Jones, Did You mean the Sharon Astyk/ Tom Whipple posts? I commented on Tom Whipple's blog.
http://scienceblogs.com/casaubonsbook/2012/04/will_quantum_fusion_save_the_d.php The interesting aspect is, that two fringe-'realists' somehow seem to clash, or engage in a fruitful debate, as I hope. I.e.the peak-oilers and the cold fusion-crowd. My highly esteemed Peter Gluck,here, amongst others, seems to be aware of that clash, with a 99% ignorant mass in between. Interestingly, there are some socalled 'government analysts' in the US, who do not have an equivalent in the rest of the world, as it seems. McGovern, Tom Whipple, Jeff Vail, others. Guenter. ________________________________ Von: Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 15:40 Dienstag, 1.Mai 2012 Betreff: RE: [Vo]:New York Times- Link to : Quantum Fusion - Brillouin From: Ron Kita Ahhhhh..here is the closest find. A link to a blog called: Quantum Fusion..a nice term: The blog link is 80% down the page on the right side: http://www.nytimes.com/pages/science/index.html One good comment serves to show that Godes (Brillouin) theory - a derivative of W-L, is simply wrong. In fact, it is more implausible that Larsen's absurd rationale. Quote from Eric Lund: "I count four collisions that have to happen for this process to operate as described: p + e- -> n + ν p + n -> 2H 2H + n -> 3H 3H + n -> 4H followed by a beta decay 4H -> 4He + e- + antiν where ν represents a neutrino. The first collision and the beta decay are plausible. [nope: it is implausible as well] What I don't see is how you get the other three collisions to happen while conserving both energy and momentum (and have them happen before the neutrons decay via n -> p + e- + antiν). I don't see any evidence of intentional fraud, but the underlying physics is, as Pauli put it, not even wrong. In stars, the way you get deuterium is via p + p -> 2H + e+ + ν. That's in addition to the implementation issues discussed in the post."
