On May 22, 2013, at 11:21 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
Ed,
I think the structure of the coulomb barrier is open to intrinsic
modification, but the variables governing this possibility cannot be
uncovered by the tools and concepts of high energy physics.
I agree. In fact, the insistence that high energy physics be used is
the flaw in the skeptical arguments.
In most situations the coulomb barrier behaves in a textbook
fashion, but when bathed in the right vibrations the barrier can be
"tuned" to "soften".
I think a different description is more useful. The two nuclei have
first to get critically close together by intervention of an electron.
This process is conventional. Once this happens and the bond can
resonate, the periodic reduction in distance causes the nuclei to emit
a photon (gamma). Each emitted photon allows hte distance to be
reduced because the energy of the system has now been reduced, which
reduces the Coulomb barrier. After enough photons have been emitted,
the two nuclei collapse into one, which is the nuclear product. Of
course, the intervening electron that is required to reduce the
barrier is sucked into the final nucleus.
This model requires the nuclei to "know" that they must emit energy
when they get close and that magnitude of the Coulomb barrier is
sensitive to the excess mass-energy of the two nuclei.
Ed Storms
This "softening" reduces the height of the barrier so that much less
energy is required for fusion, but it will also enable the gradual
dissipation of fusion
energy you have postulated.
Harry
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Edmund Storms
<[email protected]> wrote:
Harry, calculations are useless in this case because the mechanism
is unknown to which the calculations can be applied. We know that
the mechanism for fusion and transmutation must be the same, which
means they both must occur in the same NAE. I can describe a process
that fits this requirement, but not here.
As a basic fact, the barrier can be either lowered by intervention
of negative charge or overcome by sufficient energy. Regardless of
which method is used, the energy resulting from transmutation must
be dissipated gradually before the final isotope is formed.
Otherwise, a strong gamma must be emitted to conserve momentum. In
addition, the method used to get over the barrier will be more
difficult than required for fusion, as you pointed out. So,
something very unique is required. I find that use of extra energy
from fusion is a more logical method than assembly of the required
large negative charge. Do you agree?
Ed Storms
On May 22, 2013, at 1:41 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
Ed,
I am intrigued by your idea that the lack of gammas could be
explained by fusion process which happens gradually rather than
suddenly as is the case with hot fusion.
However, on the one hand you say the fusion of protons and
deuterons supplies the energy necessary to over come coulomb
repulsion between Ni nucleus and the fusion products, but on the
other hand you do not say where the energy comes from to over come
the coulomb repulsion that exists among protons and deuterons.
While it is possible to reduce the energy required by placing an
electron between protons and deuterons I doubt this will generate
enough fusion reactions and energy if coulomb's law is correct. Or
have you done calculations which show that it will?
Harry
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]
> wrote:
No Harry, the Coulomb barrier is the same in Hot and Cold fusion.
The difference is that it is overcome very rapidly during hot
fusion and very slowly during cold fusion. That is the only
difference between the two methods. This difference results in a
different behavior.
Yes, a theory should explain transmutation and mine does. However,
transmutation can only occur as a minor consequence of fusion.
Fusion must be taking place first, which provides the conditions
and energy to get over the huge Coulomb barrier associated with
transmutation. As a result, the heat results from the fusion
reaction, while a little transmutation occurs and contributes a
very small amount of energy. The two reactions must work together
because they both have to follow the same rules, according to my
approach
Ed Storms
On May 22, 2013, at 2:59 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:
You propose that the coulomb barrier is structured differently
from how it is normally portrayed in textbooks, and it is this
difference that permits the low temperature fusion of protons and
deuterons and energy production. Wouldn't the same difference help
to explain how transmutations can happen as well? It seems to me a
good theory should be able to explain both transmutations and
energy production even if the nuclei involved differ in each case.
Harry
.
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]
> wrote:
Yes, Harry this is one of the several reasons why transmutation
cannot be the source of energy. Four more remain.
Ed Storms
On May 21, 2013, at 3:45 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
In an environment populated with Ni nuclei and H nuclei, the
spontaneous fusion of a H nucleus with another H nucleus is
favoured over spontaneous fusion with a Ni nucleus because the
electrostatic force of repulsion is smaller between two H nucleus
than it is between an H nucleus and an Ni nucleus.
Harry
