Hi all, Have you realized the connection between the Kalman paper and Kim et al's optical theorem for LENR.
http://pinky.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/yekim/PhysRevC.55.801.pdf Basically again the origin is that the Gamov factors doesn't describe the measured reaction rates for low speed particles. Kim et all solve this by assuming a screening by the electrons. Kalman does a Feynman kind of approximation and get's that the electron "pushes" the particle in a second order reaction. I strongly suspect that we have two way's of doing the math on the same effect, but conceptually on the surface the means my look different. Now, what Kim is dong with math is to start off with something that fit's on the paper, e.g. math that is tractable. We should know that what he finds is evidence of collective behavior can raise the reaction rates for fusion. For if his and his colleagues Theorem is applied to a few particle interaction, then again the reaction rates are too low, one need a collective that is constrained enough and free enough. This might mean that only during very special circumstances the rates get's high enough to make a difference. /Stefan On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Frank roarty <fr...@roarty.biz> wrote: > Jones, > > As always you are well said and open minded. > > Keep up the great work > > Fran > > > > *From:* Foks0904 . [mailto:foks0...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Friday, December 20, 2013 9:07 PM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:More on the Kalman paper > > > > Nice effort listing all the theories side by side Jones. Indeed it is > quite a smorgasbord, and the final theory will likely being some > unpredicted synthesis of two, three, or more. And that's only the main > reaction pathway, which we can then add secondary or tertiary pathways to > that involve stuff like hot fracto-fusion, Casmir cavitation, etc. > > > > Regards, > > John > > > > On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 8:35 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > > Here are a few further musings on this fine paper. > > The electron assisted neutron exchange process is interesting for nickel > since the yield is almost 600 keV for each of the two see-saw isotopes. > This > is on the high side of what can remain "gammaless". The downside is that > Ni61 is only 1+% of natural nickel, and it is required for all 3 exothermic > reactions. In practice this would probably limit the lifetime of the > reaction severely without some kind of enrichment. > > The downside for Rossi - if this theory is correct, is that he blew it and > has little IP protection ... since essentially, in his filing, Rossi bet > the > farm on Ni62 being the active isotope. However, it is unlikely that the > neutron exchange reaction is the only gainful reaction in any experiment, > or > even a main reaction - and it could be only contributory. It could be one > of a dozen pathways, any of which will reinforce the probability of others > in a synergetic way. > > Here are a few of the most viable hypotheses for gain - well over a dozen > of > them. But the most controversial suggestion is that these are not mutually > exclusive, and that several or even ALL of them could be at work > simultaneously and contributory in a given experiment which has the > necessary components. There is not even a good candidate for "most likely" > IMHO. > > * The original theory of P&F applicable to palladium and deuterium, > involving fusion to helium or tritium caused by coherent electron effects > (screening) > * Coulomb mediated reactions in general, including the deflation > fusion model of Horace Heffner. > * The "hydrino" (fractional hydrogen) mechanism of Randell Mills. > * The dense hydrogen or dense deuterium model, differentiated by > Miley > and others as inverted Rydberg hydrogen or a DDL (deep Dirac layer). > * The Storms mechanism for NiH, which envisions protons fusing to > deuterium via screening in a specific kind of NAE site, evolved from > "fractofusion. > * The NASA effort (US 20110255645) suggests a method for producing > "heavy electrons" as a fusion catalyst (screening). > * The Yeong Kim (Zubarev) proposal of a BEC Bose-Einstein Condensate > * The Takahashi tetrahedral TSC model is similar to the BEC. > * The beta decay/ ultracold neutron mechanism popularized by > Widom-Larsen which is similar to a Focardi/ Rossi/ Brillouin/ NASA > explanation. > * Polariton catalysis in general - which is a theory involving > plasmons, surface phonons and photons. This is more of an "enabler" > pathway. > * Casimir dynamics, in general including a dynamical effect. This is > also an "enabler" pathway as are other geometry constraints. > * Accelerated nuclear decay. Some experiments benefit from long-lived > but unstable isotopes like potassium-40. > * RPF or reversible proton fusion, which is based on the strong > force, > QCD and a transient state, the diproton, deriving energy from quark or > gluon > mass. > * The "nanomagnetism" ideas of Brian Ahern - which is a formative > theory involving magnons and cyclical phase change around the Curie point > of > Ni. > * Any combination or permutation of the above - since none of them is > mutually exclusive and most experiments cannot be defined by a single > hypothesis. > > There are many more, especially variations and refinements. Pardon me if I > have overlooked your favorite, but this is a running effort and your > favorite may appear on the next list. > > >
