At 02:15 PM 6/14/2011, Alan Fletcher wrote:
He sure is a hard-liner on the term "Cold Fusion".
----------
Krivit's previous blog entry is a doozy:
<http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/06/cold-fusion-may-ye-rest-in-peace/>http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/06/cold-fusion-may-ye-rest-in-peace/
He's nuts on this. There is some ambiguity in the term "fusion," a
confusion between process and result. If I have a black box and you
put deuterium in, and get helium and energy out, is it a "fusion
box"? Or does fusion refer only to a specific process, say two
deuterons being slammed together at high velocity, or coaxed together
with some catalyst, such as muons?
As we know, most directly, the ash or product, fusion is most clearly
applied to this. If we put in deuterium and get fusion out, it's
"fusion," even if neutron formation is part of the process.
Basically, Widom-Larsen makes ULM neutrons from deuterium and "heavy
electrons," and the neutrons fuse with various nuclei, in a proposed
series of reactions that end with, among other products, helium.
Problem is, only the helium product is seen in large quantities,
compared to produced energy. And an amazingly efficient process of
absorption of gamma rays, expected from the neutron activations, is
hypothesized for the heavy electrons. No leakage around the edges.
Be that as it may, Krivit went on a crusade to discredit the
strongest evidence in existence for a nuclear reaction, the ash
findings, i.e., helium, and the results from which the heat/helium
ratio is estimated. It seems impossible to me to reconcile the
heat/helium data, as it is, with Widom-Larsen, but W-L theory is
inadequately elaborated, a point that Krivit does not seem to appreciate.
With some, W-L theory seems popular because it allows a person to
dissociate themselves from the allegedly rejected (and definitely
detested by some) "cold fusion" label. The original rejection,
howeve, was based almost entirely on an assumption that, if there is
fusion, it must be ordinary d-d fusion, when, obviously, it isn't.
I heard a number of theoretical physicists, at the LANR colloquium at
MIT last weekend, describe reasons why even d-d fusion might be
occurring, but most theories seem to be inclined to multibody fusion,
or at least the involvement of clusters, which can fairly readily
explain the branching issue and the lack of gammas.
I know of no cold fusion theory, however, that adequately explains or
predicts all the experimental data. When I say "It's fusion!", I mean
that the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect is due to the conversion of
deuterium to helium, *mechanism unknown." That's a "fusion theory,"
to be sure, but it's one with ample experimental evidence, that
avoids specifying the mechanism. It predicts that if you set up an
F-P experiment, or some other technique that exploits the same
(unknown) mechanism, you will see helium generated in proportion to
the heat, at about 25 MeV/He-4. Because of the predictive value, this
is a scientific theory -- some have ridiculed the idea of a theory
without a mechanism.
A theory need not explain *everything,* if it can predict
*something*, that ought to be obvious. Now, what does W-L predict
that can be measured? Someone tell me!
