RE: [Vo]:From NET: Bockris is still in the game!!
At 11:53 PM 1/16/2012, you wrote:
I asked a close
friend (PhD physicist) and he said the same thing as Krivit; that fusion has
a *very* specific meaning *to a physicist*, and neutron capture is not
'fusion' as far as they're concerned. Now, if I was a physicist, I would
hope that I'd be more concerned about whether the LENR/CF data was rigorous
enough and not be concerned about what it was being called, but then, my job
and my field of expertise is not likely to be ridiculed for delaying the
dawn of a new era for 20+ years. Humans are interesting indeed.
Yes.
Neutron capture reactions are not generally labelled fusion because
neutron capture is more specific. The answer you get from a
physicist may depend on the question.
Is neutron capture fusion? may elicit various responses, from No,
to Well, we don't normally call it that, to Well, it's obviously
the fusion of a neutron with a nucleus, and sometimes neutrons are
considered an element ('Neutronium'), so I guess you could call it a
kind of fusion. Depends on how deeply the physicist thinks about it,
as to the range of possible answers.
However, if you ask the physicist, If there is a reaction mechanism
that takes in deuterium as fuel and produces helium as a product, is
this a fusion mechanism? I think just about every one would say yes.
One might get more specific and look at the reactions proposed by
Widom and Larsen. If we look at the *complete reaction*, is this fusion?
What is being done is to look at one piece of the reaction (the
neutron absorption) and ask if that's fusion, and while it is the
step where the actual fusion takes place, where Z is bumped, there is
also another name for it, more commonly used.
But we are not looking at the individual reaction, we are looking at
and describing the *whole effect.* What's going in and what is coming out?
If what is going into a black box is deuterium and, when the box is
restored to equilibrium, what is coming out is helium and heat, it's
a fusion box. It really doesn't matter what happens inside.
Now, W-L theory predicts *lots* of transmutations. These are not
observed to be correlated with the heat. Transmutations are indeed
observed, but at levels way below that of helium. Further, gamma
emissions would be expected from neutron activation reactions from
any slow neutrons, not to mention ultra low momentum neutrons. The
gammas are not observed. W-L propose a totally novel mechanism for
gamma suppression, and, realize, this mechanism would have to be very
efficient, catching *lots* of gammas, yet the mechanism would only
cover, as proposed, the area of formation of heavy electrons. there
would be edge effects, some gammas would escape.
(Note that Larsen has patented a gamma ray shield based on this idea.
There is no published confirmation of any such effect, and Larsen has
never revealed any experimental evidence behind the claim. That such
a patent could be issued, while patents on cold fusion are rejected
as impossible, like perpetual motion machines, is just an example
of how much damage the physics establishment did with its little
semantic error.)
Re: [Vo]:From NET: Bockris is still in the game!!
At 08:54 PM 1/16/2012, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote: For those not following LENR for more than about the last year, the name Bockris might be new. He did a considerable amount of excellent LENR research in the 90s, and eventually faced several official inquiries at the insistence of colleagues none of which found any wrong-doing or bad science. He really hasnt been that active as far as Im aware, at least not in academic circles. Perhaps Jed could fill us in on Bockris activities for the last 5 years, as regards to LENR. Brockris is obviously one of the giants in the field. It would be great to have an interview with Brockris that wasn't filtered through Krivit's obsession. There are severe problems with Widom-Larsen theory, and I'd love to know how Brockris understands those. Krivit has, to my knowledge, never explored the reason why so many in the field reject W-L theory, practically out-of-hand. I'll add that until we do know what is happening in these reactions, nothing can be completely ruled out. However, one fact is clear. Helium is being produced, in a cell where the likely source of the requisite nucleons is deuterium. W-L theory proposes a process where a deuteron becomes a dineutron through electron capture (one could indeed call that the fusion of a deuteron with an electron), and then the neutrons cause further reactions, some of which release helium. Was that helium formed by fusion? The only problem with the statement is if one restricts the term fusion to a particular reaction, i.e., D + D - He-4, with no intermediaries. What prompted this posting is the following blog from NET/SKrivit: Bockris Paper Advances Thanks to Widom-Larsen Theory Posted on January 13, 2012 by Steven B. Krivit John OMara Bockris, regarded as one of the worlds pre-eminent electrochemists, recently advised me that he overcame objections by referees to a paper he submitted for publication by citing the Widom-Larsen Theory. Bockris sent me a letter on Jan. 2 and discussed his progress. I have been absolutely intrigued by [Lewis] Larsen and have changed my mind about his stuff, Bockris wrote. I used one of his equations in a paper which was held up by referees and was able to defeat them by Larsens equation! Bockris has also been following my distinction between low-energy nuclear reactions and cold fusion. If I understand clearly what you say, you agree that some of the work that has been going on may involve nuclear reactions, Bockris wrote, but that its not fusion. Is that what you said? If it is, then I agree with it. Most of the condensed matter nuclear reactions do not involve fusion. Which begs the question. What is fusion? There is a standard definition, and the standard definition is applied both to simple reactions such as D+D, which is very well-known and studied, under hot conditions, and, as well, low-temperature catalyzed conditions, as with muon-catalyzed fusion, and as well to complex reactions, as in stellar interiors. Most high-Z elements are formed through nucleosynthesis, from lighter elements, and that is, by definition, fusion. In rejecting cold fusion, the physics establishment fell into a very easy trap. Had they been rigorous in their descriptions and in the explanations of why they were rejecting it, they'd probably have noticed the error. They assumed that if it was fusion, it must be D+D fusion, straight, no complications. They were essentially claiming that complications were impossible, which is *always* an error. As an example, if I say that fusion is impossible at temperatures lower than X, I'd obviously be in error, unless I very carefully qualify the statement, because: 1. For any particular reaction, under particular conditions, there will be a fusion cross-section, essentially a measure of the rate of fusion. Because of tunneling, the fusion cross-section is never zero, if the reaction itself is possible at any temperature. What is really being said is not that fusion is impossible, but that the rate at low temperatures will be very low, well below the rates necessary to explain the Pons and Fleischmann results, and other work in the field. 2. However, to calculate that rate, one must define a specific reaction. Call that reaction Z. Z may be a known reaction, in which case rates and products may be known. From the experimental data, one may be able to rule out Z as happening, but even this can be shaky. Is it possible that Z could happen due to an unexpected form of catalysis? Physicists may have a knee-jerk idea that this is unlikely, but no physticist worth his salt would say that it's impossible. The unlikely comes from ideas that if this reaction took place under low-temperature conditions, it would have been observed, but this argument breaks down if examined closely. After all, observations are being reported. When we look back, we find
RE: [Vo]:From NET: Bockris is still in the game!!
Abd, I only want to ask your opinion on the unexpectedly low gamma radiation. Let's assume we have a nanowire (or nano-protrusion on a nano-particle) with diameter of a few nanometers and (experimentally observed) carrying a huge 10^11 [Amp/cm^2] current density. Then would this nanowire be enveloped in an ultra-intense surface vortex plasmon of very high momentum electrons? If a gamma release occurred at, or below, the metal surface, could many gammas escape at their birth energies, or would Compton-effect collisions with the electron shroud deplete most of their energy? Thanks, Lou Pagnucco At 11:53 PM 1/16/2012, you wrote: I asked a close friend (PhD physicist) and he said the same thing as Krivit; that fusion [...] Now, W-L theory predicts *lots* of transmutations. These are not observed to be correlated with the heat. Transmutations are indeed observed, but at levels way below that of helium. Further, gamma emissions would be expected from neutron activation reactions from any slow neutrons, not to mention ultra low momentum neutrons. The gammas are not observed. W-L propose a totally novel mechanism for gamma suppression, and, realize, this mechanism would have to be very efficient, catching *lots* of gammas, yet the mechanism would only cover, as proposed, the area of formation of heavy electrons. there would be edge effects, some gammas would escape. (Note that Larsen has patented a gamma ray shield based on this idea. There is no published confirmation of any such effect, and Larsen has never revealed any experimental evidence behind the claim. That such a patent could be issued, while patents on cold fusion are rejected as impossible, like perpetual motion machines, is just an example of how much damage the physics establishment did with its little semantic error.)
RE: [Vo]:From NET: Bockris is still in the game!!
From Mark: ... Bockris states: If I understand clearly what you say, you agree that some of the work that has been going on may involve nuclear reactions, Bockris wrote, but that it's not fusion. Is that what you said? If it is, then I agree with it. Most of the condensed matter nuclear reactions do not involve fusion. I hope Bockris can be more forthcoming in explaining the distinctions. Or perhaps you can explain it, Mark. What is the difference between terminology stated to be a nuclear reaction versus terminology stated to be a fusion or cold fusion reaction, particularly if both terms imply that a nuclear particle (or particles) somehow manage to enter the nucleus of the atom and subsequently cause the nucleus to transmute into different isotope or element. I tried asking Mr. Krivit that question when I was still a NET BoD member. I never got a satisfactory answer from Mr. Krivit, other than Steve telling me that my question was a ... very good question. Meanwhile, the layman certainly isn't going to give a hoot about such distinctions. I realize there are those that seem to be making a concerted effort to state that if a neutron enters a nucleus of an atom it shouldn't be called a fusion reaction, but rather a nuclear reaction. I fail to see why calling it a nuclear reaction versus a fusion reaction is considered such a revelation. What bugs me is that on-going attempts to skewer the F word strike me primarily as a semantics game, where an on-going product placement war is in progress. It's almost as if the W-L camp is attempting to trademark the term nuclear reaction as belonging exclusively to their theory, and to their theory alone. Accept no imitations. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
