By what train of careful experimentation was it shown that magnetism has a huge effect on the fusion or fission cross sections in the kinds of contexts we're looking at?
ICF via lasers want to get to 6*10^23 electrons per cm-3 to achieve Hot fusion. See: https://news.slac.stanford.edu/announcement/siegfried-glenzer-exploring-physical-properties-matter-extreme-conditions-simes-seminar For example, Glenzer and colleagues have recently compressed aluminum up to a mass density of 7 g/cm3 (approaching three times solid density) with a *free-electron density of ne = 4.7 x 1023 cm-3* and a temperature of 35,000K. Electron density is a key parameter for fusion. Cold Fusion needs to get to that number too. On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 2:15 AM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Ruby <r...@hush.com> wrote: > > Yes, data is missing, but there is also ALOT of data available, too. >> Unfortunately, it is difficult to even agree on what the facts are! >> > > Like you mention, it's difficult even to agree on what the facts are. > Certainly on this list. The situation creates a breeding ground for > endless speculation. Here are some of the questions I've had trying to > read the primary source material as well as commentaries on it: > > - Is the quality of the article or report any good? Sometimes there > are potential sources of error in plain view (e.g., the initial heat spike > in a gas loading experiment being counted as excess heat, or a long period > of endotherm that is ignored). There are rarely error bars, and in some > cases little evidence that the author is aware of error bars. > - Is the article saying something new? Sometimes a researcher seems > to recycle the same material over and over for years. > - Has the author's own bias as to what is going on resulted in > inadvertent self-censorship on what he or she reports? > - Is a review turning a few, ambiguous or inchoate patterns into basic > principles too quickly? (E.g., the importance of cracks.) > - Has a pet experiment for idiosyncratic reasons been cast as one of > fundamental importance? > - What is going on with the NiH/NiD systems, anyway? For nickel we > basically have Rossi, Piantelli, Mizuno, and, if you like, Thermacore, to > look to, and for Rossi we don't have much of substance beyond the Elforsk > report. Presumably the nickel people are doing much better than the > palladium people right now; at least, this is what we're given to believe, > without much to back up this impression. Hopefully Mizuno will help us out > here, since I hear he's been seeing some promising things. > > Concerning the theorizing, both off and on this list: > > - What does a near-zero K temperature phenomenon have to do with LENR > or the price of wheat? > - How can you have something as delicate as a molecule both serve as a > guide for the strong interaction and keep from breaking apart in a hot > metal lattice, while keeping electrons and protons evenly spaced along it? > - By what train of careful experimentation was it shown that magnetism > has a huge effect on the fusion or fission cross sections in the kinds of > contexts we're looking at? > - How can one in humility put forward a theory to explain excess heat > that simultaneously implies that the last 80 years of physics be wrong? > Even Einstein was just tying together some loose ends that were already > being discussed by others before he came along. > - Why does such-and-such theory seem to ignore about 80 percent of the > LENR research that has been done and focus on a possible mechanism > involving neutrons? > > What we need are predictions from these theories, predictions that can be >> tested. Please make a post on each of the theories and what their >> predictions are. That would be helpful. > > > A series of summaries is an excellent idea, perhaps sent to this list, > perhaps compiled into a book. There could be two sections -- a summary > written in such a way that the primary author or authors of the theory > could agree with the wording, and a second section that highlights some of > the non-tendentious implications of the theory (e.g., things that would > make it falsifiable). The second section would pay little heed to the > theorist's sensibilities and would just state things as the author of the > summaries sees things. But it would also be written in with a certain > minimalism and not involve complex and questionable trains of logic of the > kind found in earlier efforts to do this type of thing. Rather than > presenting claims about physics and chemistry in dogmatic, black and white > terms -- "this theory cannot be right because if this were happening you > would see all kinds of gamma activity" -- the second section for a theory > being highlighted would say things like, "in order to have 4He result from > dd fusion, the theory has the burden of showing that there's a way for the > energy of the gamma to thermalized somehow." > > I can think of few people already involved in LENR who have the background > knowledge to get the concepts right and offer a rigorous description > together with the detachment to describe the various theories in a neutral > way. > > Eric > >
