The problem with this fusion idea is that it does not explain the subset of LENR experiments that show fission is occurring. Can this theory explain fission in LENR? I don't think so.
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 3:13 AM, Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com> wrote: > In particular, this paragraph seems to support my Balloon analogy for > absorbing most of the high energy emissions into the lattice. > > > > "...as in the Mossbauer effect, through a real effect, implicit in the > symmetry associated with rigid lattice translations that preserve periodic > order, it is possible for a lattice to “recoil” elastically, as a whole, in > response to a collision at a point. In the generalization of band theory > [19] to many-body, finite systems, the same symmetry is invoked and leads > to a huge degeneracy. Because indistinguishable particles are involved in > these systems, implicitly, additional degeneracies are also present. The > combined effects provide a means for particles to have appreciable overlap > at many, periodically displaced “points” (as discussed below), > simultaneously, for finite periods of time, in a manner that can result in > new forms of collisions in which momentum is transferred from the locations > where overlap can occur, rigidly to the lattice as a whole. When these > idealized forms of motion are initiated by collisions resulting from the > overlap between d’s in IBS’s, they can result in forms of coupling that can > cause nuclear fusion to take place in which small amounts of momentum and > energy from many different locations are transferred coherently to the > solid as a whole and subsequently transferred to many different particles > in a cooperative fashion. As a consequence, in agreement with experiment, > the associated nuclear energy is predicted to be released without > high-energy particles. " > > On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 12:01 AM, Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> In this old thread, we discussed BECs with Edmund Storms. He >> unsubscribed from Vortex soon after this interaction, hopefully I wasn't >> the one who drove him off. >> >> Anyways, at the time I did not have access to Chubb's theory but now Jed >> has uploaded his Ion Band State Theory (IBST) paper onto Lenr-Canr.org >> >> It is compelling. But I am disheartened that Jones Beene said it is >> above his pay grade. Now I think it is two layers above my pay grade. >> It seems to cover all the bases and it uses conventional physics. >> >> >> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ChubbSRconvention.pdf >> >> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> NO!!! That is not the issue Cold fusion produces He4 without radiation. >>>> >>> ***There have been some observances of radiation. Not very much, but >>> some. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Hot fusion produces a mixture of energetic fragments of He.These are >>>> two entirely different processes producing different products. The name is >>>> only used to distinguish between the two different processes. >>>> >>> ***I think I see where the difference lies. Let's say we had a million >>> balloons all filled with air, and around those million balloons there is a >>> lattice of tinker toys such that each balloon is boxed in. Now, in the >>> middle of all those balloons, you pop one of them. Would you be able to >>> hear the explosion? Probably not, because the emitted energy would be >>> absorbed by the lattice & other baloons. Similarly, with billions of H >>> atoms trapped in Palladium lattices, when 2 of them fuse, the emitted >>> energy gets absorbed by the lattice. That's how we end up with >>> transmutations. >>> >>> But if you had a million balloons in a big room (with no tinker toy >>> lattice) and you exploded 50,000 of them at one time, would you hear the >>> explosion? Yes. The emitted energy would not be fully absorbed by the >>> surrounding matter, and indeed could even lead to further explosions & >>> emissions. That's the difference between cold fusion (tinker toy lattice, >>> only very few fusion events) and hot fusion (no tinker toy lattice, >>> thousands of fusion events leading up to a large emission of energy). >>> >>> Imposing the conclusions of hot fusion emitted energy onto cold fusion >>> emitted energy is where your observation loses its validity. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >
