Google gets Glow-Discharge to work.

We've known since ZETA (late 1950s) that flying neutrons doesn't equal fusion.

The Farnsworth-Hirsch Fusor produced neutrons in the 1960s - but wasn't fusion (despite what the online "Build a Fusor in your shed" crowd seem to think).

Even JJThomson, in 1913, had evidence that his X₃ (³He?) gas was coming from the eroding cathode material, along with Helium and Neon.

We seem to be stuck on an ever rotating merry-go-round.

This is the 2019 paper?

Quote from Frogfall

We seem to be stuck on an ever rotating merry-go-round

google money financed a short spin of the collision con-fusion merry go round

after 2019..nothing more. from Schenkel/Berkeley

latest work

" color centers for spin-photon qubit applications."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359296310_Exploration_of_Defect_Dynamics_and_Color_Center_Qubit_Synthesis_with_Pulsed_Ion_Beams

Quote from Alan Smith

They act like neutrons, and they smell like neutrons, but they are possibly what Edward Teller called 'meshugganons' (meshugga = Yiddish, look it up!) I know another researcher who experienced what looked like a huge neutron flux during a glow-discharge experiment but it obviously was not, because he survived. William Collis is interested in what he calls 'exotic neutral particles' - which could be the same thing, but he has not yet got experimental proof. See also 'Bush and Eagleton'. papers

The giant slow Cold Neutrinos that Alexander Parkhomov talks about?

Sorry my friend, sometimes i would like to be also an adm to remove some B... you said aahahhaa

Quote from Curbina

The giant slow Cold Neutrinos that Alexander Parkhomov talks about?

Quote from Cydonia

Sorry my friend, sometimes i would like to be also an adm to remove some B... you said aahahhaa

Complain to Parkhomov about his ideas, not to me for mentioning them.

it remembered me the past an ICCF past in Italia where i have been jostled by an "great" MFMP member who wanted to hear the first the Parkhomov's early "speeches", fully in Parkhomania's time.

That make me smile today because i well know he never got anything as XSH this way.

Not because this way was bad, rather because he knew very little, too much about it.

I don’t get married to ideas, I was just making a connection between

“They act like neutrons, and they smell like neutrons”

and the proposal of Parkhomov. That Bob is intense, I can’t argue against it, but I don’t hold it against him. If I recall correctly, if not at that precise ICCF, but in other where he presented on behalf of Parkhomov, he was undergoing a bad episode of gout in his hip, and limping around with a cane.

Stratified glow discharge (aka Safire project?)

Summer 2022 the team http://eth21.ru/index.html reported success achieving low temperature LENR

Related page http://eth21.ru/index.html

slides English

http://eth21.ru/20221228/NeutronsTNLT_Zaitsev_Godin_20221228.pdf

In Dec 2022 video presentation the author reports that LENR effect was achieved due to resonant stratas in glow discharge thus in my opinion making it the same as Safire Project's

Early mentions of the effect by the Russians after shallow google search

Quote from Frogfall

We've known since ZETA (late 1950s) that flying neutrons doesn't equal fusion.

The Farnsworth-Hirsch Fusor produced neutrons in the 1960s - but wasn't fusion (despite what the online "Build a Fusor in your shed" crowd seem to think).

So where do Fusor neutrons come from, if they are not fusion neutrons?

Spallation

Quote from fabrice DAVID

So where do Fusor neutrons come from, if they are not fusion neutrons?

Quote from fabrice DAVID

So where do Fusor neutrons come from, if they are not fusion neutrons?

Firstly, going back to ZETA, the researchers should have already known that neutrons could emerge from deuterium plasma experiments at conditions below which fusion was possible - as they were told as much by Igor Kurchatov, during his visit to Harwell in 1956.

Read his speech here: kurchatov_1956.pdf

At that time Kurchatov was still undecided about the main source of the neutrons - whether they were the products of spallation from plasma/container interaction, or whether they were coming directly from the squeezed & heated plasma, through the direct splitting of the deuterons.

When Harwell eventually retracted its claim, it put the blame on spallation from the container walls. This also seemed to be the preferred explanation of US researchers who had encountered the same phenomenon.

It seems that Kurchatov had come to the other conclusion - as a result of his own experiments - and informed Harwell of this. However, Igor Kutchatov's health was rapidly declining at that point (possibly due to complications from previous radiation exposure) and he died shortly after. (n.b. I'm still looking for a better reference source for this later communication, if anyone here can help.)

Of course the "agreement" by hot fusion researchers across the world (including those active in the Soviet Union) that spallation, and not deuterium fission, was the source of the neutrons, was financially expedient - in that it implied hot fusion was still possible, as long as someone found a way to ensure the plasma never touched the walls of the reactor.

Had the "deuterium plasma fission" idea been accepted - then it might have killed the entire field of research before 1960. After all, fusion would be impossible if the deuterium plasma simply shed all its neutrons, at a relatively low temperature, and all you had left was a bunch of protons (i.e. hydrogen plasma).

Getting back to the Fusor; this device would seem to have an advantage over the magnetic confinement devices, as the charge gradient should ensure that the plasma is kept well away from the walls. Yes, there might be spallation from plasma contact with the "cage", but this should have a smaller effect when compared to the walls of a Tokomak or Z-Pinch machine. Unfortunately, though, we still have lots of neutrons being emitted - even though the plasma temperatures are too low for thermonuclear D-D fusion.

My guess (and it is still only a guess) is that the ailing Igor Kurchatov's idea of "deuterium plasma fission" was correct - and that the performance of Fusors is actually evidence of that happening.

Abstract from this Kurtchatov paper below:

Therefore, if one were able to devise a method of heating the plasma with practically no thermal losses,
even a low-p6wer energy som cc could be used to induce interne thermonuclear Processes. The main problem is
to exclude heat losses,

My parallel remark...The previous Focardi's reactor started XSH from 70°...

Quote from Frogfall

Firstly, going back to ZETA, the researchers should have already known that neutrons could emerge from deuterium plasma experiments at conditions below which fusion was possible - as they were told as much by Igor Kurchatov, during his visit to Harwell in 1956.

Read his speech here: kurchatov_1956.pdf

At that time Kurchatov was still undecided about the main source of the neutrons - whether they were the products of spallation from plasma/container interaction, or whether they were coming directly from the squeezed & heated plasma, through the direct splitting of the deuterons.

When Harwell eventually retracted its claim, it put the blame on spallation from the container walls. This also seemed to be the preferred explanation of US researchers who had encountered the same phenomenon.

It seems that Kurchatov had come to the other conclusion - as a result of his own experiments - and informed Harwell of this. However, Igor Kutchatov's health was rapidly declining at that point (possibly due to complications from previous radiation exposure) and he died shortly after. (n.b. I'm still looking for a decent reference source for this later communication, if anyone here can help.)

Of course the "agreement" by hot fusion researchers across the world (including those active in the Soviet Union) that spallation, and not deuterium fission, was the source of the neutrons, was financially expedient - in that it implied hot fusion was still possible, as long as someone found a way to ensure the plasma never touched the walls of the reactor.

Had the "deuterium plasma fission" idea been accepted - then it might have killed the entire field of research before 1960. After all, fusion would be impossible if the deuterium plasma simply shed all its neutrons, at a relatively low temperature, and all you had left was a bunch of protons (i.e. hydrogen plasma).

Getting back to the Fusor; this device would seem to have an advantage over the magnetic confinement devices, as the charge gradient should ensure that the plasma is kept well away from the walls. Yes, there might be spallation from plasma contact with the "cage", but this should have a smaller effect when compared to the walls of a Tokomak or Z-Pinch machine. Unfortunately, though, we still have lots of neutrons being emitted - even though the plasma temperatures are too low for thermonuclear D-D fusion.

My guess (and it is still only a guess) is that the ailing Igor Kurchatov's idea of "deuterium plasma fission" was correct - and that the performance of Fusors is actually evidence.

Display More

Quote from Max Nozin

Stratified glow discharge

Thanks Max Nozin - that is a nice find.

Of course we have known about stratified glow discharges for over 150 years. But as William Crookes used electrodes at each end of a tube, and not a large cathode surrounding a central anode, the strata were always seen as linear.

Unfortunately, the Zeitsev & Godin slides haven't exactly filled me with confidence.

As you get to the conclusions, you see:

4 & 5: Unless the research is specifically aimed at trying to prove, or refute, the existence of an "ether", its very appearance in any reasoning or speculation is a sign that conventional theory has been abandoned at some point. I'm all for questioning conventional theories - but the questioning then has to be central to the research itself, not just a convenient add-on. It would be like including Phlogiston, as a possible explanation for something, and still expecting to retain credibility.

6: Similarly with questions about gravity. This would be (and has often been) a complex research topic in its own right. Just throwing questions about gravity into other research topics, when those topics already have plenty of existing areas for useful experimentation, does not induce confidence in the researchers' abilities to focus.

Then we get to this: