Jones, Claytor's results are not hot fusion because: 1) it only works with certain wire cathodes - the cathode condensed matter must be present and in the right form or there will be no tritium, and 2) the neutron rate he produces is very low (4E-9 of tritium) - not characteristic of hot fusion. Thus, Claytor is producing fusion, but not hot fusion. Since it requires the condensed matter environment, it could easily be classified as a LENR phenomenon. I stand by my remarks about the inability of his 1500V-2500V supply to be able to accelerate electrons or protons to 1.5-2.5 keV due to high pressure scattering collisions in his high density plasma. So, Claytor is LENR and his results indicate fusion.
The Farnsworth fusor reference is crazy. The fusor is clearly a plasma 2-body ion-ion interaction that produces classical kinetic hot fusion at a low rate. The neutrons obtained are what you would expect from such a reaction. In fact, to date the only real application for a fusor is as a laboratory neutron source. Yes, there are some anomalies in the driving voltage in the fusor; it seems the accelerating voltage is lower than expected for the reaction to occur. This could easily come from unmeasured resonant effects akin to the collapsing bubble effect in sono-systems. I.E. there could be anomalous acceleration, but the result is strictly hot fusion. If Claytor was producing results with a hot fusion mechanism like the fusor, he would be producing copious neutrons (at a dangerous rate) and he is producing essentially none. I am not minimizing Mizuno's experimental data, I am putting it in its proper perspective. It is you that is maximizing that one data point above all others. I think his results are equivocal. They need to be repeated; particularly the gas species evolution, since it appears that the control behaved the same as the experiment. I do not consider it the most robust experiment in the whole field by any means. But, it is good data. When I said your "theory of no fusion", I mean your theory that the excess heat being reported across the many experiments is due to a process other than fusion or transmutation. Bob Higgins On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > > > *From:* Bob Higgins > > > > Ø Your attempt to dismiss the Claytor tritium results as being "high > voltage" is again specious. The voltages being used are not capable of > producing hot fusion. > > > > His voltage is capable, and the is no “dismissal,” and the “high” is > relative to electrolysis. Guess you have never heard of exploding wires. > Exploding wire experiment at 2000 volts can produce copious fusion. Voltage > gradients in Claytor’s system have varied over the years – but could in > fact be higher than in the Farnsworth Fusor, for instance. The gradient is > more important the absolute potential. > > > > Ø the mean free path of the electrons is very short and electrons or > protons never attain anywhere near the energy that the source *could* > provide in a high vacuum. > > > > Same for the Fusor, which is a dense plasma. I’m getting the picture that > you do not understand the range of Claytor’s experiments very well and how > they fit into a continuum of cold-to-warm. There was a time when his work > was closer to “cold fusion” and a time when it was closer to the Fusor. > There is a good argument that much of it is not “cold” and that the results > look exactly like the Fusor. > > > > Ø Why do you think that x-ray tubes need really high vacuum?... to > prevent these collisions that slow down the electrons. Again, you think a > single specious sentence can wipe away real, peer reviewed experimental > results. > > > > Wipe away? What are you talking about? It would help if you would read the > prior postings. There is no specious sentence here and Claytor’s results > are certainly strong… but my point is that they are not necessarily LENR in > the same sense that low voltage electrolysis is deemed to be. There is a > continuum, and Claytor has been at times closer to the Fusor, and at other > times closer to a P&F cell. > > > > Put simply, Claytor’s results are to my thinking stronger than anything > seen with helium as the ash, since he does produce tritium – WHICH IS > EXPECTED. > > > > How much clearer can I say that? The problem that you have is that some of > these results could be “hot fusion carried out at low power” in the same > way that a Fusor is, and you want them to be “cold”. That is NOT a > contradiction in terms. It is a semantic distinction that aggravates the > hell out of the helium-ash true believers since they do not want to lose > Claytor’s good results to another category of LENR that looks “hotter” than > cold fusion. > > > > Ø You are so determined that your theory of no fusion is correct that > you will make up stories in your mind to wash away the good data taken by > truly competent experimentalists. You have lost your open mind. > > > > What !?! This is totally bizarre, if not laughable. I would love to see > any evidence of helium fusion. It would make things so much more believable > than they now are. > > > > How could there be a “theory of no fusion” ? Instead what we have is > precious little evidence of fusion of deuterons to He4. If you carefully > read what I did say – everyone in the field should have been seeing > tritium, instead of He4 or at least some tritium. Then, there would be no > problem. The expected channel is tritium. > > > > Ø Ni-H could well be different. We will just have to wait for more > data. Mizuno is just a good data point with its own flaws and insights. > > > > It is by far the most robust experiment in the entire field. Ever. Why do > I get the weird sensation that the “read my book” crowd is conspiring to > marginalize Mizuno’s work - because his excellent results show no helium? > > > > > > Jones > > > > >
