It is fact that LENR is not and cannot be a known fusion reaction, since it is fact that no known nuclear fusion reaction is gamma free. QED. ***Isn't Reversible Proton Fusion (RPF) Gamma free? It's the most common fusion event in our solar system. I thought you were the one bringing it up every so often as a plausible theory...
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 8:21 AM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > *From:* Eric Walker > > > > This working assumption (of a known fusion reaction) is not justifiable by > facts, logic or common sense. > > > > Sure. That's you're opinion. You're entitled to an opinion. > > > > Sorry to have made this blanket statement in regard to your prior post > specifically, Eric, since it is a generic criticism to many of the posts on > Vortex and not personal - but... > > > > No, it's not opinion when 100% of the available proof is on your side. > > > > It is fact that LENR is not and cannot be a known fusion reaction, since > it is fact that no known nuclear fusion reaction is gamma free. QED. > > > > Since 1989, there have been assertions and claims, but they are only > assertions, that LENR is proof of a gammaless nuclear reaction, but that is > circular logic. LENR is proof of a thermal anomaly, and helium is seen in > the ash, but that is all that can be said logically. > > > > Even if helium is seen in proportion to the excess heat, which is in > dispute, that does not raise LENR to the level of a known fusion reaction > which is gammaless, at least not so long as there are other valid > explanations. To be raised to this level the claimant must also demonstrate > in an experiment not involving LENR that 24 MeV gammas can be completely > suppressed by any mechanism. Any mechanism will suffice. This has not been > done, even with 1 MeV gammas since there is always leakage - even with lead > shielding. > > > > By definition, cold fusion cannot be the same known reaction as deuterium > fusion to helium, which was known prior to 1989 - if it is gammaless - > unless and until it can be shown that there is a real physical mechanism > for not only for suppressing gammas, but for suppressing 100% of them > without exception. > > > > How is that opinion? > > > > Jones > > >
