The paper says that the experimenters are claiming cold fusion. There is no mixing of fusion definitions involved in this paper to my understanding of it.
On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: > That is not a useful criteria because the Lawson criteria applies to a > plasma and to a reaction that results in the hot fusion products, i.e. > neutrons, tritium, etc. Cold fusion does not occur in plasma and results in > helium without kinetic energy. The reaction is defined as LENR only if the > conditions and reaction products fit the conditions on which the definition > is based. You are not free to change the definition to suit your personal > beliefs. > > Ed > > > > On Jul 7, 2013, at 9:29 AM, Axil Axil wrote: > > I am drawing a distinction between hot fusion and LENR in terms of the > "Lawson criterion". Specifically, if a fusion reaction cannot be > characterized in terms of plasma density, plasma confinement time and > plasma temperature, then the reaction is LENR. > > > On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hot fusion is a nuclear reaction in which two or more atomic nuclei >> collide at very high speed and join to form a new type of atomic nucleus of >> compressing matter to high temperatures at high densities as defined by the >> to the Lawson criterion, >> In nuclear fusion research, the *Lawson criterion*, first derived on >> fusion reactors (initially classified) by John D. Lawson in 1955 and >> published in 1957, is an important general measure of a system that defines >> the conditions needed for a fusion reactor to reach *ignition*, that is, >> that the heating of the plasma by the products of the fusion reactions is >> sufficient to maintain the temperature of the plasma against all losses >> without external power input. As originally formulated the Lawson criterion >> gives a minimum required value for the product of the plasma (electron) >> density *n*e and the "energy confinement time" . Later analyses >> suggested that a more useful figure of merit is the "triple product" of >> density, confinement time, and plasma temperature *T*. The triple >> product also has a minimum required value, and the name "Lawson criterion" >> often refers to this inequality. >> You are consistent at least; you had the same mindset as demonstrated >> here when you described the LeClair experiment as some other type of hot >> fusion. >> The LeClair experiment is demonstrating a LENR reaction no matter what >> LeClair thinks is causing it. >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: >> >>> If we cannot even agree about what the term LENR means or which >>> phenomenon it describes, I see no hope in arriving at any common >>> understanding. Please, can you make an effort to agree on some basic ideas >>> so that the discussion can move forward? We are dealing with two different >>> phenomenon. One uses high applied energy from various sources and the other >>> requires no applied energy. One results in neutrons when deuterium is used, >>> The other results in helium when deuterium is used. Can you at least >>> acknowledge that these two different reactions occur? >>> >>> Ed >>> >>> On Jul 7, 2013, at 8:20 AM, Axil Axil wrote: >>> >>> It seems to me that the reaction mechanism of the experiment >>> referenced in this thread is electrostatic in nature relating to high >>> voltage causation of fusion. >>> >>> >>> To draw a comparison, this is identical to the mechanism used in the >>> Proton-21 experimental series. >>> >>> >>> Since Proton-21 is considered a cold fusion or more properly termed a >>> LENR experiment, so to this referenced experiment should be termed a LENR >>> experiment. >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: >>> >>>> This paper makes the common mistake of mixing hot- and cold-fusion. >>>> These are two separate and independent phenomenon. They are not related >>>> except both are nuclear reactions involving fusion. However, the >>>> conditions required for initiation and the nuclear products are entirely >>>> different. As long as hot- and cold-fusion are considered in the same >>>> discussion, no progress will be made in understanding cold fusion. >>>> >>>> Ed >>>> >>>> On Jul 7, 2013, at 2:31 AM, David ledin wrote: >>>> >>>> Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment >>>>> >>>>> http://fire.pppl.gov/cyrstal_**fusion_nature.pdf<http://fire.pppl.gov/cyrstal_fusion_nature.pdf> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > >
