Deuterium kills the reaction because its spin is non zero. On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Terry Blanton <hohlr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You've certainly been consistent Jones. Quoting you from 2011: > > [Vo]:Deuterium kills the reaction? > > Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net via eskimo.com > > 1/19/11 > to vortex-l > > One detail worth exploring further was the statement from Rossi that > only hydrogen works, and that deuterium kills the reaction ! > > That is counter-intuitive to say the least. Everyone in hot fusion > knows for an absolute fact that deuterium is the more activenucleus, > right? And everyone in LENR knows that deuterium and palladium work, > whereas H2 is often used as the ‘control’ to show what doesn’t work. > Go figure. > > Well, pondering this for a moment, the only possible property that > comes to mind to explain it was posted a few days ago –the “composite > boson” in the context of negative temperature. It is sounding better > and better as a rationale. > > To rephrase, the complex argument goes like this. The heat anomaly, > whether it is fusion or not depends on “pycno” or dense hydrogen > clusters. Based on Lawandy’s paper and others, we see that spillover > catalysts operate by splitting molecular hydrogen into atomic hydrogen > without ionization. Dense hydrogen forms from atomic hydrogen if there > are adjoiningdielectric surfaces or cavities. Atomic hydrogen is a > composite boson. If there are internal defects (cavities) for atoms to > accumulate, they somehow seem to densify there without ever going > molecular. > > We know that H is a composite boson which is a singularity in nature – > as it is composed of the minimum number of fermions (2) that permit > both states to oscillate back and forth… and furthermore having this > minimum number of quantum states to“align” (statistically) means that > it is exponentially easier to condense than deuterium at so-called > negative temperature (which are not “cold”) especially since spin can > be aligned magnetically... > > Thanks to google books, we have access to an old issue of New > Scientist from 1981. On p. 205-6 there is clear indication that we > have known for nearly 30 years that hydrogen condensation can happen > at cryogenic temperatures – i.e. that monatomic hydrogen is a > composite boson independent of the molecular state - which has very > unusual properties as a condensate. > > > http://books.google.com/books?id=IbbMj56ht8sC&pg=PA205&lpg=PA205&dq=composite-boson+monatomic-hydrogen&source=bl&ots=XlZyp6rE-9&sig=AwMnZv-hCQzTfcbnkN2mQZ65VG0&hl=en&ei=JFwaTab7Oon0tgPSpKjJCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false > > This paper seems to have been largely forgotten, and offers no > indication that “negative temperature” could provide an alternative to > cryogenic temperature. And certainly no indication that the Casimir > cavity can provide a locus for negative temperature. > > No one should be blamed at this juncture for being completely > skeptical that negative temperature in a cavity can do this, even on a > temporary time frame; and the only evidence of it today is the > implication from half a dozen papers which indicate that so-called > pycno-hydrogen exists (under many different names, even IRH or Inverse > Rydberg Hydrogen). Rossi’s results are consistent with this modality, > and Holmlid and Miley claim to have evidence of tiny bits of hydrogen > a million times denser than liquid H2. > > Are they nuts too? Or is it all fitting together like a jigsaw puzzle? > >
