That seems pretty straight forward to me.
Bob
At 11:27 AM 7/7/2013, you wrote:
Bob, here is the definition I plan to use at ICCF-18. This is
accepted by most people in the field. Hot fusion is so much
different from cold fusion, no benefit is gained by mixing the two
phenomenon. They can be easily separated because hot fusion makes
neutrons when energy is generated. Cold fusion makes essentially no
neutrons when energy is generated.
Ed
What are we talking about?
(cold fusion [CF], LENR, CANR, LANR, CMNS, Fleischmann-Pons Effect)
A nuclear process initiated on rare
occasions in apparently ordinary
material without application of
significant energy that generates
heat and nuclear products without
expected radiation when any
isotope of hydrogen is present.
On Jul 7, 2013, at 12:17 PM, Robert Dorr wrote:
Ed and Axil,
Maybe it would be nice if we could define "Cold Fusion", "LENR" ,
as fusion at room temperature that only requires the addition of
heat, below let's say 1000 degrees centigrade and possibly some
pressure to start the fusion process. Any other type of fusion that
requires a high energy process such as a high energy ion beam, that
was used in the experiment being discussed here, would be
considered a form of "hot" fusion. Just an thought.
Bob
At 09:15 AM 7/7/2013, you wrote:
My point Axil, is that the authors have no idea what they are
talking about. This confusion is common and results in a great
deal of confusion about how cold fusion works. Unless this
confusion is eliminated from discussion, no agreement is
possible. This paper simply adds to the confusion, which many
other papers have done as well.
Ed
On Jul 7, 2013, at 10:08 AM, Axil Axil wrote:
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
<<mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com>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
<<mailto:janap...@gmail.com>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 ne 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
<<mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com>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
<<mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com>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
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - <http://www.avg.com>www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.3345 / Virus Database: 3204/6471 - Release Date: 07/07/13
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - <http://www.avg.com>www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.3345 / Virus Database: 3204/6471 - Release Date: 07/07/13
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - <http://www.avg.com>www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.3345 / Virus Database: 3204/6471 - Release Date: 07/07/13
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.3345 / Virus Database: 3204/6471 - Release Date: 07/07/13
