Paul Lowrance wrote:
> I guess standard physics states the probabilities exists that a
certain number of fusions occur
at room temperature, but perhaps in extremely low insignificant amounts.
You are leaving out the all-important "threshold" level.
The Boltzmann's tail of the ambient temperature distribution range (300
K.) almost never gets to that threshold level *alone* ... meaning that
the probability of a single fusion event might be once per billion years
or longer - except - for cosmic rays and other stray forms of high
energy radiation which bombard us constantly, and do have the capability
of increasing the ambient fusion rate by trillions of times... not to
mention the occasional neutrino or stray neutron or solar derived
hydrino or nuclear decay.
IOW the extremely low percentage of fusion which does occur "naturally"
can be said to almost never be a function of the Maxwellian temperature
distribution "alone".
You can rationalize this statement - and say that what you mean by
"ambient" includes these other things (cosmic rays, neutrinos, stray
neutrons, radioactive decay of trace isotopes, hydrinos etc.) - so that
it is a bit of a quibble, but the actual source of the effect has great
implications for what you say next.
Therefore it seems reasonable that standard physics acknowledges a
certain amount of fusion at room temperature, but Cold Fusion scientists
are seeing far higher fusion rates. If true, then it's possible mundane
physicists are unaware of such clever designs that could increase such
room temperature fusion probabilities.
Well - that is one way of stating it, but it could be misleading. The
'clever design' is mostly likely to be serendipity, in that we do not
know what is going on in most cases, Widom-Larsen notwithstanding.
It is equally likely to many observers that at least on form of LENR is
premised on a transitory (or permanent if you believe R. Mills)
excursion into into a "below ground state" condition -- IOW a tightly
constrained form of hydrogen has a much higher probability of slipping
"below ground state" and into a geometric condition where its size is
many orders of magnitude less, and its tunneling probability is much
higher.
That is far different from any reliance on a "temperature" effect. The
occasional conversion of that hydrogen shrinkage situation, into a
tinier species which can traverse or tunnel into the geometric range of
the strong nuclear force is in stark contrast to Widom-Larsen, which is
premised on a weak-force effect.
Personally I think both effects, and others, could be at work. And in
any case, I would not give the mainstream such a convenient "out".
Let's face it - the mainstream absolutely 'blew-it' big-time. Too bad
Gene Mallove is not around to enjoy the coming hot-under-the-collar
squirming at his alma mater - MIT, which bears a huge part of the blame
and perhaps has given to our friends at OPEC 15-20 years of obscene
profits, compared to 'what could have been'.
I will now relinquish this 'soap box' to anyone who wants to defend the
physic's mainstream.
Jones
