It seems to me that for this definition to work, even as a phenomenological definition, something more would need to be added regarding the "expected radiation". For example, one could say "without the radiation expected from previous experiments in hot fusion". However, clarifying it this way implies we have an appropriate definition of "hot fusion" that is amenable to distinguishing from cold fusion or LENR, or at least limiting its scope. It seems that a reasonable definition of cold fusion needs a companion re-definition of hot fusion.
For example, could hot fusion be described as being between 2 or more nuclei, each being kinetically unconstrained with 6 degrees of freedom within the atomic scale? Of course, some degrees of freedom could be degenerate in symmetric nuclei. This would seem to apply fine to a plasma. As the nuclei approach each other within an atomic radius, externally applied fields would be insignificant in the force balance on the nuclei. While it seems we know this to be true for hot fusion, the converse of this cannot necessarily be used to describe cases of cold fusion because we don't really know the mechanism yet (hence the need for a macroscopic definition). But at least it begins by limiting the scope of hot fusion. On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]> wrote: > > What are we talking about? > (cold fusion [CF], LENR, CANR, LANR, CMNS, Fleischmann-Pons Effect) > A nuclear process initiated on rare > occasions in apparently ordinary > material without application of > significant energy that generates > heat and nuclear products without > *expected* radiation when any > isotope of hydrogen is present.
