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:
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:
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