*His *technique* is one that will produce, if it works, extremely high temperatures through bubble collapse. Absolutely, this is not cold fusion. That, however, would not be hot enough (I assume) to reach to "supernova" temperatures. To take the extremely high temperatures of bubble fusion and then say that because it couldn't produce supernova temperatures, it must be "cold fusion" is ... a reason why I don't write here much any more.*
I really don’t want to discourage you from posting here. Your posts here are of great value. I feel your 2010 post on LeClair was your best work. Please continue your great work here. Please check my logic… Let’s first define some terms. A fission bomb is the trigger of a fusion bomb. When the fission bomb is detonated, gamma and X-rays emitted first symmetrically compress the fusion fuel, and then heat it to thermonuclear temperatures. The ensuing fusion reaction of light elements creates enormous numbers of high-speed neutrons, which can then induce fission in materials not normally prone to it, such as depleted uranium. Each of these components is known as a "stage", with the fission bomb as the "primary" or “trigger” and the fusion capsule as the "secondary". Hot Fusion of a zoo of heavy elements has never happened on earth. But if it did, large numbers of high speed neutrons would be created. There is no evidence of intense production of high speed neutrons in the LeClair incident. The proof is that there was no detection of residual radioactive isotopes by the hasmat crew that arrive just after the experiment to check the lab. Hot fusion produces neutrons with few exceptions. Since no evidence of their large scale production was detected, by necessity no hot fusion occurred. Cold fusion never produces neutrons because it is proton fusion. This type of fusion will produce only trace amounts of neutrons but they are very low energy and few in number. If large scale transmutation occurred, then cold fusion can be the only possible explanation consistent with the evidence. Furthermore, Cold fusion cannot be configured to produce a compressive field of gamma and x-rays required for a nuclear trigger. Regards: axil * * * * On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]>wrote: > At 01:34 PM 3/28/2012, Guenter Wildgruber wrote: > >> On the other hand we are confronted with the situation that anybody, who >> thinks LENR could be real, is easily located in the mental asylum. >> > > Did you read that review I cited? Storms, "Status of cold fusion (2010)." > I assure you that Dr. Storms is not "in the mental asylum," nor are the > reviewers for Naturwissenschaften, which is the "flagship multidisciplinary > journal" of Springer-Verlag, one of the largest scientific publishers in > the world. Mainstream. Not a "fringe" journal. > > So which criteria do we have to decide? >> Articles authorized and put into 'truth-status' by Peer-reviewed journals? >> > > Yes. (But "truth-status" doesn't exist.) To do more than that requires a > deep understanding of the field. > > The reputation of cold fusion is that "it could not be replicated." That's > utterly inconsistent with what has been published in the peer-reviewed > mainstream press, not to mention thousands of conference papers (which, > individually, aren't particularly reliable, quality varies greatly, but > much sound work has expeditiously been published this way; and you can > tell, to some degree by what is later cited in peer-reviewed sources). > > Experiments? Which maybe faulty. Conducted by idiots with two left hands. >> > > Got any in mind? The "faulty" experiment is one that was not completely > reported. Experiments often leave much to be desired, requiring more work. > Others criticism them because they didn't do this or that, but often they > are simply doing what they can. In hindsight, there is almost always > something left out. > > Corporate and other scammers, who make a cheap profit on -ahem- >> con-fusion? >> > > Not common. Rossi is a possibility. Defkalion, less likely but still quite > possible. Commercial interests aren't "scientists," though they might > employ some. We have no "science" on Rossi, nothing reported according to > the protocols of science. Rossi himself dismissed the very concept of a > control experiment. Why should he run a control: he knows, he thinks, what > he will see with a control: nothing. > > But anyone who knows science knows the importance of controls. Rossi dumps > X energy into his system. How much steam can you make with X energy? Some, > it appears. How much steadm was actually generated? Well, not exactly > measured, because .... and on and on. > > Posters on an imaginary stage? >> >> Everything is possible and has to be weighed by common sense, which seems >> to be a rare feature nowadays. >> >> I tried to involve as much common sense as possible, as everybody in this >> list tries. >> >> I have come to some preliminary conclusions or hypotheses, which worry >> me, I must confess. >> > > That means nothing if you aren't specific. > > And i hope, that the very insightful people in this list give me >> indications, where I err. >> Your comment is very much appreciated, to be sure. >> Fodder for thinking. what more can I ask for? >> >> best regards anyway >> > > You're welcome. > > The point here was that Le Claire is not claiming cold fusion (though he > has claimed that "cold fusion" is really his effect -- but his effect is > obviously, if real, hot fusion, plain old thermonuclear fusion, very > dangerous unless the levels are super-low, as they are with, for example, > piezo-electric devices that are used to generate neutrons by fusing a > little deuterium. >
