well, if your cathode were also a superconducter, you'd be gold to go boom.
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > This is a perennial subject. I suppose that cold fusion bombs are probably > not possible, for the reasons given below, but I do not think suppose can > roll them out definitively. > > First, the reasons why they may be possible: > > 1. Several cold fusion devices have exploded. > > 2. Martin Fleischmann worried that cold fusion might have weapons > applications, which is one of the reasons he wanted to keep the research > secret for several more years back in 1989. I gather he still worries about > this. I do not know his reasons but he is a smart cookie so perhaps there is > something to it. > > Clearly, you can make a small bomb. But I doubt you can make a kiloton or > megaton scale device, for the following reasons -- > > 1. Cold fusion is not a chain reaction. > 2. Cold fusion cannot exist without an intact lattice. > > Cold fusion is not a chain reaction in the same sense a fission bomb is. > That is to say, each nuclear reaction does not give rise directly to one or > more other reactions, on the timescale of a nuclear reaction. Cold fusion > does exhibit positive feedback, but that is not the same as a chain > reaction. As far as I know, positive feedback comes about because the cold > fusion reaction heats the metal, and the heat increases the reaction rate. > > I assume that as soon as the lattice melts or vaporizes the reaction stops. > And it will melt locally long before you get multiple generations of > reactions from a large fraction of the total population of deuterons, > because heat conducts very slowly compared to the timescale of a nuclear > reaction. It conducts at the speed of sound. Suppose a tiny spot on the > cathode becomes very hot because multiple reactions occur there. This may > trigger a runaway reaction in the area right around that spot which gets > hot, but by the time the rest of the cathode gets hot, that spot will have > melted or evaporated. I doubt that the heat can spread over the whole > cathode and trigger a uniform reaction over a large volume (or surface > area), so that a large fraction of the deuterons present in the lattice > participate in the reaction. By the time the neighboring metal or > nanoparticles heat up, the metal in the starting location is gone and the > reaction is quenched. > > Regarding this subject Jones Beene wrote: > >> Going back to Robert Forward we find the idea of “really cold fusion” … >> plus the realization that bosons could be involved in LENR in a higher temp >> range than with the Bose condensate . . . >> >> … it very likely that near absolute zero the rate of reaction “could >> possibly” be poised to go into a rapid chain-reaction mode, if there is a >> stable BEC and extremely high loading. > > I do not know about this theory but cold fusion at room temperature and in > the positive feedback high temperatures exhibits no signs of being a chain > reaction as far as I know, so I do not see why it would become a chain > reaction at cryogenic temperatures. > > >> IIRC - Jed has led the chorus for the argument that goes something like >> this: our military bureaucracy is really “not that smart” and there is no >> high-level conspiracy to quash LENR – just basic ignorance. The bureaucrats >> could not keep it secret, in any event. > > I know for a fact that our military bureaucracy is not that smart when it > comes to cold fusion. This is an observation, not speculation. I have spoken > with some of them and I know many other people who have communicated much > more extensively at much higher levels, and they confirm my observation. > This is also true of the Japanese bureaucracy under the previous two Prime > Ministers. > > The bureaucrats or Men in Black have never lifted a finger to stop me from > publishing information about cold fusion, so I suppose they are not trying > to keep it secret. Take the Defense Intelligence Agency report. As noted it > is based on open sources, and those sources are credible. In fact you could > write just about every sentence based on stuff at LENR-CANR.org. You would > not even have to spring for Ed's book or an ICCF proceedings -- although > anyone serious about the subject should do that. So if they are trying to > suppress this they are doing a terrible job. > > The only people who have ever asked me to remove papers from LENR-CANR are > publishers who do not want me to violate copyright. (A few authors prefer > not to have me upload in the first place.) The only calls I have gotten from > bureaucrats were requests for copies of papers not on file. > > Naturally if there were a high-level conspiracy I would not hear about it. > But it seems to me that the non-conspiratorial actions by people like Robert > Park and the editors of the Scientific American and Nature can account for > the opposition to cold fusion. If there is a high-level conspiracy that > meets every 6 months the members are not busy. They convene a meeting and go > through a quick checklist: > > "Are there any positive reports on cold fusion in the Washington Post or any > other mass media? Nope. Nothing since CBS, and that's off the radar screen > by now. > > Are Robert Park, the APS and the DoE still at it? Yup. > > Any funding for cold fusion? A tiny bit at the NRL -- nothing to worry > about. > > Has any major scientist come out in favor of cold fusion in the last six > months? Nope. > > Okay folks, meeting adjourned. See you next June." > > - Jed > >
