Yeah that Soininen patent reported gamma radiation.. On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In LENR, sometimes gamma rays are produced. > > > On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 2:59 PM, H Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> cold fusion can be distinguished from hot fusion by the three "miracles" >> >> http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/Theories/TakahashiTheory.shtml#miracles >> >> Harry >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Robert Dorr <rod...@comcast.net> 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 <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 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 <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 >>> >>> >>> > > > > 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 > > 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 > > >
