On Jun 1, 2013, at 11:16 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Edmund Storms
We are taking about two different phenomenon of nature. Trying to use
the same concepts and words to describe both results in confusion.
Those of us who have studied cold fusion for the last 23 years have a
definition of CF that is not up for discussion.
That may be true regarding "cold fusion". You are free to stick with
that
antiquated term if you want to, but do not pretend to speak for the
broader
field of LENR.
Jones, I think I'm in a better position to speak for the field than
you are.
I am NOT talking about "cold Fusion". Period. LENR is much more than
"cold
fusion" in 2013. The two are not synonymous.
Cold fusion was the term first applied to the phenomenon. Then
transmutation was observed, which required the term not be focused on
fusion. Consequently, several additional terms were tried and LENR
stuck. LENR includes the phenomenon called cold fusion and the
reaction producing transmutation.
I have followed what is now called LENR for 23 years too from a
different
perspective which does not require deuterium - and I believe that
the proper
definition of LENR must include sonofusion, the Farnsworth Fusor,
the Mills
effect and the Rossi effect, in addition to "cold fusion".
That is not what is accepted or is accurate. The phenomenon that is
called cold fusion produces helium and tritium without neutrons. The
phenomenon called hot fusion produces no helium and equal numbers of
neutrons and tritium, examples of which are sonofusion, the Farnsworth
Fusor, and muon fission. The Mills effect is a different phenomenon
all together. His effect is not nuclear, as he admits. The Rossi
effect follows from the cold fusion phenomenon when H is used instead
of D. I have shown exactly how the D and H systems are related to the
cold fusion phenomenon and why tritium is produced without neutrons. I
hope you have followed the discussion of my explanation on Vortex.
In any case, this has no relationship to the difference between cold
fusion or LENR and hot fusion.
In fact- doing so will make understanding the LENR field less
confusing, not
more - since there is plenty of overlap and we have moved well beyond
deuterium.
Please try to understand what I'm telling you.
I understand what you are saying - but I reject completely your
contention
that the definition of LENR is somehow fixed by the old days when
"cold
fusion" was the only game in town, and fractional hydrogen was
considered
taboo to cold fusion practitioners.
Please note what I said above. Your comment has no relationship to
what I'm saying.
You have overlooked Mills' excellent experiments from the start and
continue
to overlook his contributions, despite his publications, patents and
success
in fund-raising - or to consider the newer offshoots of CQM.
Mills is NOT "cold fusion" in any relevant way - but can be included
under
the broader definition of LENR, especially since many of us have
adapted
parts of his theory to a nuclear perspective. In short, Mills work
is more
relevant to understanding Rossi than were P&F.
That is simply not true. The Rossi effect is claimed to produce a
nuclear product. I think the product is wrong, but the focus has been
on detecting the product. In addition, the Ni-H2 system produces
radiation that CAN NOT result from a Mills reaction.
In a nutshell - Ed this is our disagreement: You are lost in fading
reminiscence of "cold fusion" of palladium and deuterium - which is
going
nowhere as of 2013 - now that Nickel-hydrogen is showing an ability to
provide kilowatts in contrast to the milliwatts of most cold fusion
efforts.
Apparently you have not read my book, or any of my papers or followed
the discussion on Vortex. I have no loyity to deuterium. I have made
cear that ANY isotope of hydrogen can fuse as a result of the cold
fusion (LENR) process. In contrast, Jones, you are mixing applies and
oranges and producing confusion. Please read my book. cold fusion
using deuterium produces more than milliwatts of power. Rossi has made
the Ni-H2 system more active than it ever was, but this does not
change the nature of the reaction.
Ed Storms
Please do not confuse the two.
Jones
