This is a private message. Are you the same Axil on other energy websites like focus fusion and thorium reactors? On Mar 28, 2012, at 11:02 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
> His *technique* is one that will produce, if it works, extremely high > temperatures through bubble collapse. Absolutely, this is not cold fusion. > That, however, would not be hot enough (I assume) to reach to "supernova" > temperatures. To take the extremely high temperatures of bubble fusion and > then say that because it couldn't produce supernova temperatures, it must be > "cold fusion" is ... a reason why I don't write here much any more. > > I really don’t want to discourage you from posting here. Your posts here are > of great value. I feel your 2010 post on LeClair was your best work. Please > continue your great work here. > > Please check my logic… > > Let’s first define some terms. A fission bomb is the trigger of a fusion > bomb. When the fission bomb is detonated, gamma and X-rays emitted first > symmetrically compress the fusion fuel, and then heat it to thermonuclear > temperatures. The ensuing fusion reaction of light elements creates enormous > numbers of high-speed neutrons, which can then induce fission in materials > not normally prone to it, such as depleted uranium. Each of these components > is known as a "stage", with the fission bomb as the "primary" or “trigger” > and the fusion capsule as the "secondary". > > Hot Fusion of a zoo of heavy elements has never happened on earth. But if it > did, large numbers of high speed neutrons would be created. > > There is no evidence of intense production of high speed neutrons in the > LeClair incident. The proof is that there was no detection of residual > radioactive isotopes by the hasmat crew that arrive just after the experiment > to check the lab. > > Hot fusion produces neutrons with few exceptions. Since no evidence of their > large scale production was detected, by necessity no hot fusion occurred. > > Cold fusion never produces neutrons because it is proton fusion. This type of > fusion will produce only trace amounts of neutrons but they are very low > energy and few in number. > > If large scale transmutation occurred, then cold fusion can be the only > possible explanation consistent with the evidence. > > Furthermore, Cold fusion cannot be configured to produce a compressive field > of gamma and x-rays required for a nuclear trigger. > > Regards: axil > > > > > On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com> > wrote: > At 01:34 PM 3/28/2012, Guenter Wildgruber wrote: > On the other hand we are confronted with the situation that anybody, who > thinks LENR could be real, is easily located in the mental asylum. > > Did you read that review I cited? Storms, "Status of cold fusion (2010)." I > assure you that Dr. Storms is not "in the mental asylum," nor are the > reviewers for Naturwissenschaften, which is the "flagship multidisciplinary > journal" of Springer-Verlag, one of the largest scientific publishers in the > world. Mainstream. Not a "fringe" journal. > > So which criteria do we have to decide? > Articles authorized and put into 'truth-status' by Peer-reviewed journals? > > Yes. (But "truth-status" doesn't exist.) To do more than that requires a deep > understanding of the field. > > The reputation of cold fusion is that "it could not be replicated." That's > utterly inconsistent with what has been published in the peer-reviewed > mainstream press, not to mention thousands of conference papers (which, > individually, aren't particularly reliable, quality varies greatly, but much > sound work has expeditiously been published this way; and you can tell, to > some degree by what is later cited in peer-reviewed sources). > > Experiments? Which maybe faulty. Conducted by idiots with two left hands. > > Got any in mind? The "faulty" experiment is one that was not completely > reported. Experiments often leave much to be desired, requiring more work. > Others criticism them because they didn't do this or that, but often they are > simply doing what they can. In hindsight, there is almost always something > left out. > > Corporate and other scammers, who make a cheap profit on -ahem- con-fusion? > > Not common. Rossi is a possibility. Defkalion, less likely but still quite > possible. Commercial interests aren't "scientists," though they might employ > some. We have no "science" on Rossi, nothing reported according to the > protocols of science. Rossi himself dismissed the very concept of a control > experiment. Why should he run a control: he knows, he thinks, what he will > see with a control: nothing. > > But anyone who knows science knows the importance of controls. Rossi dumps X > energy into his system. How much steam can you make with X energy? Some, it > appears. How much steadm was actually generated? Well, not exactly measured, > because .... and on and on. > > Posters on an imaginary stage? > > Everything is possible and has to be weighed by common sense, which seems to > be a rare feature nowadays. > > I tried to involve as much common sense as possible, as everybody in this > list tries. > > I have come to some preliminary conclusions or hypotheses, which worry me, I > must confess. > > That means nothing if you aren't specific. > > And i hope, that the very insightful people in this list give me indications, > where I err. > Your comment is very much appreciated, to be sure. > Fodder for thinking. what more can I ask for? > > best regards anyway > > You're welcome. > > The point here was that Le Claire is not claiming cold fusion (though he has > claimed that "cold fusion" is really his effect -- but his effect is > obviously, if real, hot fusion, plain old thermonuclear fusion, very > dangerous unless the levels are super-low, as they are with, for example, > piezo-electric devices that are used to generate neutrons by fusing a little > deuterium. >
