It's entropy, all curled up in those 7 extra dimensions of space. The radiation at its surface can make it very energetic, alphas and betas, the larger the particle the more energetic. Entropic flux creates gravity, electricity and magnetism. It flows and it orbits and 95% of the universe is comprised of it, at all energy levels of particles.
Just my take on it. Darkmattersalot.com On Monday, December 31, 2012, Axil Axil wrote: > “Obviously, if it is not a nuclear reaction (there are other possibilities > besides fusion).” > > It could be accelerated alpha radiation from a partial lowering of the > coulomb barrier. > > Alpha radiation is just doubly ionized helium. > > We can distinguish this helium production from fusion by that produced by > alpha radiation if we also observe transmutation of a heavy element into a > lighter one. > > > Cheers: Axil > > > On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 10:14 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com > > wrote: > > At 01:49 PM 12/29/2012, James Bowery wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Mark Gibbs <<mailto:mgi...@gibbs.com> > mgib**b...@gibbs.com> wrote: > Let's see if I'm understanding this correctly: The theory was that nuclear > reactions cannot occur in a system such as P&F's. This theory was falsified > which means that nuclear reactions can (and did) occur. > > Correct? If it is correct, then my original statement stands: There is no > theory yet that explains what is called cold fusion. > > > Close. It is the most widely-accepted interpretation of currently > accepted physical theory that was falsified. The theory itself is subject > to many interpretations, otherwise known as "conjectures" in more rigorous > fields such as mathematics. > > The conjecture "Nuclear reactions cannot occur in systems such as P&F's." > is no more a product of theory than is the conjecture "Nuclear reactions > can occur in systems such as P&F's." > > So it is not the theory that has been falsified -- because as an axiomatic > system there is no proven theorem of modern physics which asserts "Nuclear > reactions cannot occur in systems such as P&F's." > > One can, of course, posit any number of arbitrary axioms and then call the > hodge-podge a "theory" in which one of the axioms is trivially proven true > because it is axiomatic. This appears to have been the approach to > "science" taken by folks who receive the vast majority of funding for > science and technology. > > > Context here should be more revealed. The fusion cross section (rate, > effectively) for standard deuterium fusion, caused when two deuterium > nuclei collide, can be calculated -- quite accurately -- for a plasma, > where the rate at which nuclei interact is known. > > The distances between nuclei in condensed matter (the "solid" state) are > enormous, compared to the size of the nuclei. It seemed reasonable that > fusion rate could be calculated for deuterium dissolved in palladium, by > assuming that only two deuterium nuclei would iteract at a time. It's a > 2-body problem, and the math is relatively simply. Generally speaking, > making that approximation was thought to be adequate, and the approximation > predicted that, even though the density and effective pressure of deuterium > in palladium could be enormous, it was not enough to raise fusion rates to > a measureable level. > > That's what Pons and Fleischmann knew when they began their work. Their > work was not "energy research." They were not looking for an "energy > panacea," or "free energy." They were doing basic scientific research, to > test the assumptions being made about the application of quantum mechanics > to condensed matter. They thought that what they would probably find was > nothing. They were not naive, as the physicists often portrayed them. > > And then their apparatus melted down, and they had no chemical explanation > for it. And they were chemists, world-class. > > They clearly did not understand what they had found. They believed that it > was a reaction taking place in the lattice. For lots of reasons, that's > pretty unlikely. It is a surface reaction. At least usually. We don't know > all the possibilities. Because they thought it was a bulk reaction, they > expected to find helium in the bulk. It wasn't found. That's one of the > experimental facts that deposited a layer of egg on their faces. > > Helium is produced as a rare branch from normal hot fusion, and most > people thought that cold fusion must be hot fusion taking place somehow. > But it didn't really make sense. If one got over the enormous energies > necessary to trigger hot fusion and managed to catalze it cold -- and there > is a known method of doing that -- for there to be enough of a reaction > taking place to account for the heat that was being observed, the neutron > radiation would have been deadly. But a little helium would be produced, > and with it, a quite energetic gamma ray. No gammas were seen like that. > > However, Preparata predicted that helium would be found to be the ash. > Miles was following Preparata's theory. So, Mark, here we > >
