----- Original Message ----- From: "Horace Heffner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 4:57 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Deflation Fusion
> > 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. (I don't have the skills to tell whether your e-catalyzed fusion theory (ECFT) is different from other ECFTs, I take your word for it, my point was that there must be a wave function collapse whenever two particles fuse, including in classical nucleus-nucleus tunneling, so the term is not distinctive, but it's a minor point) I am more interested in the engineering aspects, do your designs actually depend on your ECFT, i.e. wouldn't they work if another ECFT was the correct one? >> 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. You may have misunderstood. I was referring to the earlier drawing, copied below for convenience, in which the _relative_ voltages are the same as in the present drawing: polarizing electrode is at +HV _wrt the cathode_, whether cathode is grounded and polarizing electrode is at +HV wrt ground as in the earlier drawing, or cathode is at -HV wrt ground and polarizing electrode is grounded as in the present drawing, so in both cases the cathode backside will be _negatively_ charged, and by the same amount (C*HV) agreed? <QUOTE earlier drawing> GGGGGGGGGGGG G G G G G G G G | + X|G G++ |..+..........X|G G++ | + X|G G++ | + X|G G++ | + X|G G++ ---------------|G G |G G |G G |G G |G G |GGGGGGGGGGGG | Laser Key: -| - Thin glass G - Surface of thick insulator + - Low voltage electrolysis anode X - Thin film CF cathode at ground potential ++ - High voltage anode .. - Electrolyte level Figure 1 - High electron fugacity experiment <END QUOTE> >> - 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. Right but in virtue of the Gauss theorem, applied to a small box whose side walls are perpendicular to the metal surface and whose other two walls are parallel to it, one of area A right outside the metal, and the other of area A' anywhere inside it, the electric field right outside the surface determines exactly the surface charge density sigma, as follows: Net charge in the box = sigma*A = Eout*A - Ein*A' = Eout*A - 0*A' = Eout*A So high field right outside the metal = high density of excess electrons at its surface, agreed? > 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. By "discard it" do you mean the figure or the whole dielectric polarization scheme? Make sure you don't discard your best idea! > 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. I read it, rapidly admittedly but it didn't seem to contain the answers to my above questions. Michel
