Steven Krivit wrote: Fleischmann, M., et al., " Electrochemically Induced Nuclear Fusion of > Deuterium<http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/1989/1989Fleischmann-PrelimNote.pdf>," > Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, Vol. 261, Issue 2, Part 1, p. > 301-308 (April 10, 1989) and errata in Vol. 263, p. 187-188, (1989) > > "In view of the very high compression and mobility of the dissolved species > there must therefore be a significant number of close collisions and one can > pose the question: would nuclear fusion of D+ such as > 2D + 2D > 3T(1.01 MeV) + 1H(3.02 MeV) (v) > or > 2D + 2D > 3He(0.82 MeV) + n(2.45 MeV) (vi) > be feasible under these conditions?" >
By golly they did say that, didn't they! I have to admit, Steve is right on this. It was a dumb thing for F&P to say, but they said it. It was obvious from the ratio of heat to neutrons that nothing like these reactions could be happening. That is what Pons said in Congressional Testimony in April 1989. See: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CSSThearingbef.pdf ". . . I would like to say that if we try to explain the magnitude of the heat by the conventional deuterium deuterium reaction, which I showed a couple of slides ago, we find that we have 10 to the ninth times more energy from these thermal measurements than that represented by this neutron and tritium that we observe. So apparently there is another nuclear reaction or another branch to the deuterium deuterium fusion reaction that heretofore has not been considered, and it is that that we propose is, indeed, the mechanism of the excess heat generation. . . ." Apparently, in the original paper the phrase "such as" before these two equations means: "broadly interpreted, something along the lines of the following reactions, except aneutronic . . ." They should have inserted something similar to what Pons said two months later. - Jed
