On Jan 21, 2011, at 10:41 PM, Peter Gluck wrote:
True, Robin, but Cold Fusion was D + D fusion, this one cannot be Peter
Nonsense! This is like saying analyzing microfossils is not part of paleontology because it doesn't involve digging big bones out of the ground and making museum exhibits out of them. Fields expand horizons.
Fleischmann and Pons used D in PD, but that was just the beginning of the field. When you put hydrogen in atomic lattices you sometimes get anomalous nuclear events. The Ni-H system was considered part of cold fusion was it not? That is not D+D fusion. Heavy element low energy transmutation is not D+D fusion, true? The discovery of heavy transmutations was a direct outcome of cold fusion studies, true? Remember Bockris and TAMU? These things were all lumped under the same "cold fusion" umbrella until terms like LENR, CANR, LANR, CMNS were invented. Even after invention of these new terms, each of which has distinct and useful meaning, all the same physical things continued to be discussed on sci.physics.fusion under the "fusion" umbrella, and reported on at ICCF - The International Conference on Cold Fusion. Yes, Cold Fusion, then and now. The new terms each have distinct meanings, but still fall under the umbrella of the general field of cold fusion. Cold fusion is the fusion of atomic nuclei without the kinetic energy to overcome the Coulomb barrier, and without the high energy signatures or branching ratios of similar reactions in high kinetic energy environments. The fathers of the field are Fleischmann and Pons. Everything in the field of cold fusion followed from their seminal experimental work.
I say this with the clear knowledge that muon catalyzed fusion was also called cold fusion, at least at one time. This I think is outside the definition of cold fusion because the branching ratios are conventional and the signatures are not suppressed - but it is debatable since both the Pd-D and Jones' muon catalyzed fusion announcements then or shortly after had the term universally applied to both of them. Certainly most cold fusion antagonists are happy to exclude muon catalyzed fusion from the cold fusion umbrella, and stigma!
This recent tendency to divorce special nooks of the field seems utterly nonsensical - unless perhaps it is an attempt to steal credit, or establish property rights or bragging rights in some way by creating false boundaries. There is also the attempt by some to escape the stigma associated with the term "cold fusion". Again, nonsense! The journalists instantly lumped Rossi's experiments and patent applications under that umbrella, despite his statements that it was not cold fusion. You put hydrogen in metals and get nuclear changes - bingo! It's cold fusion. To say otherwise is merely confusion. Otherwise, all papers not about D-D fusion should be banned from ICCF - now that's nonsensical isn't it!
I think an end should be put to the con-fusion, and everyone should own up to the origins of the field and not be changing definitions for political or financial gain. Fusion is fusion. Cold fusion is nuclear fusion - cold. This is true regardless the events which might precede or follow the creation of any intermediate fused nucleus within a lattice, be they weak reactions, fissions, or other reactions. Besides, when the field comes to fruition, the vindication will be even more sweet, for those cold fusion scientists still alive to see it.
That's my two cents worth! Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
