer needed to produce T. An alternative is Be which will act as a neutron multiplier, thus making the production of T easier. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk local asymmetry = temporary success
Re: [Vo]:LENR was discovered in 1982/1983 (if not before)
In reply to JonesBeene's message of Thu, 12 Jul 2018 07:28:47 -0700: Hi, [snip] >A high resolution scintillator-detection system measured the neutrons and >y-rays resulting from the fusion of deuterium. Several approaches were used >to initiate fusion in deuterium. >The simplest and most direct proved to be in a stoichiometric mixture of >deuterium-oxygen Note also that this will create both atomic D and molecular water, which is apparently Mills' preferred catalyst, making it an ideal environment to shrink D, thus making DD reactions possible. > >QUTOE: this is the only known work where fusion neutrons were produced by >chemical energy in a direct manner. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk local asymmetry = temporary success
Re: [Vo]:LENR was discovered in 1982/1983 (if not before)
Before I think. Nine years ago I was on a walk organised by our Church and got chatting to an elderly gentleman who I had not spoken to before. We got to talking about LENR as I had just started getting involved. He told me that during the second world war he was involved in developing containers for hydrogen. Their team became aware that in one very specific circumstance they were seeing what appeared to be excess heat. They brought this to the attention of their superiors and were told that they could not afford the time to investigate it (To coin a phrase, there was a war on). He told me that when he heard the Pons and Fleishmann news many years later, it came as no surprise. Nigel On 12/07/2018 15:28, JonesBeene wrote: And this wasn’t “fracto-fusion” which has been disputed, nor was it the Farnsworth Fusor (1964) which was labeled as “warm fusion” (ICE). As we now know, LENR driven by a chemical reaction (combustion shock wave) was invented around 1980, probably in several places including the USA, for military uses. (tritium-free bomb trigger). In fairness to our friends from the North – it is time to acknowledge that LENR was invented, produced and well-document in Canada 35 years ago, well before it turned up in Utah. In fact, the Canucks might not have been the first to do it, but so far as the online record is concerned, they have the belated honor of presenting the first report. Problem was, the experimental work back then (during the depth of the Cold War with Russia) was for done for weapons research - and our Pentagon effectively silenced the similar work in the USA. Of course, filing a patent was out of the question. This work (due to its application as a bomb trigger) was and still is – a huge proliferation risk. A typewritten report available online is entitled “EXPLOSIVE-DRIVEN HEMISPHERICAL IMPLOSIONS FOR GENERATING FUSION PLASMAS” By D. Sagie and I. 1. Glass at the University of Toronto, Institute for Aerospace. There is no doubt about the importance of this work, or the high quality of the experiment - but it is seldom mentioned and does not appear on the LENR-CANR library. Google Scholar did publish the paper online some 30+ years later, but not many took notice of its significance. For one thing, this information upsets the common misperception that Pons and Fleischmann invented cold fusion. They did not, unless one wishes to redefine it in such a way that eliminates simple chemical reactions. That credit, which is nothing less than the discovery of LENR (using any reasonable definition of “low energy”) - should in a perfect world – be attributed to Glass and Sagie. However, other researchers whose work was squelched by the Pentagon are probably out there. You can track down the large file (42 megs) through this link. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982PhFl...25..269G The University of Toronto (Aerospace) had at that time a dedicated “explosive-driven-implosion facility” and it was used by Glass et al to produce stabIe, centered and focused hemispherical implosions to generate neutrons from D-D reactions using only the energy of combustion. This was a CHEMICAL REACTION only. The reaction was actually simply the result of a self-generated shock wave from self-detonation of the pure deuterium gas in oxygen. A high resolution scintillator-detection system measured the neutrons and y-rays resulting from the fusion of deuterium. “Several approaches were used to initiate fusion in deuterium. The simplest and most direct proved to be in a stoichiometric mixture of deuterium-oxygen…” QUTOE: “this is the only known work where fusion neutrons were produced by chemical energy in a direct manner.”
RE: [Vo]:LENR was discovered in 1982/1983 (if not before)
Bob, OK but to restate the obvious, there is no possible resolution on these issues based on the limited information we have now. The neglected points that makes this earlier work by the Toronto team important today are 1) Good evidence, if not proof, that deuterium will fuse using only chemical input energy 2) Moderate evidence of high level coverup in the LENR field in general 3) The Glass method MUST be designated as a form of LENR due to the low input energy in the range of a few eV. 4) There are almost certainly several different forms of LENR and this could be both the most neglected and the most important (arguable) 5) The one critical detail of operation – also echoed in the Farnsworth Fusor, is the huge design boost of spherical convergence 6) That design boost could possibly be translated into the metal matrix paradigm - offering better results (especially using laser ICE with loaded metal targets) 7) If Glass et al had been accepted in the 1980s – the difference in the method of operation in other versions of LENR including the P&F version – would have been easier to accept by physicist. We can only hope that this old work opens some doors to the future, while not adding undue proliferation risk. From: Bob Higgins 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. JonesBeene 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 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.
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 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 > > > > 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. > > > > >
RE: [Vo]:LENR was discovered in 1982/1983 (if not before)
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 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.
Re: [Vo]:LENR was discovered in 1982/1983 (if not before)
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? On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 9:18 AM, 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. > > > > > > *From: *Bob Higgins > > > > But, Jones, > > > > Is it LENR if it produces neutrons and gamma? > > > > >
RE: [Vo]:LENR was discovered in 1982/1983 (if not before)
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. From: Bob Higgins But, Jones, Is it LENR if it produces neutrons and gamma?
Re: [Vo]:LENR was discovered in 1982/1983 (if not before)
But, Jones, Is it LENR if it produces neutrons and gamma? On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 8:28 AM, JonesBeene wrote: > > > And this wasn’t “fracto-fusion” which has been disputed, nor was it the > Farnsworth Fusor (1964) which was labeled as “warm fusion” (ICE). > > > > As we now know, LENR driven by a chemical reaction (combustion shock wave) > was invented around 1980, probably in several places including the USA, for > military uses. (tritium-free bomb trigger). > > > > In fairness to our friends from the North – it is time to acknowledge that > LENR was invented, produced and well-document in Canada 35 years ago, well > before it turned up in Utah. In fact, the Canucks might not have been the > first to do it, but so far as the online record is concerned, they have the > belated honor of presenting the first report. > > > > Problem was, the experimental work back then (during the depth of the Cold > War with Russia) was for done for weapons research - and our Pentagon > effectively silenced the similar work in the USA. Of course, filing a > patent was out of the question. This work (due to its application as a bomb > trigger) was and still is – a huge proliferation risk. > > > > A typewritten report available online is entitled “EXPLOSIVE-DRIVEN > HEMISPHERICAL IMPLOSIONS FOR GENERATING FUSION PLASMAS” By D. Sagie and I. > 1. Glass at the University of Toronto, Institute for Aerospace. There is no > doubt about the importance of this work, or the high quality of the > experiment - but it is seldom mentioned and does not appear on the > LENR-CANR library. > > > > Google Scholar did publish the paper online some 30+ years later, but not > many took notice of its significance. For one thing, this information > upsets the common misperception that Pons and Fleischmann invented cold > fusion. They did not, unless one wishes to redefine it in such a way that > eliminates simple chemical reactions. > > > > That credit, which is nothing less than the discovery of LENR (using any > reasonable definition of “low energy”) - should in a perfect world – be > attributed to Glass and Sagie. However, other researchers whose work was > squelched by the Pentagon are probably out there. You can track down the > large file (42 megs) through this link. > > > > http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982PhFl...25..269G > > > > The University of Toronto (Aerospace) had at that time a dedicated > “explosive-driven-implosion facility” and it was used by Glass et al to > produce stabIe, centered and focused hemispherical implosions to generate > neutrons from D-D reactions using only the energy of combustion. This was > a CHEMICAL REACTION only. The reaction was actually simply the result of a > self-generated shock wave from self-detonation of the pure deuterium gas > in oxygen. > > > > A high resolution scintillator-detection system measured the neutrons and > y-rays resulting from the fusion of deuterium. “Several approaches were > used to initiate fusion in deuterium. > > The simplest and most direct proved to be in a stoichiometric mixture of > deuterium-oxygen…” > > > > QUTOE: “this is the only known work where fusion neutrons were produced by > chemical energy in a direct manner.” > > >
