OK, let's see what this Ni-H process really is, how many Cu is actually found and so on. i simply do not believe everything what Rossi says. The "ash" has to be analyzed. Do you know reports about such work? Peter
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Horace Heffner <hheff...@mtaonline.net>wrote: > > On Jan 21, 2011, at 10:41 PM, Peter Gluck wrote: > > True, Robin, but Cold Fusion was D + D fusion, this one cannot be > Peter > > > Nonsense! This is like saying analyzing microfossils is not part of > paleontology because it doesn't involve digging big bones out of the ground > and making museum exhibits out of them. Fields expand horizons. > > Fleischmann and Pons used D in PD, but that was just the beginning of the > field. When you put hydrogen in atomic lattices you sometimes get anomalous > nuclear events. The Ni-H system was considered part of cold fusion was it > not? That is not D+D fusion. Heavy element low energy transmutation is not > D+D fusion, true? The discovery of heavy transmutations was a direct > outcome of cold fusion studies, true? Remember Bockris and TAMU? These > things were all lumped under the same "cold fusion" umbrella until terms > like LENR, CANR, LANR, CMNS were invented. Even after invention of these > new terms, each of which has distinct and useful meaning, all the same > physical things continued to be discussed on sci.physics.fusion under the > "fusion" umbrella, and reported on at ICCF - The International Conference on > *Cold Fusion.* Yes, *Cold Fusion, *then and now. The new terms each > have distinct meanings, but still fall under the umbrella of the general > field of cold fusion. Cold fusion is the fusion of atomic nuclei without > the kinetic energy to overcome the Coulomb barrier, and without the high > energy signatures or branching ratios of similar reactions in high kinetic > energy environments. The fathers of the field are Fleischmann and Pons. > Everything in the field of cold fusion followed from their seminal > experimental work. > > I say this with the clear knowledge that muon catalyzed fusion was also > called cold fusion, at least at one time. This I think is outside the > definition of cold fusion because the branching ratios are conventional and > the signatures are not suppressed - but it is debatable since both the Pd-D > and Jones' muon catalyzed fusion announcements then or shortly after had > the term universally applied to both of them. Certainly most cold fusion > antagonists are happy to exclude muon catalyzed fusion from the cold fusion > umbrella, and stigma! > > This recent tendency to divorce special nooks of the field seems utterly > nonsensical - unless perhaps it is an attempt to steal credit, or establish > property rights or bragging rights in some way by creating false > boundaries. There is also the attempt by some to escape the stigma > associated with the term "cold fusion". Again, nonsense! The journalists > instantly lumped Rossi's experiments and patent applications under that > umbrella, despite his statements that it was not cold fusion. You put > hydrogen in metals and get nuclear changes - bingo! It's cold fusion. To > say otherwise is merely confusion. Otherwise, all papers not about D-D > fusion should be banned from ICCF - now *that's* nonsensical isn't it! > > I think an end should be put to the con-fusion, and everyone should own up > to the origins of the field and not be changing definitions for political or > financial gain. Fusion is fusion. Cold fusion is nuclear fusion - cold. > This is true regardless the events which might precede or follow the > creation of any intermediate fused nucleus within a lattice, be they weak > reactions, fissions, or other reactions. Besides, when the field comes to > fruition, the vindication will be even more sweet, for those cold fusion > scientists still alive to see it. > > That's my two cents worth! > > Best regards, > > Horace Heffner > http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ > > > > >
