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
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?
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.