The following essay has been submitted by Gordon Docherty.
Personal Reflections on Fusion 2
“You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother.” I resemble that remark.
The best part was on resonance. That really shed light on the problems with hot fusion and makes plausible the idea of cold fusion.
You’re welcome :->)
You are making a good point Bachcole: One can formulate a complex problem without resorting to numbers. So it’s possible to grasp the concept without having to understand the mathematics. I and I suspect lots of others, often struggle to understand the ideas of people when they are mathematically expressed or used as underlying reasoning. This is why, for me, the piece by Gordon is so good.
Great work Gordon, can I have permission to pass it on to some selected newspapers?
I`d say its true – due to quantum mechanics
Your question is similar to that one of asking “is it possible to win the lottery every day for one week”. Its possible, just not very probable.
A fusion reaction can theoretically take place in a glass of water if you let it stand long enough.
I think the philosophical idea behind it is this:
The most in use today of all fusion reactors today are the pyro electric fusion reactors. They are used as neutron generators. They are not efficient enough ( yet?) for energy production.
d + t→ n + 4He En = 14.2 MeV d + d→ n + 3He En = 2.5 MeV
Would any scientists on page think that Gordon’s piece above would educate other scientists?
If so should it not be published in one of the premier scientific comics?
If not why not?
Why do you insult Gordon.
It should be published in some respectable magazine…
Not the Comics. 🙂
I stand with everyone else, applauding your excellent summary. Wow!
Just read it. Easily one of the best pieces on hot and cold fusion I have ever read. Very clear and understandable written and an enjoyment to read.
I hope you read page 18 and 19. I’d call those fascinating.
Gordon, thanks for an excellent (and I would think time-consuming ), piece of work.
This is a wildly helpful article. I have been asking for nearly this exact thing, and here it is.
Thanks very much.
An interesting article, I’ve been reading about hot fusion since 1965, it was pretty hard to find out information preNet, I always thought a lot of the delay was due to insufficient funding to pursue multiple approaches. There were lots of people researching the dense hot fusion option from the 80s to the 90s, including in the US Navy. Funding cuts routinely killed projects. The value of finding a solution was not taken into account, and vested interests are at play politically, which have a smothering effect, particularly when lobby groups attack a threat to money and power, such as the doctor who discovered smoking nicotene gives you lung cancer in the 1930s from memory (the other thing he checked was internal comubstion car exhaust, with better testing we now know this causes almost equal numbers of deaths near major highways as active highways) – his work was debunked by cigarette companies for decades. The tram system was debunked when the car industry systematically took over tram companies and dismantled them, charges were not laid for decades from memory. The ulcer research who discovered bacteria cause ulcers was debunked for two decades. The one attampt to get diamondoid mechanosynthesis research funding through the US Senate was debunked by John McCain (and Prince Charles) – but only after lobbying from two representatives of the nanomaterials industry (itself achieving growth to rival Microsoft at its heyday). And of course, cold fusion funding has become a “symbol issue” of politics trumping science and public health (via pollution reduction). When the US Patent Office equates cold fusion with perpetual motion machines they are being extremely disrespectful to the hundreds of scientists who have devoted their lives to the science of nuclear reactions. Without Piantelli and Focardi there would have been no Rossi.
As an aside, I am curious about the statement in the essay that “The collisions of the electrons with the ions generate a short pulse of highly-intense X-rays. If
the device is being used to generate X-rays for our X-ray source project, conditions such as
electrode sizes and shapes and gas fill pressure can be used to maximize X-ray output.” Presumably this means for portable power systems you might be able to use it on the Boeing YAL-1 design. At the moment the YAL-1 (in funding suspension/discontinuance) uses half the Boeing to store chemical fuel to fire 30 laser shots. Loading and cleaning the fuel takes several hours and is highly toxic. An x-ray weapons (remember the fission explosion powered orbital x-ray orbital beam weapon from the Star Wars Reagan plans) powered by dense hot fusion devices could presumably recharge a lot more than 30 times. YAL-1’s were envisaged for preventing rogue nuclear States from firing a handful of ICBMs/MIRVs.
Well done Gordon. Great contribution to general knowledge base.
Gordon, I’m impressed with the scope and completeness of your writing.
Interesting to hear that Lawrenceville Plasma Physics is very close to “a real shot” a hot fusion but is also being ignored by the lame stream media. I wonder if the lame stream media can break the mold on cold fusion. CNN has “breaking news” right now about something irrelevant while the breaking news of the century or perhaps millennia is on e-catworld.com.
This has been a constant problem with our information sources being controlled, for decades.
Anyway, I don’t think the lame stream media can hold the tide back for much longer.
A friend of mine went to a trade show a few days back. In casual conversation he mentioned cold fusion, most had heard about it and, more importantly, they got excited talking about it.
Is the cat poking it’s head out of the bag yet?
The ITP2 Report has been downloaded nearly 100k times from different sites. It would be surprising for those in media not to have heard of it. Still waiting for Peter Swensson? form AP and his photographer to tell us why they were silenced at the October 2012 1MW test.
I do find the 100K downloads pretty remarkable when you compare with the number of comments on this premier E Cat discussion site…makes you feel like there is something going on in the world of science and engineering of which we are not aware.
WAVE physics rather then PARTICLE physics, IMO.
On another level it is about the underdog “unbiased observational science” vs funding biased theoretical science(a true oxymoron).
PS;I’m not a “True believer”, just a “True skeptic” of funding biased corruption.
No I do not agree with that change. The text is very understandable as is. Keep as is!
Stupid android web interface doesn’t let me change the page and the scribd app won’t load it.
Is there a download link
Does this work? Its an .pdf
I have the same problem as LCD. The pdf is ok though. Thanks!
Yes thank you
A perfect primer for anyone. Written such that the average joe could understand it easily. This is the letter that needs sending to the masses. Thanks Gordon.
Frank I suggest that you sticky this on the front of the site with the recommendation that newcomers read this first.
This is a very good idea !
Thanks for this posting. I have followed this for a couple of years now and have always been fascinated by the possibilities. I am, however, not a scientist. This was well written in discriptive language that I was able to understand. I’m sure I will have an easier time following the discusions from this point forward. And, it will help me to discribe it to those interested to learn more about this new realm of possibility. Thanks once again.
Where would we be now if in 1911 when the announcement that zero electrical resistance was seen in mercury cooled in liquid helium was met with “not allowed according to the well accepted laws of physics!” therefore it’s “nonsense” by the prima donnas of the day? “Incompetent boobs” …et cetera.
A perfect piece of work Gordon. I will use it as a basis for my LENR presentations!
1. When you give a glimps at the end of how LENR could work, you only consider the protons in resonance due to nearby atoms. Maybe you can include also the many free electrons in the metal latice, which may also be in resonance and may cause fluctuations in the local culomb barier fields, which could add to the probability of proton tunneling?
2. You did not talk about ‘slow neutrons’ (WL-theory). Don’t you believe in the possibility that protons may be converted into neutrons (also due to resonance)?
A scholarly work, and more, needed information.
Well written, well said, Gordon Docherty you have done a good thing.
I expect you to be quoted for decades if not centuries to come.