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.
Who are the kooks in fusion?
-
Chris Bradley
- Posts: 2930
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
- Real name:
-
John Futter
- Posts: 1850
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 10:29 pm
- Real name: John Futter
- Contact:
Re: Who are the kooks in fusion?
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
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: Sat Mar 10, 2012 9:19 pm
- Real name: Doug Browning
Re: Who are the kooks in fusion?
"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.
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.
-
Rich Feldman
- Posts: 1471
- Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 6:59 pm
- Real name: Rich Feldman
- Location: Santa Clara County, CA, USA
Re: Who are the kooks in fusion?
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).
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 4:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
All models are wrong; some models are useful. -- George Box
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15027
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: Who are the kooks in fusion?
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
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
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
-
Doug Browning
- Posts: 156
- Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 9:19 pm
- Real name: Doug Browning
Re: Who are the kooks in fusion?
"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.
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: 1850
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 10:29 pm
- Real name: John Futter
- Contact:
Re: Who are the kooks in fusion?
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.
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 2:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15027
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: Who are the kooks in fusion?
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
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
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
-
Doug Browning
- Posts: 156
- Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 9:19 pm
- Real name: Doug Browning
Re: Who are the kooks in fusion?
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.
"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.
-
Chris Bradley
- Posts: 2930
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
- Real name:
Re: Who are the kooks in fusion?
Please delete the argument posts about x ray versus gamma. A total thread drift of no value at all.
-
Dan Tibbets
- Posts: 578
- Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 1:29 am
- Real name:
Re: Who are the kooks in fusion?
The Rossi scam is unchanged in my openion. The recent test supposedly produced `2 KW out for 1 KW in. The system seems to have been set up to maximize the opacity of measurement methods. Just like when steam production was supposed to be a positive indicator that was so uncertain due to many possible variables. That could have been quickly and definitively resolved by setting up the experiment so that the calorimetry did not involve a phase shift of water (steam), but only a warming of liquid water. That this was not done speaks volumes. As for the Ni62, that was provided by Rossi from an envelope, not extracted from the machine by the researchers. That the claimed reaction involves conversion of Ni58 and possibly several other Ni isotopes to Ni62 and the supplied "post test sample" was almost pure Ni62 is problematic because the reaction rate was reported as constant, and its been reported that it should have slowed as the Ni58 was consumed. What ever the other cold fusion efforts yield, I am confident that Rossi's machine is pure fraud, and poorly disguised fraud at that.
My attitude towards Tokamaks has changed over the years. JET and others have come close enough to Q=1 that it seems they will eventually get there, perhaps with ITER in 30 more years, or even a revamped JET in 5-6 years. The Tokamak, while a possible scientific success, is an economic disaster. Even if it works as expected the cost of the electricity produced will be many times greater than fossil, fission, solar, wind, etc.
Meanwhile the Polywell, Lockheed's Skunkwork;s approach, several FRC approaches, DPF, General Fusion's approach continue to advance without any show stoppers. All have valid physics, especially as high Beta operation has now been demonstrated convincingly. That does not mean they will work, but at least they have withstood the attempts by some to discredit them as bad science .
Dan Tibbets
My attitude towards Tokamaks has changed over the years. JET and others have come close enough to Q=1 that it seems they will eventually get there, perhaps with ITER in 30 more years, or even a revamped JET in 5-6 years. The Tokamak, while a possible scientific success, is an economic disaster. Even if it works as expected the cost of the electricity produced will be many times greater than fossil, fission, solar, wind, etc.
Meanwhile the Polywell, Lockheed's Skunkwork;s approach, several FRC approaches, DPF, General Fusion's approach continue to advance without any show stoppers. All have valid physics, especially as high Beta operation has now been demonstrated convincingly. That does not mean they will work, but at least they have withstood the attempts by some to discredit them as bad science .
Dan Tibbets