Re: cold fusion

[Stefan Jeglinski <jeglin@4PI.COM>]

> But isn't this 'Jones' person I'm seeing reference to the 'muon
> induced fusion' guy. Isn't HIS research 'accepted'?


yes and yes. He was working on muon catalyzed fusion at about the
same time as P&F were doing their work. Just who had started what
when and what influence there was back and forth is a bit murky
although Jones had a long history of related work; however, Jones
kept very extensive notebooks, and although he had speculated on the
notion of table-top fusion, he had really done so as a matter of
completeness, having already dismissed the likelihood of it being a
practical source of energy. Jones' work was very geared toward
nuclear physics. PF's work was virtually devoid of any physics,
relying instead on principles of electrochemistry.


> If *MY* recollections are correct, then these ARE valid points. My
> memory sez that the muon stuff WAS 'valid' and P&F rushed their press
> conference to 'get a jump' on Jones' publication.



PF got wind of an upcoming publication of Jones (not his first, IIRC)
on the subject, and thought they were going to get scooped. In fact,
nothing of the sort would have happened, as Jones was not seriously
considering a practical table-top energy demonstration. But enter a
paranoid Pons, and a gullible university administration who came to
see it as something they could not afford to not "protect," and the
press-conference was born. Had anyone in the physics department been
consulted (it was a *complete* surprise to the Utah physics
department), there would have been a chance to avoid the press
conference. Granted, most in the physics department would likely have
dismissed it summarily, but there were a few who did show interest
and would have likely volunteered to collaborate to try and answer
just a few loose questions. That department has a lot of expertise in
nuclear detection and they would have been as good a partner as one
might hope for.

At any rate, to be just a little fair to Pons, once the admins at
Utah got into the act, and then got into tussles with the admins at
BYU, you could kiss it goodbye. The archives of the Salt Lake Tribune
make for interesting reading in this regard. There was so much turf
protection that the fiasco was inevitable. Pons' real legacy was
being the only person who could really stop it, and did not.


> I'd like to hear MORE about the muon induced stuff. Was it really
> 'table-top' or 'just' room temperature. Where can I get a box of
> muons?

Jones' papers are actually quite informative and fun from a
theoretical as well as experimental standpoint. Sorry I do not have
references at my side. Stephen Jones, Brigham Young University. Very
roughly speaking, the idea was that a muonic hydrogenic atom (with a
heavier muon in orbit instead of an electron), would have a much
smaller atomic radius (allowing closer approach in a gas or tighter
packing in a lattice), thereby increasing the chances that
room-temperature kT could cause fusion that was *measurable*, instead
of the kT associated with hot fusion. Naturally, "measureable" here
is not synonymous with "practical." The muonic form of hydrogen could
in principle make room-temperature kT fusion cross a threshold from
"truly vanishing" to "barely measureable." Jones experimental work
was geared toward how to make such a delicate measurement, and he is
generally considered to have shown it not only possible but also to
occur at the exceedingly low rate that was predicted by quantum
mechanics.

PF's work, if shown to be true, would require a great deal of new
physics. This was an additional objection to the early result. Even
if the there was agreement that there is excess energy created (and
there is still not agreement), any acceptance would still take a long
time, as the community generally requests an explanation before
taking it seriously. I might add that such an explanation does not
have to be extensive initially. In my experience, peer-reviewed
plausibility arguments are enough at the start. One of the problems
with PF was that even the plausibility arguments, from a physics
standpoint, were weak or non-existent.


Stefan Jeglinski