LENR Researcher Refuses to Abandon “Fusion” Term

Yesterday, I published “Hagelstein Knew: It’s Not Fusion.” Today, a low-energy nuclear researcher responded. We had the following e-mail exchange which has been lightly edited:

Dennis Cravens: I understand your insistence to say it is not fusion. You assert that deuterium-to-helium-type fusion is the only kind of fusion there can be. However, I personally believe LENR is fusion because a nucleus is going to a higher mass. That is fusion.

It does not matter if it is a neutron adding to a nucleus or a deuteron adding to a nucleus or by what pathway you get there. If a nucleus goes to a higher mass, it is fusion. Going to a higher mass is fusion, going to smaller mass is fission.

I define fusion as “a nuclear reaction in which a nucleus undergoes a change to a more massive nuclei with the simultaneous release of energy.” It is not pathway dependent.

I also don’t think that MeVs of energy represent “low energy.” I also think that anything below a million K is cold in nuclear terms. kT<< nuclear binding energy.

Krivit: You have been researching LENR for most of the past 22 years. You are also a professor of physics and chemistry. Nevertheless, in physics, “neutron addition” is called “neutron capture,” not “nuclear fusion.”

The core of the historical argument and controversy of “cold fusion” is the hypothesis that by some miracle, deuterons are somehow overcoming the Coulomb barrier at room temperature. In physics, beta decays and inverse beta decays rely on the weak force. Fusion processes rely on the strong force.

Now that a potentially viable theory has finally arrived, albeit not a fusion theory, you, McKubre, and other researchers in the field want to change physics terminology. I do not think for a moment that anybody outside the cold fusion ghetto (Charles Beaudette’s term) will take such attempts seriously. I think such attempts will only bring more disrespect to the field. I see your attempt to redefine terminology of nuclear mechanisms after the game has been played similar to MIT’s 1989 experimental effort to change their baseline after they ran their experiment and – oops! – measured a few milliWatts of excess heat.

Have you thought your strategy through carefully and independently? And if so, are your ideas about nuclear terminology truly representative of your approach to science and specifically to LENR research?

Wouldn’t it be better just to say, “Maybe we were wrong about the fusion idea, but we nailed it with our measurements of excess heat, helium, tritium, transmutations, alphas, neutrons, etc.”?

Would it help if I reminded you what the co-discoverer of “cold fusion,” Martin Fleischmann, said to me last year?

“Well, fusion has a special meaning in the scientific literature – hot fusion – and perhaps it was a mistake to call this process fusion.” Fleischmann said. “It should have been called a nuclear effect, you see.”

You ask why I am so insistent on the correct use of terminology. I think it is the honest thing to do. Apparently, so did Martin. I also think that the field will not achieve real progress until people see what nature is showing, rather than what they want to see. More importantly, the field will not achieve the recognition it deserves until its proponents can prove to observers that they are trustworthy.

Cravens: (Excerpt) You have not yet offered your definition of fusion. Offer your general definition of fusion.

Krivit: It less important how I define fusion. It is more important what you and the rest of the LENR community have put forward for 22 years as fusion: D+D -> 4He.

And now a new model arrives: e + p -> n + v;  n + x -> y and you want to call the process whereby a neutron is created, and/or the process where a neutron is captured by a nearby nucleus “fusion.” If this is where you wish to go, you have every right to proceed as you wish. But I will not follow you.

I answered your question about definitions a year and a half ago: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/35/SR35908neutroncapture.shtml

[Round 2]

Cravens: Why do you think these things are “Low Energy” and not fusion at low (kT<< Mev’s) temperatures?

Krivit: I have explained this many times, starting with my 2008 ACS presentation (Presentation – Audio) and other New Energy Times publications. This material has been available for three and a half years. Do you have a specific question about what I wrote and said in my presentation?

Cravens: LENR is not an accurate term from what I see in the lab.  The energy must be many times any possible chemical event and likely in the Mev’s.

Krivit: We do not disagree on the levels of produced energy. And judging by the papers and discussions at the NASA Glenn workshop, or the 2004 DoE Review of LENR, or the 2006 DTRA Workshop, I do not think the word “low” discourages people from appreciating the potential of LENR, so this does not seem to be an argument that is worth nitpicking about.

Cravens: The point is that I do not think that your approach to condemn the use of the term “fusion” based on an assumed theoretical model is useful to the field. Especially if that model admits it is a merger of several items into one.  I feel it would be much better to allow people to use the terms they are comfortable with. Let people use dozens of terms if they like.  Let history decide what term sticks after another 20 years or so.   It is better to view terms and other people as how their statements can be true instead of trying to force others to use your terms and then assume others wrong. Nature does not care what we call these events.

Krivit: You seem very confused.

First, it is not just one “assumed theoretical model.” There is a larger picture that I see; many people have speculated weak-interactions. Widom-Larsen just seems the best one so far.

Second, please remember that our conversation started when you approached me about terminology, not the other way around.

Third, this is what I wrote: “If this is where you wish to go, you have every right to proceed as you wish. But I will not follow you.”

Restated more clearly: If you wish to continue calling it cold fusion, go right ahead.

Cravens: I am afraid that you are slowly alienating yourself from many within the field (use what ever terms you wish for it).  You seem to be picking sides for terms and theoretical viewpoints instead of remaining “journalistically neutral”.   I hope that you professional journalistic style will eventually return you to a neutral position before your audience evaporates. My un-asked for advise is to ease off the attacks on individuals and semantics. —- Just saying that as a “friend”.

Krivit: Thank you for your “friendly” concern about me alienating myself from people who believe in cold fusion. Fortunately I have had some time to think about this because I have heard this exact comment for several years now. In fact, I began hearing it in 2008 from people who believe in cold fusion when I first began publishing news about the Widom-Larsen not-fusion theory. But you are correct. Some of my audience who are either unable or unwilling to allow their perspective to shift and change as the knowledge in the field shifts and changes will, in fact, walk away. That doesn’t worry me. Not a bit.

Let me speak about your comment about “journalistically neutral.” Remember where this conversation started. I wrote an article called “Hagelstein Knew: It’s Not Fusion.” This was very straightforward reporting. Then you began to ask me questions about my personal perspective. Of course, I responded with my personal opinions.

Now, the idea of “journalistically neutral” does not apply in all situations. I work hard to differentiate when I am reporting versus when I am being asked my opinion, either by someone like you, or by representatives of the federal government, or by business research firms, or by publishers to provide an expert (you may disagree) opinion. However, I am still willing to consider your comment. Can you please tell me in which article, in your opinion, I was not “journalistically neutral?” Was it the Hagelstein article or my response to you?