Re: THE WORLD NEEDS COLD FUSION.

Bill Miller wrote:
> "Richard Schultz" <schultr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
> news:g6m555$fac$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> In sci.physics.fusion Ken S. Tucker <dynamics@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>> :> How long did it take from Budnorz and Muller's announcement of
"high-T"
>> :> superconductivity in cuprates for someone to reproduce their
results?
>> :> How long did it take to find a material that it is superconductive
at
>> :> T > 77 K (i.e. above the boiling point of N2)?  How long did it take
to
>> :> develop a device that used a high-T superconductor?
>> :>
>> :> How many of those developments depended on a detailed theory of the 
>> behavior
>> :> of high-T superconductors?
>> :>
>> :> How long has it been since Pons and Fleischmann claimed to have a
>> :> *working* cold fusion water heater?
>>
>> : If I were to suggest in 1935 that a metal can explode  with
1,000,000x 
>> more
>> : energy/weight than TNT,
>>
>> H.G. Wells suggested it in 1902.
>>
>> : I'm sure you would have scoffed, but with a great effort of theory
and
>> : experiment the A-bomb and H-bomb were developed.
>>
>> That is completely irrelevant to the point I was making.  Why don't you
>> answer the questions above and then think about why what you wrote
about
>> the A-bomb was a straw man.
>>
>> -----
>> Richard Schultz                              schultr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
>> Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
>> -----
>> "You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing."
> 
> It seems the the presence or absence of He is a key "pointer" to fusion
--  
> cold or otherwise. It seems that without He, it is clear that fusion has
NOT 
> occurred.

The only thing I would trust is neutrons and/or other energetic 
particles leaving the site of the reaction.
> 
> Is the inverse true?
> 
> The reason for my question is that there are several Helium wells in the

> world. It is a scarce (but essentially useless) element whose only 
> commercially viable use is for lighter-than-air devices. (Novelists 
> attention: What would have happened if the US had agreed to sell the
Third 
> Reich Helium? For one, the Hindenburg would not have blown up.) But I 
> digress.
> 
> Where does this Helium come from? Three sources I can think of:
> 
> 1. It is left over from a few Billion years ago when the Earth was still
hot 
> enough for fusion.
> 2. It is generated by some non-fusion process that I do not understand.
> 3. It is/was generated by some natural "cold" fusion process.
> 
> Could someone comment, please, on these three obvious sources of Helium?

I sort of hope you are joking here, but the original source of helium is 
  alpha particles during spontaneous radioactive decay emitted by 
uranium, thorium, radium, radon and co. These elements are common enough 
in the crust to provide the helium.

Rutherford first demonstrated that alpha particles were fast helium ions 
(or equivalently that helium gas was neutralised slowed down alpha 
particle spectroscopically).

http://www-outreach.phy.cam.ac.uk/camphy/physicists/rutherford_prelim.htm

Regards,
Martin Brown
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com
**