----- Original Message ----- From: "thomas malloy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 7:50 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Electron fugacity, deuteron fugacity, and applied fields
> Michel Jullian wrote: > >>Thanks Horace for the explanations, it seems to me "higher electron density = >>higher probability of electron screening" is what they boil down to, which >>makes sense, let me >> > I've got to hand it to you Michel, you're a brilliant theorist. Thanks for the kind words Thomas but they couldn't be more undeserved as all the stuff you quote below is Horace's. So I'll let him answer your questions, but regarding the QM effect called tunneling (so called because it consists in a particle "digging a tunnel" --more like teleporting actually-- through a potential barrier rather than going over it as it would have to do in classical theory) I can assure you it's quite real indeed, it occurs all the time, including in hot fusion (if it wasn't for this effect the relative particle velocity required for fusion would be much higher and the alignment of the trajectories would have to be much more precise). Michel > The > question is can you produce any of these phenomena? > > You wrote, > > The concept of electron screening is that orbital electron >> waveforms permit two nuclei to get close enough together that one >> nucleus can, with useful probability (half-life) tunnel to the >> other. > > So you can manipulate the form of the electron? > > This kind of fusion might be expected to have >> ordinary branching ratios. > > Please explain how these branching ratio affect fusion? > > electron fugacity >> concept is a 3 body fusion concept, a concept involving simultaneous >> 2 body tunneling, though possibly involving a short wavelength >> electron at some point. > > So, they want to come together, the two bodies, and the electrons facilitate > this? I'm reminded of a lecture I attended, it was given by the physicist > Bill Overn. Bill is an advocate of Classical Mechanics and rejects Quantum > Theory, which I assume includes tunneling. I'm wondering if perhaps this > paradigm might prove useful in understanding the phenomena? > > Simultaneous 2 >> body tunneling is not an uncommon concept, and in fact occurs with >> approximately 50 percent probability in Josephson junctions. > > Interesting observation. It reminds me that the physicist Harold Aspden, is > interested in Josephson Junctures. I'll mention this to Bill.
