In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Wed, 15 Sep 2004 12:56:02 -0800: Hi,
I interpreted the use of the word WEAK to be related to the fact that the effect reported on was only about a 1% change, not to the fact that the weak force was involved. >At 10:34 AM 9/15/4, Jed Rothwell wrote: >>[Takahashi's response.] >> >>Dear Jed: >>Thank you for information. The report about modification of Be-7 (53.1 >>d in half life, Electron-Capture decay to 7Li) in C60 soccer ball >>environment is interesting. But the reaction rate of this WEAK >>interaction change is so WEAK (slow) that intense reaction rates as >>expected to be source of excess heat and He-4 production reactions >>claimed in CF experiments are very hard to realize by such WEAK >>interactions. >>Kind regards, >> >>Akito Takahashi >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >This response is absurd. Takahashi has missed the point of my post >entirely (that is if he even saw my post.) Yes, of course, electron >capture is a weak force mitigated reaction. > >The importance of the experimental result to CF issues lies in the fact >that (orbital) electron probability distribution can be modified via >chemical means enough to significantly and measurably affect nuclear >events. That is to say that the electron probability function can be >significantly modified in that very small volume constituting the nucleus. >The fact that a weak force is involved, a much shorter range force than the >strong force, makes the result all that much *more* significant to CF, >which involves the much longer range strong force. Further, in the case of >deuterium, the even much larger range magnetic force is also involved. The >tunneling probability function for fusion involves much larger ranges than >any weak force interaction, and thus a larger probability summation volume, >a volume which is in proportion to the cube of the range involved. >Further, the catalytic (electron) screening effect involves the volume >between two nuclei, not just the smaller volume in close proximity to a >single nucleus. > >In simpler terms, as related to the DOE review, the argument that chemical >events can not create nuclear events is no longer supported by experimental >evidence. That argument was one of the principle arguments for dismissing >cold fusion as a possibility. Chemically assisted nuclear reactions (CANR) >of a readily measurable half-life are now a proven reality. > >Takahashi is certainly right in that it remains for other (though existing) >evidence to show that strong force reactions can be chemically assisted. >It is also necessary to show why and how branching ratios are changed and >the normal fusion signature products are not produced in CF reactions. >Regardless, CANR itslef is a proven reality. This may not mean much to >Takahashi, who undoubtedly *already* considers CANR to be a proven reality. >However, to the general american scientific establishment, and to the DOE >in particular, this may be head turning news indeed. > >The main point here is that the possibility of CANR can no longer be simply >brushed away by pompus arm waving "experts". > >Regards, > >Horace Heffner > Regards, Robin van Spaandonk Check out http://www.betavote.com/
