2005 New Year's Predictions

[Jones Beene]

2005 New Year's Predictions (from the Fringe)   Everyone else seems to be doing it...  jumping the calendar gun by a week in order to get their prediction in ahead of the rest. Here are three predictions that you will see nowhere else but from the Perpmo fringe.   I predict that when all is said and done: nuclear fusion - of either the cold or hot variety will be shown to be a pure statistical phenomenon that is independent of any "threshold" temperature ...   Now that does not at first seem to be saying a lot... except for the realization that if one were to poll all nuclear scientists, there would be almost universal agreement that it is false.   They are wrong.   What I am essentially saying is that temperature, or its equivalent, plays the single role in fusion of increasing the time-delineated probability of a reaction, and that is all. There is NO threshold temperature. Other ways to increase probability are as effective as high temperature, maybe more so.   Related prediction:   The indicia of nuclear fusion are dependent upon the confinement regime at the time of fusion.   Now that does not at first seem to be saying a lot... except for the realization that if one were to poll all nuclear scientists, there would be almost universal agreement that it is false.   Again, they are wrong.   The indicia of fusion, and in particular the appearance of neutrons or so-called "signature" photons, are only indicative of the confinement regime at the time of fusion. These can vary all over the place, depending on confinement issues.   No more than one in a thousand "experts" would buy either of these predictions at the end of 2004, and I will have the greatest delight in presenting this posting to the one who "discovers" the truth and publishes it as his own breakthrough, but alas, it may not be in 2005. BTW I do not claim either insight as "my "insight - both are obvious to any observer from nearly 15 years of LENR research and analysis.   Third Prediction   This one may actually happen this year. The application of a strong magnetic field in the range of 10,000-40,000 Gauss, when crossed orthogonal to the normal electric field of a CF cell, will increase the probability of deuterium fusion at lower temperature significantly, and will allow for the triad fusion of helium (3 He --> C) in a confined matrix, as well.   Now that last sentence is an eye-opener, correct? Yes I know that magnetic have been tried, but with mixed success, but here is the case for a real threshold, having to do with the complex issues of nucleon alignment, resulting in partial Coulomb nullification, as Frederick Sparber has been posting for sometime.   Again I would like to express the semi-humor of this situation (i.e. the "fringe" having to be enlisted to re-educate the mainstream) with an update of the  "Farside criteria" ... named in honor of that imaginative creator of animal "experts" Gary Larson.     The   "Farside criteria" ... or  Larson vs Lawson Lawson's Criteria is universally accepted in nuclear physics circles as defining the minimum criteria under which nuclear fusion can occur. But the formula depends on untenable assumptions and juvenile mistakes. Lawson (and almost all mainstream experts in 2004) will agree that Density (particles/cm3) times confinement Time (sec) = 10^16 (Deuterium-Deuterium fusion) must reach this minimum value at a threshold temperature (for every particular kind of fusion). One can vary either the density or the confinement time, but not the threshold temperature, according to the mainstream.   Without the "threshold," which is the error in this bogus but universally accepted "rule" (it is not quite a law), it can easily be shown that temperature/density/time recalibration below the threshold will also serve to make-up for the relatively low ignition temperature of LENR in what I am calling "the Farside criteria for LENR". As you notice, I am taking the radical leap of saying that a temperature "threshold" is not accurate but that the threshold is merely a time-delineated measure of the probability of deuterons getting close enough to each other - so effective pressure can substitute for temperature. Also important is the nucleon alignment at the very instant of close proximity. This factor can be altered by an applied magnetic field. But unlike the situation in a Tokomak, the magnetic field MUST be orthogonal to electric field for any benefit to accrue.   Also, most CF reactions of this type in a Pd matrix are likely to be multi-body reactions and furthermore, the accelerating gradient is NVE pressure - which is the thermo-electric enhancement to Casimir-like pressure which operates on excitons of a specific geometry. That was a conclusion from a previous posting which will not be repeated in detail in this one. Pd has a density of  20 gm/cc (and has 106.4 Atm wt), this gives 5E^21 Pd atoms/cc and at 1:1 overall loading the number of deuterons is astronomical compared to Lawson's wimpy plasma density.  There is thus an effective gain in density of Lawson-like criteria over that of hot-fusion of upwards to 10E^17  particle per unit area. Plus, have most observers the importance of the time factor in must be included. When a CF reaction doesn't show much effect for a couple of days, could it mean that the particle [virtual temperature x time] factor is off by a factor of nearly a billion (50 hrs = 180,000 sec which gives CF initiation almost a billion times more statistical *time* i.e. comparing this particular factor to the 200 microseconds of the hot fusion variety). Yesterday, Frederick Sparber and I had a dialog about the magnetic enhancement, and disagree on the minimum magnetic field which will make a substantial difference. Fred believes that the field requirement is low enough so that strong permanent magnets might do the trick. I have a different premise based on diamagnetic issues (not ready for publication yet) but considering the total magnetic package of a deuterium or helium filled matrix, I do not believe that permanent magnets can provide enough field strength, except perhaps very close to the magnet surface - which for NIB magnets could be up to 12,000 Gauss. Under my assumptions, it would seem like one needs about 14,000 for deuterium and over 40,000 for helium in order to get a significant reduction in Coulomb nullification, but this is doable and with deuterium with a crossed-field electromagnet drawing no more than a few hundred watts. Anyway, my easy-to-marginalize expectation/prediction is that in the coming year or two, Larson and his "Farside" contingent of fringe pathological Perpmos will "rule" over Lawson and his cadre of well-trained monkeys.   But will anyone notice?   Jones