🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan21.153047.359@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>
>Dieter Britz and Jim Carr have recently asked for clarifications on my
>comments regarding distinctions between "cold" and "hot" fusion (see
>"Quick Replies" by me and "Re:  Quick Replies" by Dieter and Jim).

Thanks, Steve.  It was always clear to me that there was nothing wrong 
in the way you approached the theory for cold fusion -- either with 
muons or under pressure, etc.  There was an implication in your first 
post that the important thing was how frequently collisions occured 
with the barrier rather than the barrier and its penetrability.  This 
has been cleared up by, for example, the following:

>The principal idea behind the 1986 paper (replying to Dieter) was that for
>fusion in bound electronic molecules, the fusion rate might be increased by
>distortion  of the molecular potential by subjecting the molecules to extreme
>pressures.   ...

By the way, I really liked the quote you pulled from Tipler.  No mention 
of barrier penetration as a function of E or anything.  I wish stuff like 
that was either done right or not at all in introductory texts. 

>                                ...                                     And
>the distinction between muon- and electron- catalyzed fusion seems transparent.
>No one sees enough neutrons OR helium OR gammas OR tritium (I could go on to
>include any products of nuclear reactions) to justifiably associate claimed
>xs heat with nuclear reactions.  So why throw the BYU work in with P/F claims?
>   PLEASE HELP STOP THIS NONSENSE.
>The distinction is clear in Huizenga's book and Frank Close's, but uncritically
>muddled in Mallove's (which I profoundly resent).  It seems that believers in
>the unfounded notion that xs heat as claimed by P/F is nuclear  USE the
>low-level nuclear findings of the BYU group and others to support their claims.
>To me, this is grossly unfair and fallacious.  I will continue to fight such
>nonsense.

As will I.  Actually, as someone who does coincidence experiments you should 
realize that it was the time relationship between the two events -- with your 
announcement after P&F -- that led to the view (among those who cannot do 
arithmetic) that this was confirmation of the nuclear part of the P&F(&H) 
work.  For some time this historical accident (if it was an accident, 
since F&F knew when Jones was to submit his article) kept the two intertwined 
while we tried to sort out what was going on.  Since things got sorted out, 
the two different sets of results are only mixed up by those trying to give 
more credence to the claims of heat.   

Personally, I would prefer to call your work "cold fusion" and the other 
stuff "mysterious electrolytic heat" until proven otherwise, but we are 
stuck with the nomenclature.  

--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I  
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)