I was under the impression that nuclear fusion means any process that fuses the nuclei of two or more atoms.
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 10:56 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson <svj.orionwo...@gmail.com> wrote: > A question for the Vort Collective: > > Does the use of the term "Fusion" HAVE to imply there must exist a > mechanism or process that directly overcomes the Coulomb barrier - by > brute force? > > Could "fusion" also be used to explain a mechanism or process, a > process that is not yet understood and as such is still being debated, > processes that seem to ignore and/or completely side-step the dreaded > Coulomb Barrier issue? > > I could be wrong on this point (and please correct me if I am) but > I've gotten the impression that many if not most scientists believe > "fusion" MUST involve a mechanism that DIRECTLY overcomes the dreaded > Coulomb barrier. I'm under the impression that to come up with any > other explanation or theory that attempts to introduce a mechanism > that finesses its way around the dreaded CB would NOT be considered a > legitimate theory. > > Just curious. > > Regards > Steven Vincent Johnson > www.OrionWorks.com > www.zazzle.com/orionworks > >
