Horace Heffner wrote:
Lots of updates have occurred to the Deflation Fusion article, which is
now at Draft #20.
Horace,
Nice argument and presentation, even though some will remain
unconvinced. Please do not take the following as being overly critical.
There is deep thinking involved on your part, which should not be
minimized, and perhaps the objections voiced below are asking too much
at this juncture (but after all, it is up to #20 ;-)
FWIW, let me state these objections from the perspective of an observer
who believes in the reality of LENR, but favors an alternative but
admittedly less developed and more nebulous modus operandi, not
involving a resort to nearly unmeasurable time scale. The last being
more of a problem with 'falsifiability' than anything else.
First, the best part of the argument is the wave-function material, and
the experiment which derives from the argument. Every good hypothesis
should come with a suggested experiment designed to test it. If anything
it would not hurt to expound on those point and especially the
wave-function (should you move to #21, which no doubt is already in
progress ;-)
The main problem there, which is somewhat glossed over, is the vast
decrease in probability (in general) of multi-body reactions, over
two-body reactions. This is also a problem for some of Mills' arguments.
Is there any more specific (to your model) factor which alters this
normal expectation, and if so- that should be emphasized. You kind of
hit on it in the bit about the "multi-stage" process, and high volume of
interactions, but that would be arguably true under any circumstances
(any model) it would seem. And "multiple stages" itself is incompatible
with the notion of such a short lifetime, unless reaching one plateau
somehow extends the lifetime above the attosecond scale.
Anyway, my main problem in general (coming from the POV of a
fence-straddler on both the Mills' hydrino and the Dufour hydrex) is
that you have not made a convincing argument about how, exactly, your
model is very different (other than a much shorter time scale). Maybe
the time scale is enough, but to me it simply suggests a predecessor
state of hydrex, for instance.
To be rigorous, my suggestion (swish list) is to take each of the
alternatives:
1) hydrino (or Robin's faux variation)
2) hydrex
3) protoneutron
4) di-neutron
5) Widom/Larsen
... and at least give a little detail on the pluses and minuses of each
wrt to the deflated hydrogen model. To say that the main difference is
an existence in the attosecond time frame, to my thinking, not a
sufficient clarification.
I know that this request is kind of a desire for 'pablumization' and is
more of a personal "wish list" and not easily doable; but it is obvious
that your have considered these things much more deeply than have most
of us - yet, it is a pity to finish reading and not be able to be more
convinced of what it is that leads up to the experiment you have designed.
Obviously, if an apparatus is build and works better than expected then
that is a clear indication that you have understood this very well.
Hopefully that will happen.
But for those of us who want 'instant gratification' and a magical flash
of transfered insight - without the wait <G> then the connections
leading from the hypothesis to the experiment are not obvious.
However, let me add -FWIW- that the whole thing with Calcium oxide is
most interesting in the wider context of other (ostensibly) non-LENR
experiments (Reiter, Nagle) and also the recent revelation of the vastly
increased output in the Stanley Meyer type of electrolysis cell,
following a condition regime for the plates. This is a conditioning
regime which consists of a surface layer of CaO, and would be expected
to happen over time anyway. It is likely that Meyer himself was not
aware of it, and that some of his later inability to reproduce his early
results is due to CaO! That of course, could be a 'red herring' but
there is something about CaO and hydrogen which begs for more complete
understanding and since you included it - why not develop that to the limit?
Anyway - most provocative. Keep up the good work!
Jones
