Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Casaubon who wrote (36502)	7/4/1999 2:43:00 PM
From: Zeev Hed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116759

Casaubon, don't worry about "weak memory", we all have some of these "events". Actually, I think you are absolutely right about fusion being "an activated" process. I calculated once (back of the envelop calculation so do not take it as "fact"), that the energy barrier in the presence of a palladium nucleus to fuse two deuterium nuclei is only about 20 Kev. The reason I am bringing the palladium into play is because that is where my fellow physicists were erring, IMHO, when criticizing Pons and Fleischman some 10 years ago. They were saying that unless you can detect neutrons, there is no way in hell that what they observed was "fusion". But my fellow physicists took the "free space" cross section for the various fusion reactions, and indeed in free space, because of conservation of momentum, the cross section to create helium from two deuterium nuclei is 5 orders of magnitudes lower than those reactions resulting in two particles (a neutron and "something else", typically Li3, or tritium). But in the presence of palladium, the cross section for formation of helium is probably 5 orders of magnitude larger than the other reactions, because the palladium can "take" the excess momentum, and the reaction to helium is the most "energetic" (yielding the highest energy). Zeev

To: Casaubon who wrote (36502)	7/6/1999 9:28:00 PM
From: d:oug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116759

(off topic) a science question about past discussions on cold fusion gold to mercury+heat to lead+heat , one charged particle at a time Casaubon, since I know not, is this idea folly ? what projectile is needed for the fusions mentioned above ? if that projectile needed is hard to load into the gun then identify a projectile easy to load, and work forward....until shoot X into Holder(Y) and out comes Z X is a projectile easy to load and aim and shoot into left side of Holder Holder is something that can hold Y's Holder is very strong and hard to damage with a projectile or heat when X enters left side of Holder, then X hits Y (fission) and out right side of Holder a Z particle shoots out, and this process is cascaded with Z becoming an X projectile, that shoots into the next Holder that contains the Y variable, with Y being selected that will fission into the next new Z If the substance or seed needed to cause cold fusion onto a promising target is not known, then maybe the above series of events could be run with a constant changing of those used to start the cascading of events that will eventually result with a different try on the end target, hoping for fusion. Would a possible Holder be a bunch of buckie balls formed into tubes ? If so, filling them and as in a cloths line, hanging them, could be hard. I see that I now have 125+ unread posts on this thread to read, and its just been 15 hours. I'll try the new SI Beta interface since it has the ability to view 10 posts at a time so all I need to do is scrolling without point and click each time on NEXT. doug