terms are important for public perception, and today politician behavoir is more related to poling than to experts...
of course LENR should be checked as not explosive, not radioactive. it seems so, and with the unknown we could add radiation detectors to shutdown in case of black swan... job done. about public perception I have already discussed of my position http://lenrforum.eu/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=503<http://lenrforum.eu/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=503> Some people, like me initially wanted a precise, scientific, less connoted term like LENR. Today here is my position. Some corporate serial innovator said me that Cold Fusion is the best name. Today it is satanic because of mainstream denial, but soon people won’t care… but unlike LENr, CANR, LANR, HENI… it is not NUCLEAR [image: :o] … it is COLD, thus safe, not dangerous [image: :)] it is FUSION, so it is sexy, inclusive [image: :D] the only good name might be the Quantum Reactor… it is a bit geek … not for my mum. [image: :mrgreen:] For me like for many geek, quantum is sexy [image: :shock:] , and reactor is macho [image: :shock:] … but for mum, it is doubtful and dangerous black magic [image: :twisted:] … so really COLD FUSION is the best name… the brand is established, the 2 words have good connotation (safe, sexy, inclusive [image: 8-)] ), and bad reputation will disappear with a feeling of revenge on the men in power [image: :twisted:] … like raising the finger in from of the government. a safe sexy rebel reactor [image: :D] [image: 8-)] [image: :twisted:] … COOL! [image: :mrgreen:] 2012/8/31 Axil Axil <[email protected]> > "Chemical transmutation," is what is going on. The physics commumity must > come to terms with this reality. > > Chemically Assisted Transmutation Reaction (CATR) reactions are produced > through the action of electrons not neutrons. > > The NRC regulates the use of neutrons not electrons. > > If no neutrons are produced, there is no need for NRC regulation. > > High powered LASERs and electric arcs can produce transmutation of > isotopes. These methods are not regulated, or from a practical standpoint, > how could they be. > The action of a catalyst directing the action of electrons cannot be > regulated by the NRC. > Cheers: Axil > > On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Chemically Assisted Transmutation Reaction (CATR) expert: Yes, certain >>> chemical reactions are known to produce tritium. Those reactions should be >>> regulated by the NRC or band. Those reactions use the hydrogen isotope >>> deuterium. >> >> A chemical reaction cannot produce tritium. That is a transmutation; a >> change to the nucleus. The definition of chemistry is a reaction limited to >> the electrons. >> >> That is the present definition, anyway. "Chemical transmutation" is a >> contradiction of terms, like "a living corpse" or "a solid gas." >> >> If cold fusion with deuterium can cause transmutations with products such >> as tritium, then it stands to reason that cold fusion with hydrogen might >> also cause transmutations. There is already experimental evidence that it >> can cause bursts of neutrons. >> >> There is no way -- absolutely, positively, no way on God's green earth -- >> that experts testifying before Congress any time in the next decade will >> claim that the theory is settled, and we know for sure this is a benign >> chemical effect that should not be under the purview of the NRC or other >> nuclear regulators. That question can only be settled after thousands of >> researchers replicate the effect and assess it in far greater detail than >> anyone has done until now. It cannot be settled until the theorists reach >> some sort of consensus about the nature of the reaction. They need a >> working model, if not a theory. We are far from that. Probably hundreds of >> millions of dollars away from that, if not billions. >> >> The physics establishment is not going to throw away the definitions of >> chemistry versus nuclear physics, and accept unconditionally that there is >> such a thing as "chemical transmutation," and that we should not worry >> about the effects of that mysterious new phenomenon. It should not accept >> that! It would be the height of irresponsibility for physicists to accept >> this. We know practically nothing about cold fusion. The research has >> barely begun. As I said at ICCF17, in the whole history of the field, we >> have spent roughly as much money as people spend on semiconductor R&D *in >> a single day*. I repeat: by the standards of industrial R&D, cold fusion >> is one day old. >> >> - Jed >> >> >
