The Nature article originally referenced was in 2005, and it was Seth Putterman's group at UCLA; Putterman is one of the original researchers into sonoluminescence. He is also one of the jerks who helped in defaming Dr. Rusi Taleyarkhan and his work on sonofusion at Purdue. This is one story that Krivit did an excellent job of investigating and reporting on.
-Mark Iverson From: Robert Dorr [mailto:rod...@comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2013 11:32 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment 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 <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 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
