Bob
Thanks for your thoughts. I must admit that a mechanism based on
coherence has long been a favoured hypothesis of mine. It is not a
complete coincidence that the company I have formed as a vehicle for
this is called 'Coherent Water Systems'. I have known John Swain for
many years, indeed he was responsible for me being involved in LENR, and
he also strongly advocates mechanisms based on coherence
https://www.scientific.net/KEM.495.124. I also agree with him that such
mechanisms are also likely to be present in biological systems
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0603137.pdf, indeed it is this that was
responsible for us finding ourselves at the same conferences.
There were a number of things that made me start considering
alternatives, particularly the electrospray experiments where the
experimental evidence for energy gain is good - I have been through the
raw data. However its only 1/2 mW and the COP is not wonderful so not
something we will be using in power stations (yet). I feel that the
very directional water jets that seem to be associated with this effect
are telling us something.
Note also the component of my model where the fusion is initiated by the
acceleration of protons through a potential difference is something that
John Swain has also considered (https://www.scientific.net/KEM.644.57).
Nigel
On 29/09/2017 15:53, [email protected] wrote:
Nigel—
I read your paper twice and have the following comments:
1. As Jones points out, hiding .511Mev EM radiation from
electron/positron reactions is not likely IMHO. Therefore I doubt
it occurs during CES.
2. The model which includes high kinetic energy products is also hard
to imagine in the water system without generation of EM radiation
that should be easy to observe. Therefore, I doubt energetic
particles are present in CES.**
3. *I consider that the cavitation produces a coherent system that is
coupled by electric and/or magnetic fields and within a very short
time frame changes its potential energy to phonic (vibrational)
kinetic spin energy of the entire coherent system of the remaining
particles including the electrons.*
4. *As the coherent system collapses, the constituents give up heat
(vibrational L energy--spin energy) to the surround water in a
normal slow transfer of heat and increase of enthalpy.*
5. *Finally, all the model’s assumptions about virtual neutrinos and
other virtual particles are unnecessary and only uggest a
non-real mechanism associated with understanding high energy
physics experiments, not like condensed matter LENR of coherent QM
systems.*
6. *A good model which explains how spin quanta are redistributed
within a coherent system in *_whole number multiples_*of Planck’s
constant divided by 2 pie (h/2pie) is warranted with conservation
of angular momentum and total energy IMHO.*
**
*Bob Cook*
**
**
