yes On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:47 AM, Jarold McWilliams <[email protected]>wrote:
> This is a private message. Are you the same Axil on other energy websites > like focus fusion and thorium reactors? > > On Mar 28, 2012, at 11:02 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > > *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. >> > > >
