In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 20 Oct 2010 14:59:56 -0700: Hi, [snip] >-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] > >I have two questions. > >1) What is the actual mechanism that brings about fusion? > >With the BEC experiments that we know about, condensates like Rb can >suddenly swing into strong attraction and implode. At Cornell, about >two-thirds of condensed rubidium atoms "disappeared" from the experiment >altogether. There was no local energy deficit and no report of an energy >anomaly, but still the incident is "telling" as to the mechanism.
While I have speculated on nuclear reactions for this in the past, I don't really think that is what is going on. I think that the remaining thermal energy of the condensate ends up being concentrated upon some of the atoms, and these rapidly leave the condensate. IOW they haven't really disappeared, just gone outside the range of the detector in the experiment. > >This and other characteristics of Bose-Einstein condensates cannot be >explained with any current theory. My hypothesis is that negative >temperature induces actual fusion with the help of just such an attraction >event when there is a local energy deficit, such as in a Casimir cavity ... >where earlier there had been a few million sequential "first stage" events. >The deficit will actually stimulate the attraction, and then the fusion. Charles Cagle would probably agree with you. :) He thinks that the electric force reverses when a Bose condensate forms[*], i.e. that positive charges attract. > >This permits the 'first stage' processes, like Casimir heating, to resume, >with the excess energy coming in the form of UV light at 6.8 eV per >relativistic bounce within the cavity, for instance. I'm not sure why you have this fascination with 6.08 eV? > >The reason that these initial processes can be so hard to replicate, is >probably that there must be an expedited pathway to an actual nuclear >reaction - but that reaction itself does not "have to be" fusion. > >Thus everyone in the fizzix mainstream will tell you that there is no such >phenomenon as 'Casimir heating' ... but is that because they have never seen >it with a proper pathway - as with Rossi's nanopowder (presumably). > >If the Focardi/Rossi experiments are real and repeatable, then in that case >it appears the "book balancing" reaction involves the conversion of nickel >to copper via induced beta decay. Extreme levels of transmutation to Cu are >documented, and since this class of reaction is far less energetic than >deuterium fusion - a great abundance of copper, where there had been none >before, is to be expected. Could you point me to the paper? The main isotope of Ni is Ni-58, adding a proton to this would give Cu-59, which decays to Ni-59 with a half life of 81 seconds. However Ni-59 has a half life of 76000 years, and should readily accumulate. Adding a deuteron to Ni-58 would give Cu-60 which has a half life of 23.7 minutes, and decays to stable Ni-60. BTW a severely shrunken electron may increase the likelihood of electron capture reactions by many orders of magnitude. > >My prediction is that when all is told, we will learn that the BLP >sodium-hydride reaction produces copious magnesium - for the same underlying >reason. It is LENR and nothing less. > >2) Why is the deficit always exactly equal to the fusion energy, and not of >varying sizes? > >It isn't exact, in my opinion. There is probably a threshold level however. Could you expand on "threshold" a little? [*] More formally, that the force reverses direction when the De Broglie wavelength in the CM frame exceeds the separation distance. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
