Horace I suggest that call should be made when we have nailed the exact
process that caused Effect A and Effect B to have a different pathway.
Until that time, if it ever occurs, I feel "Different Dog, Same Leg
Action" is the road to follow. I have no problem if say WL is proven to
be the correct pathway. It is still the FPE effect produced by a WL
pathway. It will never be the WL effect as they did not discover it.
History always records the initial discover and that is what should
happen with the FPE effect. If it so happens that the H. Heffner theory
is the correct pathway, it becomes the FPE effect produced by the HH
pathway. Then both the effect discover and the pathway discover are
recorded in history. Each then gets a fair go.
On 12/19/2011 11:45 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:
On Dec 18, 2011, at 11:18 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote:
McKubre believes in the "Conservation of Miracles". I agree with him
and would add my version: "Different dog, same leg action". What is
at the heart of the FPE drives all the effects we see. For all the
early years the effect was called the "Fleischmann-Pons Effect". Why
change it now?
"The effect" initially was the ability of a palladium cathode
sufficiently loaded with D, by electrolysis, to produce excess
enthalpy excess heat without the corresponding tritium or neutrons
expected using hot fusion branching ratios.
It was later discovered, by Bockris and others, that Pd transmutation
occurred also, as a byproduct of the F&P effect, that different
regimes produced different products. This might have some
justification being called part of the F&P effect, because it was
still palladium
Many other discoveries followed which were not by F&P, and not in
their regime of research. Claytor's low pressure gas cells, Storm's
glow discharge, Mizuno and Ohmori's HV DC plasma electrolysis, or
Mizuno's solid state electrolyte experiments, Piantelli's gaseous
Ni-H, Arata and Zhang's double structured spillover cathode using Pd
black, Patterson's layered Pd-Ni beads, Szpack's codepositon cells,
Les Case's Ni-carbon catalyst in gaseous deuterium, etc., are not
called the called F&P effect.
"Cold fusion" itself is not even entirely the domain of F&P.
Muon-catalyzed fusion was called this also. This muon catalysis effect
was predicted by Andrei Sakharov, and first observed by Luis Alarez.
Steve Jones et al. were preparing to make a "cold fusion" announcement
regarding achieving 150 d-t fusion per muon, not enough for energy
break-even. The F&P effect, initially called by some (mostly
Americans) the P&F effect, was called that to distinguish it from muon
catalyzed fusion, the "other kind of cold fusion".
Muon catalyzed fusion obeys conventional hot fusion branching ratios.
The F&P effect does not. Other forms of cold fusion can have differing
branch ratios, especially very different T/n ratios, and differing
triggering conditions. However, to call every such discovered effect
a Fleischmann and Pons effect is to greatly diminish the work of
others. The general field has been called LENR, CANR, LANR, and
finally CMNS, for a reason. We owe Fleischmann and Pons a great debt
for discovering the general field of research, this part of cold
fusion which shows such great promise, unlike muon catalyzed fusion at
this time. Still it is inappropriate to stamp their name on every
effect discovered by everyone in the field, just a it would be
inappropriate to include their names on every patent that will
eventually be issued in the field. This is disrespectful to the
contributions of those who have followed. It also brings confusion to
the terminology that has developed over 20 years.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
