Who are the kooks in fusion?

This forum is for other possible methods for fusion such as Sonolumenescense, Cold Fusion, CANR/LENR or accelerator fusion. It should contain all theory, discussions and even construction and URLs related to "other than fusor, fusion".
User avatar
Chris Bradley
Posts: 2930
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 11:05 am
Real name:

Re: Who are the kooks in fusion?

Post by Chris Bradley » Tue Oct 14, 2014 5:02 pm

The difference between 'cold' and 'real' hot fusion is that hot fusion is a known physical phenomena.

If 'cold fusion' was real, we would see it in nature. We don't. It's not real. It is a scam. Period.

John Futter
Posts: 1604
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 2:29 am
Real name: John Futter
Contact:

Re: Who are the kooks in fusion?

Post by John Futter » Tue Oct 14, 2014 5:33 pm

Doug
I still fail to see what you are talking about from gamma to x-ray region.
What does that mean??
a 20keV gamma is exactly the same as a 20keV x-ray
a 12MeV x-ray is exactly the same as a 12MeV gamma

Doug Browning
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 2:19 am
Real name: Doug Browning

Re: Who are the kooks in fusion?

Post by Doug Browning » Tue Oct 14, 2014 6:47 pm

"I still fail to see what you are talking about from gamma to x-ray region."

Look at the chart:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray

You are calling everything gamma rays!
Just a historical distinction maybe. My dentist never uses a gamma ray machine. And if you put gamma rays through airline passengers going through security, you will be arrested.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"It's not real. It is a scam. Period."

One need merely think of how one would pull this off. Rossi speaks of special (secret no doubt) electromagnetic treatment required to activate the C. fusion reaction. So he has a special uP controlled power modulator in the 3 phase power line going to the device. All it has to do is put RF on the lines to cause excess heating. This would work really well if the device resonantly absorbs the RF power. So his "modulator" is necessarily part of any test group's apparatus. As long as the power monitoring metering cannot see the RF, the game is on. The test group in the paper only shows the power metering to be sensitive to modestly higher harmonics than the 50 Hz power line, so the RF is well out of range.

User avatar
Rich Feldman
Posts: 1307
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 11:59 pm
Real name: Rich Feldman
Location: Santa Clara County, CA, USA

Re: Who are the kooks in fusion?

Post by Rich Feldman » Tue Oct 14, 2014 7:59 pm

Doug, wikipedia is not a generally respectable reference. It can be useful for learning (with due caution) and for finding proper references.

As for the distinction between x-rays and gamma rays:
The wikipedia article you cited is (today) biased toward a boundary in the energy or wavelength domain.
However, it does mention the view implicit in John Futter's recent post:
There is no universal consensus for a definition distinguishing between X-rays and gamma rays. One common practice is to distinguish between the two types of radiation based on their source: X-rays are emitted by electrons, while gamma rays are emitted by the atomic nucleus.[6][7][8][9]

By that definition, you can't tell x-rays and gamma rays apart with a detector.
If I may use an overextended analogy, consider a metal fastener
which is technically a screw (if turned into a threaded hole)
and technically a bolt (if tightened with a nut on the far side of unthreaded holes).
Last edited by Rich Feldman on Tue Oct 14, 2014 8:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
All models are wrong; some models are useful. -- George Box

User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 12201
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Who are the kooks in fusion?

Post by Richard Hull » Tue Oct 14, 2014 8:48 pm

I would go along with the definition just quoted by Rich Feldman. Where do the photons originate and by what process are they produced? While I still use gamma and x-ray terms they are all just photons. For me, their energy will never qualify them as to which are X and which are Gamma. You gotta' know where they came from.

It's like what is and what is not, pornography.......I'll know if it is porn when I see it.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
Retired now...Doing only what I want and not what I should...every day is a saturday.

Doug Browning
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 2:19 am
Real name: Doug Browning

Re: Who are the kooks in fusion?

Post by Doug Browning » Tue Oct 14, 2014 8:55 pm

"There is no universal consensus for a definition distinguishing between X-rays and gamma rays. One common practice is to distinguish between the two types of radiation based on their source: X-rays are emitted by electrons, while gamma rays are emitted by the atomic nucleus.[6][7][8][9] "

This is the "distinction" I have always seen. Of course, both are just different wavelength regions for EM waves. I have maybe 50 years of physics books on the shelf that do follow this outline. But no doubt current physics books and journal articles and detector advertisers have simplified the approach, in the interest of expediency or saving trees. With some overlap in the applicable wavelength regions, the detection side of matters would be an obvious incentive. The electronics field is littered with simplifications and re-definitions of terms to the point that oldies and newbies can hardly converse. So nothing new here.
But when conversing outside the narrow confines of physics, your dentist or hospital will definitely be using an X-ray machine. If you have an appointment with the gamma ray machine, you will want your Last Will etc... in order.

"It's like what is and what is not, pornography.......I'll know if it is porn when I see it."

Very much like the difference between "complete" and "finished".
(assuming you have seen that viral email:
http://www.jumbojoke.com/whats_the_diff ... ished.html )

Hopefully we are completely finished on this peculiar topic.

John Futter
Posts: 1604
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 2:29 am
Real name: John Futter
Contact:

Re: Who are the kooks in fusion?

Post by John Futter » Wed Oct 15, 2014 5:45 am

Doug
I work in an accelerator laboratory for a day job and use pixe pige nra rbs and rnra as methods to analyse various samples.
The detectors are common to all and the energies are common to all.
nothing to do with wavelength only on the process of how they are created.
Nearly all texts tend to keep x-rays at the longer wavelengths and gammas for the more energetic shorter wavelengths. This is an oversimplification to placate the uneducated and suffices for 99.9 % of the population.
this oversimplification is not correct but as you can see it satisfies casual interest.
Fusor.net is among the 0.01% of the population where people want to further their knowledge ---it pays to do this correctly and unlearn the oversimplification.
Another for you to ponder is if you use helium instead of hydrogen or its isotopes in your fusor the resultant plasma is made up of Alpha particles.
I have never seen this mentioned here on the site but go to any accelerator lab and they refer to a helium ion beam as an Alpha particle beam.

As for dental x-rays the military use an Americium gamma source for field hospitals the 57kV gamma is excellent for x-raying teeth (note:/- with gammas not x-rays). The generator only weighs 0.3kg go find an x-ray head including power source that weighs less than ten times that.

PS I have given up correcting wikipedia on many fronts.
It is peer reviewed by failed teachers who continue the mis-truths.
Last edited by John Futter on Wed Oct 15, 2014 6:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 12201
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Who are the kooks in fusion?

Post by Richard Hull » Wed Oct 15, 2014 5:58 am

Based on the forgoing we need a section titled "semantics for and from pendantics." Folks will speak as they will, always. The smart ones, the .01%, can still speak "old speak", but they know the full story, regardless of what comes out of their mouth.

Mark Twain once said (paraphrase)... Always endeavor to speak the truth, in this fashion you will gratify most people and amaze the rest.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
Retired now...Doing only what I want and not what I should...every day is a saturday.

Doug Browning
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 2:19 am
Real name: Doug Browning

Re: Who are the kooks in fusion?

Post by Doug Browning » Wed Oct 15, 2014 4:21 pm

I really think the semantics between X-ray and Gamma ray is bordering on trivia. Everyone knows this derives from historical precedence. Are we going to put RF in the same category too? They are shorthands for referring to approximate energy (or wavelength) range, not rigorous definitions. They can often be helpful in denoting the type of detector used. Can we put this silly conversation to rest....

"PS I have given up correcting wikipedia on many fronts.
It is peer reviewed by failed teachers who continue the mis-truths."

That may not be wise. The people who determine funding for big projects may at best consult Wikipedia, the rest read the newspaper. Who do you want determining your future, a newspaper editor or a "failed teacher". They can't even spell correctly in most newspaper articles nowadays.

User avatar
Chris Bradley
Posts: 2930
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 11:05 am
Real name:

Re: Who are the kooks in fusion?

Post by Chris Bradley » Wed Oct 15, 2014 5:20 pm

Please delete the argument posts about x ray versus gamma. A total thread drift of no value at all.

Post Reply