After writing the previous post (see below) I dimly remembered that this subject had been dealt with before. Sure enough, when I searched the escribe archives with the string: "Cluster Impact Fusion" I found that Jones had raised it last August with particular reference to the Farnsworth fusor.
Interestingly enough I watched a British TV documentary last night on Philo Farnsworth and how Bell had nicked his patent - but back to the fusor. Unfortunately the fusor is a bit of a distraction since it rather accentuates the compression view of things. There is another way of "seeing" what decreasing Beta-atmosphere pressure (increasing pF) is doing and it fulfills Max Born's requirement of being crazy enough to be right. 8-) Let us call Beta-atmosphere (B-a) pressure outside a material Standard B-a Pressure (SBP) At SBP the repulsion between two electrons, between two negative charges, is the same as the repulsion between two positive charges, two protons. Outside a material the ambient B-a pressure (ABP) is equal to the SBP. However, as one enters into a ductile metal the ABP in the pore space decreases (the pF increases). This results in the repulsion between two electrons INCREASING and the repulsion between two protons REDUCING. In other words the Coulomb barrier is increased for electrons but reduced for protons. Any free protons bouncing around in a high pF cavity within a metal have a lower Coulomb barrier to climb than they would outside a metal - which is why fusion takes place more readily than one would expect from a rigid theory of particle repulsion. In effect the lowering of the ABP within a metal increases the "temperature" of the electrons but reduces the "temperature" of the protons. In effect the "temperature" of the electrons/protons is the distance in electrical pressure they are from the ABP. As the ABP is lowered the "temperature" of the electrons gets higher but that of the protons gets lower. COLD FUSION indeed, eh! 8-) Now I am confident that this explanation must be essentially on the right lines since it explains. inter alia, why metals are both good conductors and why they emit electrons with very little provocation. The electrons are just itching to get away from each other. Cheers, Frank Grimer At 11:51 pm 24/06/2005 +0100, Grimer wrote: >Following up on Richard's reference, viz. > > ========================================= > Another link on Kowalski > http://blake.montclair.edu/~kowalskil/cf/ > ========================================= > >I came across this rather interesting piece >on Cluster Impact Fusion (CIF). > > =========================================== > Cluster Impact Fusion (CIF) "was studied at > Brookhaven National Laboratory (8). > Intrigued by the CF controversy, Friedlander > and his co-workers accelerated microscopic > droplets of heavy water (containing about > 1300 D2O molecules each) to a modest kinetic > energy, about 220 eV per molecule, and > observed what happens when droplets collide > with a solid target. The idea was to test > whether or not fusion occurs in a suddenly > compressed droplet. The name of the phenomenon, > cluster impact fusion (CIF) was given to the > process after hot-fusion-like events were > identified on the basis of protons and tritons > with appropriate energies. Neutrons were also > most likely present but the experiment was not > set up to detect them. > > The only unusual thing about the CIF was the > number of fusion events. There were 10^10 > times more such events than one would expect > by using the accepted hot fusion theory. The > temperature that a tiny droplet could > possibly reach, after being stopped at the > target, was certainly below 10^5. > > This number is 10,000 times smaller than the > 10^9 K needed inside a hot fusion reactor > setup. In other words, CIF fusion rates are > also much too high to be consistent with the > existing theory of nuclear fusion." > =========================================== > >Now assuming the experimental work is sound, a factor >of 10 billion should not be sneezed at. Also, the fact >that the temperature was ten thousand times smaller >than that needed inside a hot fusion reactor puts >the phenomena firmly in the Cold Fusion [relatively 8-) ] >category. > >This is a truly wonderful piece of experimental >evidence. All it lacks is an explanation of what's >going on. > >I feel confident that the explanation lies in the >fact that smacking water droplets up against a >steel plate not only involves compression strain >(obviously) but also tensile strain at right angles >to the firing line. > >It it this tensile strain, the high speed tearing >apart of the water, which gives rise to high pF values >which are responsible for the astronomical increase >in the number of fusion events over what "one would >expect by using the accepted hot fusion theory." > >One is tempted to cannibalize James Carvilles 1992 >campaign slogan and say, "it's not the compression, >it's the tension, stupid." ;-) > >It would be interesting to know the result of firing >even colder deuteriated water - in the form of the high >density ices say - against a steel plate. > >Another technique worth investigating would be to >subject drops of water to extremely high compression, >allow them to equilibriate and then suddenly release the >pressure. > >Cheers, > >Frank Grimer > > >After I wrote the above I thought, how on earth can I >get people to see that there are always two ways to >skin a cat. > >Perhaps the easiest way is the simplest, i.e. there are >two ways of increasing a vulgar fraction, increase the >numerator or reduce the denominator. Citizens (or >subjects in my case) try to increase the denominator >by hard work. Unfortunately they are always swimming >against the current of government who constantly >increase the denominator by inflation. > > >
