Looking about, I noticed the New Energy Times FAQ, updated April 15,
2009. We can see, in it, that NET had lost objectivity by that time,
reporting as fact what isn't proven or broadly accepted, apparently
based on the theories that Krivit personally prefers.
<http://newenergytimes.com/v2/reports/LENR-FAQ.shtml#lenr>What is
LENR? ... the fuel is deuterium or hydrogen.... One of the main
reaction products is helium-4. ... A variety of models has [sic]
been proposed to explain LENR. Some models speculate the mechanism
as fusion, some speculate neutron catalyzed reactions, specifically,
processes relating to the weak interaction.
So far, not bad. The only problem is that he's already described that
it's fusion. The "mechanism" of fusion is fusion? Any process with
d/h as fuel and helium as ash is fusion. What kind of fusion is
another story, the mechanism isn't necessarily smashing deuterons
into each other, classical hot fusion. Obviously, by definition!
"Neutron catalyzed reactions" that transform deuterium into helium
would be, in fact, "neutron catalyzed deuterium fusion."
Krivit has nailed himself to a purely semantic dispute.
<http://newenergytimes.com/v2/reports/LENR-FAQ.shtml#coldfusion>What
Is "Cold Fusion"? "Cold fusion"is a highly speculative,
little-supported theoretical process by which two like-charged
atomic nuclei overcome the Coulomb barrier at normal temperatures
and pressures.
Now he's become misleading. "Cold fusion" is the popular term for
LENR. The name came from a theory, to be sure, that fusion was
involved. But for "two like-charged nuclei [to] overcome the Coulomb
barrier" is not the only possible form of fusion. Krivit is actually
promoting one form, neutron-catalyzed fusion, presumably through a
series of reactions. Which is "highly speculative" and
"little-supported." However, that fusion is taking place, that
deuterium is being transformed into helium, isn't in controversy. Is
this "overcoming the Coulomb barrier"? I'd have to say, yes. But
probably not as conceived by Krivit here, "two like-charged atomic
nuclei" doing this. Something else.
If I understand W-L theory (shaky!), one deuteron plus one neutron
gives us one tritium nucleus. One tritium nucleus plus one neutron
gives us one very unstable hydrogen-4 nucleus which would lose an
electron immediately to become helium, the neutron is transformed
into a proton. Fusion. But not by two like-charged nuclei banging
their heads against a barrier. Takahashi's TSC theory also involves
something other than two nuclei, it seems that it may involve two
molecules, neutrally-charged. That's "like charged," but no Coulomb barrier.
No way around it, Krivit is defining fusion narrowly, to refer only
to one kind of fusion, instead of the general case, the formation of
heavier elements from lighter ones.
<http://newenergytimes.com/v2/reports/LENR-FAQ.shtml#real>Is "Cold
Fusion" Real? Q2. Is the underlying process or processes
responsible for the observed LENR phenomena the result of a fusion process?
A2. Probably not.
But if the answer re LENR is true, it is, by definition, fusion, and
what accomplishes that must be a "fusion process." Again, what Krivit
has done is to delude himself into thinking that the only kind of
fusion is two nuclei being mashed together, which, after all, takes a
lot of energy ordinarily. Is there a way to put two together without
that much energy? Sure there is. Muons can do it. So might some other
form of catalysis. Hydrinos might be able to do it. But there is also
what seems more likely: more than two nuclei! Or, sure, something to
do with neutrons, but the problem with neutrons is that they can only
jump one AMU at a time, and if the reaction rate is high enough for
more than one jump to occur with much frequency, it would be high
enough that drastic effects would be observed, and the first reaction
product would be the most common. Not helium, which is two steps up.
Now, if somehow a neutron could directly catalyze the fusion of two
deuterons, you would get, I'd expect, a hot helium nucleus plus an
energetic neutron. No problem with momentum but ... as many hot
neutrons as helium nuclei. Dead graduate students. Damn! There goes a
perfectly good idea.... My point is, there are lots of possibilities,
but all of them, if you have deuterium as fuel, and helium as ash,
are some kind of fusion.
Q4. Is LENR better than "cold fusion"?
A4. Yes.
It ''is'' cold fusion, as he defined LENR. In fact, LENR is a broader
field, it should cover all nuclear reactions with low initiation
energies. Known and long accepted examples would be muon-catalyzed
fusion, accelerated radioactive decay caused by the chemical
environment, or, speculatively, neutron activation that doesn't
involve creating neutrons with high-energy sources, and, of course,
cold fusion. Aside from facilitated decay, which is a kind of
fission, there isn't much you can do with nuclei except to fuse
something with them. They then respond in various ways. Even uranium
fission is really a kind of fusion (neutron fusion with uranium,
followed by fission and the production of more neutrons).
Part of the confusion here is that "neutron fusion" isn't usually
called fusion, but that is an arbitrary distinction. And it's moot if
we are converting deuterium into helium, unless, somehow, we have a
source of neutrons to add to the deuterium that isn't coming from
deuterium! (And that is consumed. If a neutron is involved in the
reaction, but the reaction then generates a neutron, that's catalysis
and the neutron isn't fuel, and there would need to be no source but
some possibly rare occurrence).
