>From Alexander: > okay, this isnt a definition of Fusion youre looking for, > but a theory of how fusion works?
I'm not looking for a specific theory of how fusion works. My original question was more in tune with what might be considered a sociological query: What does the term "fusion" define? Who owns the rights to use the term "fusion" within their theories? What specific ingredients must be present that will allow any theory safe-passage to commandeer the term "fusion" within its definition. I've wondered if in order for any and all "fusion" theories to be considered legitimate they must somehow show how they directly overcome the Coulomb barrier, such as by forcing their way past the Coulomb Barrier and into the nucleus of the atom via brute force, such as by thermonuclear fusion. But could the term "fusion" also be commandeered to explain other theoretical mechanisms? For example the utilization of Muons that Mr. Lomax mentioned. Muonic atoms are significantly smaller atomic species, and as such, make it theoretically possible to slip past the Coulomb Barrier because they remain neutrally charged during their brief life spans. I gather Mr. Lomax seems to think so. Seems like reasonable conjecture to me as well. I would imagine others might think muons, and/or possibly hydrinos (if they do exist) might be possible mechanisms as well. > Two different things my friend. Indeed they are two different things. BTW, I see Mr. Lomax has followed up with a detailed explanation pertaining to various theories involving "fusion". Thanks Abd. Much appreciated. I see Horace added a few thoughtful perceptions on the matter as well. Thanks Horace. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
