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> 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 <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.
>
>
>
>
>

Reply via email to