On Sep 16, 2007, at 7:30 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
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 ;-)
Yes, lots of drafts, lots more to come, hopefully. That's partly
because I have very little time to work on this right now. I will
continue to update regularly because my life expectancy may be
inversely proportional to the apparent significance of the work.
8^) I still haven't written the summary section that lays out the
engineering principles, as promised at the front of the paper. The
experiments and cell design types I'm not happy with yet and probably
should go into another paper anyway.
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.
The above statement implies there is some choice in how nature
works. There is a difference between describing a natural mechanism,
phenomenon, and then using it to design something useful. The
natural mechanism exists as is. We have no choice about that. Our
only choice is how approximate a model is used to describe the
phenomenon. The better the model the better the ability to engineer
intended results. The description is science, the application is
engineering.
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.
You seem to be overlooking the high probability of the deflated
hydrogen state.
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.
There is no need to extend the *lifetime* of the deflated state. In
fact, that is likely impossible, due to Heisenberg considerations.
What is engineered is its probability, i.e. its frequency of
existence. There is a limit to the amount of time energy can be
borrowed for an event, but the rate at which energy can be
repetitively borrowed is apparently astronomical.
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.
The difference will be in which concepts are ultimately proved to be
right, to actually exist, and to be practical to utilize.
To say that the main difference is an existence in the attosecond
time frame, to my thinking, not a sufficient clarification.
Again, you are overlooking the astronomical effective frequency of
occurrence of the deflated hydrogen state, even when the hydrogen
nucleus is in a molecular site. It is a ghost-like alternate
existence for the nucleus. This state can be thought of as (1)
providing a tunneling target for hydrogen otherwise diffusing through
the lattice, and (2) having its own probability of tunneling as a
combined electron-nucleus body. The fact the deflated state entity
is neutral greatly affects the probability of a given tunneling
outcome being within fusion range. It significantly reduces the
width of the Coulomb barrier - and in fact momentarily makes it
disappear, makes it irrelevant. This enormously increases the
probability of a fusion event.
A hydrogen nucleus diffusing through a lattice does so by tunneling
from its occupied site to a vacant site. Tunneling to an adjacent
unoccupied site is energetically favorable for a hydrogen occupying a
site adjacent to multiple occupied sites, i.e. in a high fugacity
environment. An adjacent site occupied by a deflated state hydrogen
nucleus provides a tunneling opportunity for a hydrogen nucleus
because the Coulomb barrier is down with some probability. If the
tunneling event occurs, but not to a locus close enough to cause
fusion (which is not possible when the Coulomb barrier is up), then
when the deflated nucleus is unveiled, the hydrogen tunneling event
can be reversed, or the tunneling chain of events is moved forward to
a lower fugacity site, or fusion can occur by a follow-on tunneling
event. In a fully loaded environment, a momentarily unoccupied cell
will have multiple candidates likely to tunnel simultaneously into
it. If one or more of the tunneling candidates tunnel in deflated
state, or if the cell is not actually unoccupied but merely occupied
by a deflated state nucleus (which appears to the neighboring nuclei
as unoccupied), then deflation fusion opportunities are maximal.
The deflation fusion model provides a set of principles for
increasing fusion likelyhood: (1) maximize the *combined* fugacity
and diffusion rate (neither is useful without the other), (2)
maximize orbital stress to increase the probability of the deflated
state, and (3) maximize electron fugacity in order to increase the
electron quantum states, i.e. aggregate electron energies, and thus
further objectives (1) and (2) as well as provide an energy focusing
effect. It further appears providing periodic barriers to the
conduction band electrons increases LENR probability. This either
(a) increases the probability of multiple nuclei tunneling to common
electron or, more likely, (b) necessitates tunneling through the
barrier in deflated state, thus maximizing the chances of a Coulomb
barrier defeating event.
The backside de-loading scheme, in various incarnations, was designed
to achieve the all above objectives simultaneously. High temperature
loading, followed by cooling to some extent, is designed to
especially achieve (2), while also increasing thermodynamic
efficiency and choice of lattice materials. High electrical
resistance of the hot lattice, combined with a strong through-lattice-
current driven diffusion then fulfill the other objectives.
The above explanations are expressed in a serialized Newtonian form,
so as to be understandable. It may well be that in reality these
things only exist as potentialities, amplitudes which result in final
outcomes with some probability based on simultaneous multiple complex
inputs. A step-wise process model gives us a comfortable means of
understanding that which is otherwise too complex to comprehend or
describe.
[snip]
Anyway - most provocative. Keep up the good work!
Thanks.
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
