On Dec 25, 2009, at 4:02 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Steven Krivit wrote:
Fleischmann, M., et al., " Electrochemically Induced Nuclear Fusion
of Deuterium," 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.
I think it is important to keep in mind they went on to clarify their
position: "The most surprising feature of our results however, is
that reactions (v) and (vi) are only a small part of the overall
reaction scheme and that the bulk of the energy release is due to an
hitherto unknown nuclear process or processes (presumably again due
to deuterons)."
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
At 06:08 PM 12/24/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Steven Krivit wrote:
On 23 March 1989, electrochemists M. Fleischmann and S. Pons
claimed in a press conference at the University of Utah that they
had achieved nuclear fusion . . . Their hypothesis that a novel
form of thermonuclear fusion was responsible for their
experimental results is still unproved.
I don't get this. I don't think Fleischmann and Pons ever claimed
this is fusion caused by heat (thermo-nuclear fusion). Or anything
remotely like plasma fusion. The only people who said that were the
skeptics.
I think the emphasis here should be on the word "novel" and not
"thermonuclear". The use of the term "thermonuclear" is totally
appropriate in this historical context because the only kinds of
fusion at the time were either thermonuclear, muon catlayzed, or beam
type kinetic fusion. It is clear even from the first article P&F knew
of what they spoke. It was a "hitherto unknown nuclear process". It
was clearly neither a beam type nor a muon type, but could have been
a thermonuclear process on some plane of understanding. It was
reasonable, given the Lawson criteria, or the triple criteria, that
the high density and high effective pressure of the lattice, combined
with some form of lattice mechanics, might overcome the lack of high
temperature, and thus something similar to thermonuclear fusion might
be involved, even if it drastically changed the branching ratios.
Given the lattice mechanics involved is electron catalysis, the above
is still a viable description of cold fusion. I spell out some of
the mechanics that may be involved in the branching ratio changes on
pp 3-11 of:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
