On Sep 2, 2011, at 12:41 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
Let me reinstate that phrase. There shouldn`t be something called "cold fusion", it doesn`t make sense. Millons a temperature of several thousand KeV is required to get over the coulomb barrier as well as a very hard shield is required to absorb the gamma rays. Any serious theory takes that into consideration and all of that have in common the focussing of phonons in a way or other.
Phonons are thermal in nature, on the order fractions of a volt. (Some would disagree. It is a matter of definitions I think.) If they get much larger quantum thresholds are crossed and ionization occurs, ordinary quantum transactions occur. The phonon concept was derived to explain how sub-quantum energies could be involved in thermal lattice energy transactions.
Phonons can not account for heavy element transmutations, which have been observed in many experiments. They can not account for the helium or tritium production. If they are involved in the process then that is immaterial to the process being called fusion. The result is nuclear fusion, but with novel branching ratios. The result is D+D --> He. The result is X + n D --> Y. There are various other nuclear results reported which should be called fusion. The products are transformed nuclei or fused nuclei. This is not to say in any way that energy, zero point energy, can not be usefully tapped without nuclear reactions, fusion. I think it can.
For what it is worth I have my own amateur take on possible cold fusion mechanisms involving a lot more than phonon transactions, and curiously a lot less as well, zero energy.
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/dfRpt Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
