bare in mind that I'm really an engineer and not a physisits, I mostly poses some, as I think, interesting questions, and suggest, a bit wildly, some ideas.
When it comes to Pauli principle e.g. that you cannot fit to many electrons on the same energy state, you essentially get a field separation and segments the space into particle regions. So there is a force that separates the electorns, one would think that it is the electrostatic repulsion, but is it really true, are there more to it? Spin coupling is interesting, and is included in my first mail in this series when I refered to perhaps magnetic reason. But as I understand you you suggest that the nucleous get an attraction similar to Cooper pairing, well yes perhaps, but is it that strong? Anything can happen when we don't know, we should try to model this phenomena more accurately, it's a bit more pressing than theories of everything which captures the interest of the bright mathos if you ask me. Anyway one of the mysterious about cold fusion is how the nuclear reaction manage to get rid of the excess energy without firing off a neutron, if the reaction is a three body reaction with to protons and a deallocated electron between there is room for energy mitigations I would say, also I bet that this kind of system is pretty new to the nucler reaction folks so, taking into acount the cold fusion experimental evidences I would still go for a very delicate and well directed punch where perhaps spin and so on must be absolutely rightly matched to yield a reaction. Contemplate that the experimental result about these nuclear reaction results, that is mainstream science, was (probably) done without carefully align or antialign or whatever the spin and what not, the effect can very well be 2-4 magnitudes more strong if it instead was rightly controlled. On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 8:30 PM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Stefan-- > > You suggest that Pauli may enter Kim’s idea. How do you consider that > spin coupling enters the picture? Cooper pairing is generally considered a > real physical condition. > > Bob > > Sent from Windows Mail > > *From:* Stefan Israelsson Tampe <stefan.ita...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Thursday, June 26, 2014 11:37 AM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > > Over fitting was my feeling when reading about Kim et al. On the other > hand if you can make use of first principles and simulate a collision that > would be great for understanding of what happens in a collision. Of cause > assuming that QED is good enough to model the electrodynamic stage of the > collision. I have on the other side never seen QED validated in a three > body example like He or such so until anyone can fill that gap I would be a > little scared even to trust QED. Of cause doing such a simulation is > probably insanely difficult, or? My problem is that I didn't get any > physical understanding reading the paper (I could follow the math) just the > usual summary statement that it is a shielding, but how? I want to > understand the physics, and if the physical understanding is not there you > can create great complex earth centric models that does not help anybody > else but professors with a head the size of a huge pumpkin, in stead of a > nice slim heliocentric model that enable some serious engineering to be > done. > > Cheers! > > On a side note, maybe the pauli principle could be the force that pushed > the electron and keep a shield, in that case orientation should be > important no? and a good continuation of those experiments is to try > varying the orientations if possible. > > Cheers! > > > On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 7:22 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe < >> stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> The fundamental paper Kim et all i basing his theory on is in a sense >>> interesting and can be a reality, but I did only see that they manage to >>> fit the model to the data, not really a proof of that the model explain the >>> phenomena, or am I wrong? What is the general thought here have we got this >>> result explained or is there more to do? >>> >> >> When refining a model based on experiment it is obviously necessary to do >> follow up experiments to test the refined model otherwise one is merely >> engaged in the pejorative sense of "data mining" aka over-fitting. >> > >
