Are deuterons pushing at the surface boundary from the deuterons own mutual repulsion? I am not sure why the deuterons are trying to get out of the lattice once they are inside the lattice.
Harry On 3/10/2007 10:22 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: > Indeed after it crosses the surface the squirting deuteron decelerates under > the pull of the electron layer and the repulsion of its hydrated colleagues > looming there (analogue = elastic band at back of ball tied to the lattice > decelerating the ball after it squirts out) but this loss of KE occurring > _after_ the fusion opportunity (the crossing of the electron layer) we don't > care, what matters is its energy _at_ the fusion opportunity. > > Of course if the timing is perfect and the screening electron is trapped > exactly at the midpoint between the fusion candidates no energy at all is > required, the deuterons being pulled to the electron with a force which > overcomes their mutual repulsion by a factor of 4 (half the distance, inverse > square law). The hypothesized complement of energy due to the squirting would > be useful for opportunities which are only near perfect, which are of course > much more numerous. > > Also it is likely that the deuterons, whether deloading or incident, will > rebound back to where they come from, and back again until they catch an > electron (more likely) or fuse (less likely), this may multiply the fusion > opportunities. > > Michel > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Harry Veeder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 8:18 PM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: #CF hypothesis (was Re: surface electron layer catalyzed > fusion hypothesis) > > > wouldn't the ball ultimately loose energy to the lattice as it squirts out? > > Harry > > > On 2/10/2007 8:38 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: > >> Mmmm... more like a tennis ball in a tight lattice of basketballs pressed >> against each other, with the elastic constrictions of the lattice (the >> passages between the interstitial sites and ultimately towards the surface) >> smaller than the ball. The ball, pushed from behind by other balls, squirts >> out. >> >> Michel >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Harry Veeder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: <[email protected]> >> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 8:32 PM >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: #CF hypothesis (was Re: surface electron layer >> catalyzed >> fusion hypothesis) >> >> >> Is a balloon expelling gas a suitable analogue? >> >> Harry >> >> On 30/9/2007 3:17 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: >> >>> Yes, much better, thank you. Elastic constriction expulsion. All that is >>> needed now is to translate this to eV :-) >>> >>> Michel >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Harry Veeder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 10:31 AM >>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: #CF hypothesis (was Re: surface electron layer >>> catalyzed >>> fusion hypothesis) >>> >>> >>> If, as you say below, the deuteron is 'expelled' then wouldn't it be more >>> consistent to say 'expulsion' instead of 'propulsion'? >>> >>> Harry >>> >>> >>> On 30/9/2007 1:16 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: >>> >>>> I guess you mean venturi in relation with the flow restriction. >>>> >>>> Following Harry's remark in the spin thread, how about "elastic >>>> constriction >>>> propulsion"? >>>> >>>> Seriously, anyone got an idea of how much energy this can put into the >>>> expelled deuteron or how it could be calculated? >>>> >>>> Michel >>>> >>>> P.S. Tsss, "Could it get us to Uranus", can't get over this one Terry :-) >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Jones Beene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> To: <[email protected]> >>>> Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 4:39 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: #CF hypothesis (was Re: surface electron layer >>>> catalyzed >>>> fusion hypothesis) >>>> >>>> >>>> Ha! "sphincter propulsion" Luv it... >>>> >>>> ... don't think anyone has evoked that exact wording before, but lest >>>> the skeptics out there latch-onto to something derogatory like >>>> "toilet-fizzix", can we just call it "venturi propulsion" or something a >>>> little less organic? >>>> >>>> Jones >>>> >>>> Michel Jullian wrote: >>>>> (#CF = DIESECF Desorbing-Incident Excess Surface Electron Catalyzed >>>>> Fusion, >>>>> # >>>>> being "dièse" in French) >>>>> >>>>> As I suggested to someone in a private message a few weeks ago, I think >>>>> the >>>>> desorbing deuteron must have more energy than that due to its free fall in >>>>> the electron layer's electric field, in the form of a "sphincter >>>>> contraction" >>>>> like expulsion energy (sorry for the gruesome image). This would be due to >>>>> the elastic nature of the Pd crystal which could be expected to >>>>> re-contract >>>>> locally with the participation of a large number of surface Pd atoms after >>>>> the deuteron's passage. This kinetic energy could be a welcome complement >>>>> to >>>>> the electron layer's screening effect. >>>>> >>>>> This complementary effect could explain why CF occurs with Pd and D, with >>>>> Ni >>>>> (tighter lattice) and H (protium), but not (or less) e.g. with Pd and H, >>>>> because the smaller protium would flow "too easily" (with less sphincter >>>>> propulsion) out of the relatively roomy Pd lattice. >>>>> >>>>> Hope this makes some sense. Do let me know anyone if this sphincter aspect >>>>> of >>>>> hydrogen nuclei expulsion has been evoked before and/or quantified. >>>>> >>>>> Michel >>>>> >>>>> P.S. Of course the whole hypothesis, which I have presented in essentially >>>>> classical terms (my apologies to "real" theoreticians for that), will have >>>>> to >>>>> be translated to quantum physics language and quantified before it can be >>>>> considered a proper theory. This will be done IF --big if-- it is >>>>> confirmed >>>>> experimentally, there being obviously little point in theorizing further >>>>> if >>>>> it is proved wrong. >>> >> >
