Re: [Vo]:bose condensate question

[Horace Heffner]

On Jun 24, 2008, at 10:33 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I do not know who to credit as the first to mention a
quasi-BEC mechanism for LENR, but am aware that it
goes back a long ways.



For what it is worth, below is the earliest posting on the subject  
that I can find that I made to vortex.  It resulted in:

http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/BoseHyp.pdf


        From:     [EMAIL PROTECTED]
        Subject:        vtx: A Bose Condesate hypothesis for CF
        Date:   January 30, 1996 12:06:12 PM AKST
        To:       vortex-l@eskimo.com
        Reply-To:         vortex-l@eskimo.com

BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND ARGUMENTS

The recent creation of a .002 inch 3000 atom Bose condensate by Carl  
Weiman
and Eric Cornell may provide a possible insight to some cold fusion
phenomena.  The rubidium atom condensate was created with much  
difficulty
and ingenuity at the extreme temperature of 20 nanokelvins, which was
created by applying an RF field to atoms in a magnetic trap.  The RF  
field
was tuned to resonate with higher energy atoms, and thus caused these
rubidium atoms to flip and then be shot out of the trap, thus leaving  
only
those atoms with no significant energy.

Though this was a difficult and amazing feat, demonstrating the  
Heisenberg
uncertainty principle relates to a true physical state of matter, not  
just
experimental uncertainty, perhaps nature readily accomplishes it in a  
small
way in metallic lattices.  It is a much less difficult feat to create an
overlap of two hydrogen nuclei in a 1 A condensate than it is to  
create an
overlap of 3000 rubidium atoms in a 500,000 A condensate.

The rubidium atom overlap was sustainable for more than 15 minutes.   
To be
significant to CF, a condensate of two protons or deuterons in a lattice
site need only be formed a very short time, if formed often enough.

It seems that the Weiman-Cornell experiment, supported by the Pritchard
slit experiments, clearly demonstrates the reality of the wave nature of
matter.  Perhaps it is the only form of matter.  The particle nature of
matter might be explained strictly by wave function collapse, which  
is not
a characteristic of ordinary waves, but clearly is a characteristic of
quantum waveforms.  For example, looking at the photoelectric effect,
suppose a huge photon waveform from a distant star impacts via it's own
random selection process at a particular point on a metal surface,  
ejecting
an electron, why do we have to say the photon is a particle at the  
point of
the electron ejection?  It could just as easily be considered (called) a
collapsed photon waveform as it could be considered a particle.  A  
waveform
collapse consists of an instantaneous change in wave form center and
distribution.  Such a collapse also clearly accounts for tunneling  
effects
as well.  Where is the need for a particle model at all?

If matter is totally wave like, it seems inescapable that charge must be
therefore be distributed in the waveform, as there exists no point to  
carry
it.  This has the benefit, as Richard Feynman pointed out, of  
conservation
of energy, because a point charge could generate an infinitely intense
field, as you approach the point, requiring an infinite amount of  
energy to
create the field.

THE HYPOTHESIS

Wavefurm collapse occurs probabilistically on the relative approach  
of two
or more quantum waveforms. One quantum waveform can collapse to the
location of the other.  If two overlapped, i.e. relatively to each other
slow, waveforms in a Bose condensate are penetrated by a high velocity
waveform, a condensation can occur.  Also,a kind of paradox occurs.  All
motion is relative.  Assume the condensate is two protons, and the high
velocity waveform is an electron.  From the point of view of the proton
condensate, the wavelength (size) of the electron is small.  From the  
point
of view of the electron, though, the condensate must be very small, and
more importantly, since the waveforms of the proton condensate are phase
locked and co-located, the condensate must appear located in a small
volume.  Thus, if there is an interaction, it would seem there would  
be a
high probability that the interaction would be a 3 body interaction.   
That
is to say the phase locking tendency of a condensate would greatly  
change
waveform co-location probabilities.  Given two protons jammed into a
lattice site, the Schroedinger Equation  predicts that they will tend  
to be
instantaneously found in opposing locations within the site.  However,
should they form a Bose condensate, it is logical that their locations
would appear to be the same to a fast moving particle.  The  
hypothesis is
that a Bose candensate, when stimulated by an incident particle, will  
tend
to cause the simultaneous collapse of constituant waveforms at the same
location.

This hypothesis provides some explanation for various effects.  One  
is the
Kasagi experiment, where deuterated titanium is bombarded with  
deuterons.
The reaction hypothesized by Kasagi to account for the observed results:

D + D + D -> p + n + alpha (+ 21.62 MeV)

requires a mechanism to make such a reaction likely in the matrix,  
i.e. to
cause target deuteron pairs to tend to be located at nuclear  
distances from
each other.  The subject hypothesis provides such a mechanism.

Similarly, the original experiments by Pons and Fleischmann, tended to
produce neutrons in pairs, i.e. from single events.  A deuteron  
condensate,
stimulated by particles resulting from cosmic rays, could produce a  
variety
of products, including neutron pairs, He4, He3, and T, as well as,
depending on the type of impacting particle, transmutations such as  
Li and
Be.  Let [D + D] represent a two deuterium atom condensate.  If a cosmic
ray struck a deuterium nucleus, which then struck a deuterium  
condensate,
we could have something like:

D + [D + D] -> n + n + p + He3  (+ .584 MeV)

Similarly, in various observed hydrogen systems a condensate could  
form, giving

e + [p + p] -> n + p (+ energy)

or

e + [p + Li(n)] ->  Li(n+1) (+energy)

or
e + [p + D] -> T (+energy)

where the possibility of such formations is a matter of considerable  
debate.

The case of :

e + [p + p] -> n + p (+ energy)

is just a variation of:

e + p -> n  (+ energy)

proposed by Elio Conte.  The importance of Conte's theory in this  
regard is
that it predicts the possibility of creating such a bound state with the
release of energy (17 KeV)  and without a neutrino.

To a much smaller degree, it seems possible that a Bose condensate might
momentarily be formed between adsorbed hydrogen and lattice atoms.  Such
cases, as well as cases of neutron formation noted above, could possibly
account for various transmutations observed in CF experiments.

This hypothesis also provides some explanation for observed positive
effects of using particles to stimulate loaded cathodes.

TESTING THE HYPOTHESIS

One way to test the hypothesis would involve colliding a particle  
beam with
a Bose condensate and looking at the resulting products  
spectographically,
e.g. bombard with protons and look for Strontium, Tungsten, or Osmium,
etc., spectral lines in the results, and the presence of high energy
neutrons or other particles.   Additionally, high energy electron
bombardment of the Bose condensate might create similar effects by
catalyzing the condensate waveform collapse.


PRACTICAL APPLICATION

If true, the hypothesis indicates that spiking the cathodes of CF
electrolysis cells with particle emitters should greatly increase the  
yield
and reliability of the CF effects.


Regards,                          <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820



Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/