I think nuclear physicists reserve the term fusion for interactions involving the strong nuclear force, and the terms fission and neutron absorption are terms reserved for interactionsinvolving the electro-weak force.
Perhaps the phenomena of "cold fusion" is a consequence of some sort of electro-tweaking of the strong forces in the nucleus. Harry ----- Original Message ---- > From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Tue, March 23, 2010 5:53:00 PM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Request for "fusion" definition > > Useful comments, Jed, The intent of my original query was to ask if there > exists any kind of a perceived battle or struggle going on (subtle or > not-so-subtle) pertaining to whether the use of the term, nuclear "fusion", > must imply a mechanism of overcoming the Coulomb barrier by some > brute force procedure such as thermonuclear fusion. I'm trying to make > get a clarification on whether the nuclear "fusion" definition could also > legitimately incorporate other theoretical mechanisms, including as-yet > unproven mechanisms. For example, there has been fertile debate about muonic > interactions, as well as hydrinos being possibly responsible for certain LENR > related phenomenon. Or does there exist significant resistance coming from > somewhere, possibly coming from conservative scientific branches, that > would prefer not to muddy up the so-called nuclear "fusion" waters > by allowing alternative or exotic explanations other than mechanisms > that must be capable of smashing through the Coulomb > barrier. Regards Steven Vincent > Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks __________________________________________________________________ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/
