On Aug 8, 2007, at 2:07 AM, Michel Jullian wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Horace Heffner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 2:46 AM
Subject: [Vo]:Deflation Fusion
FWIW, recent notes on cathode design based on inflation fusion
"deflation fusion" you mean, you named it thus in reference to wave
function collapse I believe, of course it's only a name but since
wave function collapse occurs whatever the fusion scheme (or
doesn't it?), it is unclear to me how the term is scheme-specific.
The term is scheme specific in that, unlike ordinary fusion, which is
nucleus-nucleus tunneling, deflation fusion is a multi-body wave
function collapse event which includes one or more electrons. Is is
in effect electron catalyzed fusion, but is clearly distinguished on
page 1 of:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DeflationFusion.pdf
from the two commonly discussed electron catalyzed or "electron
screening" type of events. It is further distinguished by a change
in branching ratios, and by the environment in which it is likely to
occur. It is hopefully a concept that describes or elucidates the
true nature of cold fusion, and thereby makes engineering feasible
where other concepts have so far failed in that regard. Time will
tell on that.
Haven't come to terms with your gas loaded back side scheme yet,
some comments regarding your dielectric back side scheme:
- Have you shifted all electric potentials downwards by the same
amount in figure 1, or is it my imagination? If so what difference
does it make, apart from making the HV supply harder to come by
(+HV supplies can be found in all cathode ray tube devices) and
making the device generally more awkward to handle?
The positively charged cell is a control, the negatively charged cell
is the live experiment.
- It might be a good idea to give the equation for the back side
surface charge density, and compare it with the front side surface
density achieved in prior art (it is not completely obvious to me
that it is better actually, considering that electric field is
considerably enhanced by the low radius of curvature at the shaft
and tip of codeposited dendrites on the front side)
This is a very good point, though I must note it is not the field
that counts, but the number of excess electrons. I was never happy
with Figure 1 anyway because it is obvious the plating will peal.
The high potential field was to be provided by the laser. I just
haven't taken the time to fix Figure 1 up with something better, but
which is also strongly linked to the Szpak cell, which has shown a
high degree of repeatability. My quick fix to the situation was in
the text right below (and in prior vortex posts): "Figure 1 is
intended to be a quick start experimental concept close to that of
the Szpak cell. A better quick-start idea may be to co-deposit wire
and place it up against CR-39 just as in the Szpak cell. Then put a
seal (silicone or wax) around the CR-39 and then a thicker electrical
barrier if needed behind that, prior to the HV ground electrode. If
using a laser is desired it can be applied from the top side -
through the electrolyte. This still leaves room to apply a magnetic
field from the side."
The deflation fusion concepts go well beyond Fig. 1. It may be best
to just discard it. In any case, the entire article needs a rewrite,
but I just don't have time right now. Despite the various article
shortcomings, the concepts are there for folks to use if they choose.
Based on your questions, I think it might be useful to you to read
the article through. Thee has been much editing and there were many
mistakes in the article. It is a lot to ask, given it is in a
foreign language, but it this may be a good time to do it.
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
