At 2:22 PM 9/16/4, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: >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.
That clearly is the case for the second "WEAK" used by Takahashi (requted below), but not the first. 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] In any case it doesn't really matter. The main point is missed. A 1 percent change in a half life is a significant and easily measurable change. I repeat: 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 itself 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
