Well it all sounds so simple.
Carbon-12 fuses with hydrogen giving us Nitrogen-13 and a little gamma radiation. This decays to carbon-13 giving off a positron and a neutrino. Carbon-13 fuses with hydrogen and gives us nitrogen-14 and a little gamma radiation. This fuses with hydrogen to give us oxygen-15 and a little gamma radiation. This decays to nitrogen-15, a positron and a neutrino. Nitrogen-15 fuses with hydrogen giving us helium and we are back to carbon-12 all over again. We just apply hydrogen to carbon under the right conditions and we get heat and helium.
We can create the necessary temperature ... but not the pressure.
But cold fusion? Not ever.

 

Never say never. Tech is strange, it has a way of developing in unexpected ways.

I would like more explanation of some of the anomalous results. Repeatability seems to be lacking throughout.

 

And don't forget - starting a fusion reaction is not that hard. It can be accomplished with relatively inexpensive equipment. One kid built his own. It's sustaining the reaction and getting the energy out that's so very hard.

 

Once you know the true structure of an atom, neither high temperature or high pressure is necessary for fission or fusion.

All that is necessary is the right frequency or rate of force.

The right frequency can dribble a particle in and out of a nucleus.

We don't need power, we just need a very fast rate. The rate is what controls, not power.

A fast switch would also allow us to rectify light and heat and gamma.

A vfo in the hard x-ray range will allow electron manipulation.

A vfo in the gamma range is necessary for proton and neutron manipulation.

Once we learn inertia's song, brute force is not needed.

There are many, many nuclear reactions taking place all around you and in you all the time.

No high temps or high pressures required.

 

And don't forget - starting a fusion reaction is not that hard. It can be accomplished with relatively inexpensive equipment. One kid built his own. It's sustaining the reaction and getting the energy out that's so very hard.

I could easily cause nuclear reactions at work (if I were crazy and defeated all interlocks) by accelerating light Ions to about 3MeV into the right target. It would only take about 100,000 watts of electrical power to generate a easily detectable small reaction but the gamma radiation would go pass the normal lead shielding like tissue paper and ruin my holiday.

 

There are many, many nuclear reactions taking place all around you and in you all the time.

Not fusion reactions. Those are effectively non-existent in the world as we know it.

 

Once you realize what a nucleus really is.......you realize that adding an electron to an positive ion....is fusion.

When an atom loses an electron, it fissioned that electron from the nucleus.

When an atom gains an electron, it fusioned it into the nucleus.

All neutral nuclear nuclei has an equal number of electrons and protons.

All chemical action is fusion/fission.

Living cells constantly do this.

You are a mass of fusion/fission.

A cell fissions a water molecule. Then it fissions the H. Then it can fusion an electron and a H+ back to H. This is normally described in chemical terms. But it's all the same thing.

Negative fusion/fission is very common. And I believe that in the future we will find positive fusion/fission in the atmosphere, earth's magnetic shield and in thunderstorms.

We need to be able to sweep high gamma range spectrum to really see what's going on.

 

Once you realize what a nucleus really is.......you realize that adding an electron to an positive ion....is fusion.

When an atom loses an electron, it fissioned that electron from the nucleus.

When an atom gains an electron, it fusioned it into the nucleus.

All neutral nuclear nuclei has an equal number of electrons and protons.

All chemical action is fusion/fission.

Living cells constantly do this.

You are a mass of fusion/fission.

A cell fissions a water molecule. Then it fissions the H. Then it can fusion an electron and a H+ back to H. This is normally described in chemical terms. But it's all the same thing.

Negative fusion/fission is very common. And I believe that in the future we will find positive fusion/fission in the atmosphere, earth's magnetic shield and in thunderstorms.

We need to be able to sweep high gamma range spectrum to really see what's going on.

Ummmm....oooookkkk...

The gain or loss of an electron is ionization, not fusion. And electrons do not exist within the nucleus. In fact, they orbit about a solar system away from the nucleus, relatively speaking.

 

When an atom loses an electron, it fissioned that electron from the nucleus.
When an atom gains an electron, it fusioned it into the nucleus.

​

 

Just remember I told you first.

 

Just remember I told you first.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/c/carlsagan163043.html

 

@spinnaker I'm just curious. Is there some reason you think it might or should be possible? Do you understand anything about what nuclear fusion requires?

I do not. Just what I see in the news. If I were in the loop I wouldn't meed to ask here.

 

Once you realize what a nucleus really is.......you realize that adding an electron to an positive ion....is fusion.

When an atom loses an electron, it fissioned that electron from the nucleus.

When an atom gains an electron, it fusioned it into the nucleus.

All neutral nuclear nuclei has an equal number of electrons and protons.

All chemical action is fusion/fission.

Living cells constantly do this.

You are a mass of fusion/fission.

A cell fissions a water molecule. Then it fissions the H. Then it can fusion an electron and a H+ back to H. This is normally described in chemical terms. But it's all the same thing.

Negative fusion/fission is very common. And I believe that in the future we will find positive fusion/fission in the atmosphere, earth's magnetic shield and in thunderstorms.

We need to be able to sweep high gamma range spectrum to really see what's going on.

BZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTT - Sorry Wrong Answer.

Fusion involves the nucleus (or nucleon), not the electrons in the normal atomic shell and it is not a conventional chemical reaction.

I recall the fission of uranium releases two protons and two neutrons (an "Alpha" particle which is essentially a Helium nucleus) which captures two electrons from the shell. The result is an independent helium atom, but that isn't a chemical reaction.

Fusion is more complicated and there are examples of how the process works in stars.

 

Here's a pretty good review of what's going on in fusion these days. It doesn't cover COLD fusion at all.

For news on that topic, check these:
http://news.newenergytimes.net/2015...pen-doors-to-new-investment-and-new-conflict/
http://www.e-catworld.com/what-is-lenr/
http://animpossibleinvention.com/2015/10/15/swedish-scientists-claim-lenr-explanation-break-through/

I'm sure there are many others.

 

wayneh, I liked the 3rd article. If they proceed, they will find that there is no weak or strong nuclear force. It's all electric. The so called nuclear forces are just magnetic fields. The fields of protons and neutrons are much stronger than that of the electron. Thus a strong and weak version, but it's the same.

I liked that term "shaking out" the neutrons with resonance frequency statement. If they used the proper frequency, rather than a sub harmonic, they wouldn't require the excess heat and pressure.

But most curious was the, repulsive-low frequency////attractive-high frequency, premise, is most interesting.

I would prefer to think in left/right hand terms, but I see where they get it.

Look how careful they had to be, before they presented it.

I would think their motive is a low power energy source.

But we have all the cheap energy we need, even much more, with fossil, the best solar energy ever made.

The real value is understanding that our world is electric.

 

For news on that topic, check these:
http://news.newenergytimes.net/2015...pen-doors-to-new-investment-and-new-conflict/

“Yes Virginia, There is Heat But It Is Likely of Chemical Origin.”

http://pathoskeptic.com/2015/10/17/cold-fusion-theories-and-the-return-of-the-nutty-professor/

 

...And electrons do not exist within the nucleus..

Well, not exactly true (depending on your view of "exist" and "sum of the parts makes a whole"). Beta decay is where an atom emits a high energy electron (known as a beta particle), and the atomic number of that atom is increased by 1 while the atomic mass remains nearly the same (essentially creating a proton from a neutron by ejecting a negative electron).

The positron (positive beta particle) is a strange one, and the antimatter equivalent of a beta particle (positively charged electron). Emission of a positron from an atom Decreases the atomic mass by one unit as a proton is converted to a neutron (plus the ejected positron, positive electron.

 

You can read all about it here (at your own risk):
http://www.infinite-energy.com/

Note: I seem to remember that this magazine started out with a title that had "Cold Fusion" in it.

 

This all started when I was a physics undergrad. One of my profs specialized in nuclear physics and, not surprisingly, set out to reproduce the cold fusion results. I spoke with him in passing one day and he said that his results led him to believe that there was some new and interesting physics going on and that it seemed to be nuclear in nature. But he stopped well short of confirming "cold fusion" in any way. I never talked to him about it again and I don't know how much further he got with his experiments before he moved on.

 

Just ran across this interesting read:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/JonesSEchasingano.pdf

BTW, the Ed Cecil mentioned in the paper is the prof I was talking about from my undergrad days.