hmmm...consider this... A CANDU fission reactor needs lots of slow neutrons, so it uses heavy water as a moderator instead of light water.
Harry > >From: Jones Beene <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Sent: Wed, January 19, 2011 9:27:47 PM >Subject: [Vo]:Deuterium kills the reaction? > >Deuterium kills the reaction? >One detail worth exploringfurtherwas the statement from Rossi that >onlyhydrogenworks,andthatdeuterium kills the reaction! >That is counter-intuitive to say the least. Everyone in hot fusion knowsforan >absolutefact that deuterium isthemore activenucleus, right?And everyone in >LENR >knows that deuterium and palladium work, whereas H2is often used >asthe‘control’to show what doesn’t work. Go figure. >Well, pondering this for a moment, the onlypossiblepropertythat comes to >mindto >explain itwas posted a few days ago–the“composite boson”in the context of >negative temperature.It is sounding better and better as a rationale. >To rephrase, thecomplexargument goes like this. The heat anomaly, whether it >is >fusion or not depends on“pycno”or dense hydrogen clusters.Based on Lawandy’s >paperand others,we see thatspillovercatalysts operate by splitting molecular >hydrogen into atomic hydrogen without ionization. Dense hydrogen forms from >atomic hydrogenif there areadjoiningdielectricsurfaces orcavities.Atomic >hydrogen is a composite boson.If there areinternaldefects(cavities)for atoms >to >accumulate, they somehow seem to densifytherewithout ever going molecular. >We know that H is a composite boson which is a singularity in nature – as it >is >composed of the minimum number of fermions (2) that permit both states to >oscillate back and forth… and furthermore having this minimum number of >quantum >states to“align”(statistically)meansthatit is exponentially easier to condense >than deuterium atso-callednegative temperature(which are not“cold”)especially >since spin can be aligned magnetically... >Thanks to google books, we have access toanold issue of New Scientist from >1981. >On p. 205-6 there is clear indication that we have known for nearly 30 years >that hydrogen condensation can happen at cryogenic temperatures – i.e. that >monatomic hydrogen is a composite boson independent of the molecular state - >which has very unusual properties as a condensate. > >http://books.google.com/books?id=IbbMj56ht8sC&pg=PA205&lpg=PA205&dq=composite-boson+monatomic-hydrogen&source=bl&ots=XlZyp6rE-9&sig=AwMnZv-hCQzTfcbnkN2mQZ65VG0&hl=en&ei=JFwaTab7Oon0tgPSpKjJCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false > >This paper seems to have been largely forgotten,andoffers no indication that >“negative temperature” could provide an alternative to cryogenic temperature. >And certainly no indication that the Casimir cavity can provide a locus for >negative temperature. >Nooneshouldbe blamedat this juncturefor being completely skeptical that >negative >temperature in a cavity can do this, even on a temporary time frame; and the >onlyevidenceof it today is the implication from half a dozen papers which >indicate that so-called pycno-hydrogen exists (under many different names, >evenIRH or InverseRydbergHydrogen).Rossi’s results are consistent with this >modality, andHolmlid and Miley claim to have evidence oftiny bits ofhydrogen a >million times denser than liquidH2. >Are they nuts too?Or is it all fitting together like a jigsaw puzzle? >Jones
