On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 7:08 AM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]>wrote:
Eric, when you speculate, you need to apply some basic science. For > example, a reaction involving three nuclei, one of which has a very low > concentration has a probability of occurring that is near zero, based on > the random chance that all three can get together at the same time at the > same location. Then you have to add the ability to overcome the huge > Coulomb barrier at a significant rate, which is also very small. > Ed, I urge you to familiarize yourself with Ron's theory. If you were familiar with it, you would see that these concerns are perhaps misinformed, and that a discussion on the question of fast particles can proceed without ignoring basic science. There are two points of basic science that are relevant here -- (1) although there are a small number of D2 in normal H2, around 1 out of 6000, if the protons dissociated from the H2 are moving helter-skelter, there is a high likelihood of their encountering the d dissociated from the D2. Now the low availability of D2 is no longer relevant, in my opinion, since there are so many protons. Concerning the problem of the Coulomb barrier (2), this is a problem faced by Ron's theory, your theory, and everyone else's theory. If you want me to apply this particular point of basic science in determining what to discuss and propose, I'd have to set aside consideration of everything we talk about on this list. But as it happens, Ron's theory does address Coulomb repulsion. Ron says that there is an efficient way to convert photons in the x-ray range into electrostatic repulsion sufficient to drive a nuclear reaction, by way of the Auger process. So what is needed are enough events in which x-ray photons scatter on inner shell Nickel electrons when protons are close by. If Ron's supposition about the Auger mechanism is true, there is a possibility that a sufficient number of protons will receive an electrostatic kick to start moving around at the energies needed for fusion. I think this is basic science, although the basic scientists don't seem to think so. ;) Only then is it worth considering the fast He3, which is not detected. > I am currently tracking down the experimental and theoretical basis for the conclusion that there are no alphas detected in cold fusion experiments. Right now I am reading Peter Hagelstein's papers in JCMNS, vol. 3. So far I am underwhelmed, and the case looks shaky. If you could point me to comparable evidence showing there is no 3He emerging from Ni/H systems, that would be helpful. My suspicion is that people have not yet been systematic about looking for it. > Why would you assume a person who is measuring the mass peak at D2 would > not notice if it started to drop? > You are right to call me out on this. My concern about overlooking a drop in D2 was no doubt misplaced. Eric
