Clearly, I know nothing about the Windom-Larsen theory. I wrote:
Roarty, Francis X wrote:
. . .
I think his point regarding "nuclear" vs "fusion" In the first
interview may be the electron absorption transmutes a single nuclei
vs the "fusion" of 2 nuclei.
Ah. I guess that is negative beta decay. Well, that is the first
plausible reason I have heard to quibble with the term "fusion" in
this context.
Ed Storms sent me a correction. The electron absorption is only the
first step, according to the theory. Ed explains:
"The issue about using the word fusion is the following:
Fusion: two or more deuterons come together to make He-4. W-L: an
electron and a deuteron come together to make a dineutron, This
dineutron reacts with Li6 to make He-4 and a beta.
The difference involves which nuclear reaction makes the helium and
the heat. The evidence is only consistent with fusion regardless of
what Larsen says."
In other words, it is fusion between a deuteron and a lithium atom.
It ends with a helium atom. Okay, I would call that fusion, but in
any case what people call something does not define what it is.
Nature does what it does. The label we give the phenomenon may or may
not be accurate, and it can never be complete. That is why, for
example, the urge to rename cold fusion "LENR" or "CANR" or "LANR" or
some other name is fundamentally silly, and to argue whether it is
"actually fusion" is pettifoggery. Cold fusion is what it is, and the
scientists' job is to find out what it is, not to give it the best
possible name. Things always end up being quite different from out
initial impressions or notions about them. Even work-a-day technology
such as computer components often go through multiple iterations and
changes until we end up with etymologically absurd expressions such
as "solid state disk" which is not a disk and does not rotate, and
solid state disk folders that do not fold in any sense.
There is no particular advantage to coining a more technically
accurate term to describe a phenomenon, except for a narrow range of
words used in mensuration or to describe specific instruments or
techniques where confusion might arise. It is important to make the
exact distinction between lumens and candela, and you should bear in
mind that lumens are a measure of light as perceived by the human
eye, but you can be less rigorous when discussing light or vision in
general. If you want to call the subject "optics" that's fine, even
though the subject area is not limited to the other meaning of
optics: the hardware used in visible light instruments such as
lenses, prisms and whatnot. "Optics" may not be defined quite as
rigorously as "lumen," but the definition will do. And the fact that
"lens" originally meant a lentil seed is completely irrelevant. There
is no need to scavenge around looking for some new word to describe
convex or concave lenses just because the word originally describes
seeds, or just because there are no concave lentil seeds.
A word is always a shorthand description, or an approximation. A word
is never the thing itself. That may seem self-evident, but people
both ancient and modern are often confused by this. There is an old
joke about a German philosopher who makes up a word for something and
then becomes convinced that because there is a word, the thing itself
must exist.
The above assertions are more about linguistics, or the philosophy of
language, than about physics per se. I probably know more about that
business than Larsen or Krivit do, since I have read large chunks of
the aforementioned book by Samuel E. Martin and other stuff like it.
So take it from me, pal: it's fusion.
- Jed
