On Feb 20, 2008, at 6:19 PM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
Hi,
See my message to vortex-l posted 28 Mar. 2004 in Bill's archive at
http://www.eskimo.com/~bilb/freenrg/vort403.zip
As far as I can tell you do not provide any reason whatever below
that the 12 MeV alphas predicted by the subject theory as the
principal reaction path to *not* be a major problem with the theory.
On the contrary, this is basically just a repetition or variation of
the Chubb theory, which in effect says you do *not* obtain high
energy (MeV order) alphas because of lattice coupling distributing
the energy.
Quote follows:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Mar 28 15:18:11 2004
Received: from ultra5.eskimo.com (IDENT:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [127.0.0.1])
by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i2SNI6th030135;
Sun, 28 Mar 2004 15:18:07 -0800
Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i2SNI4aX030118;
Sun, 28 Mar 2004 15:18:04 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 15:18:04 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: ultra5.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] using -f
From: Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Fw: The myth of lattice coupling and He ratios
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 09:18:00 +1000
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by
ultra5.eskimo.com id i2SNI0th030065
Resent-Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Resent-From: [email protected]
Reply-To: [email protected]
X-Mailing-List: <[email protected]> archive/latest/53785
X-Loop: [email protected]
List-Post: <mailto:[email protected]>
List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
subject=unsubscribe>
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Status: O
X-Status:
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sun, 28 Mar 2004 09:16:03 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sun, 28 Mar 2004 09:16:03 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
>Why penalize good experimental results with a lame theory? The only
unambiguous characteristic of fusion reactions is gamma radiation.
Period.
Yesterday I posted a theoretical mechanism[1] which would result in
energetic alphas (and perhaps energetic electrons) rather than gamma
rays.
1. See thread "Another possible helium producing mechanism"]
>
>If you have no gammas and want to invoke phonon or lattice
coupling, then first set up an experiment where you can show that
nuclear lattice coupling is high probability and happens most of the
time in similar situations.
>
>Unfortunately, the relevant and obvious experiment has been
performed and it is null. When one loads tritium into a Pd lattice,
the decay gammas are still measurable and correlate well with what
theory says they should be - how could this be true if Pd somehow
promotes nuclear lattice coupling? Conclusion: nuclear lattice
coupling is a myth.
It could easily happen, if only a small percentage of the decays
couple to the lattice, while the rest are normal, in which case, one
would be measuring the normal component.
Furthermore, the question needs to be asked, whether or not the "CF
effect" occurred at all in the above experiment? If not, then it is
just one of the many null experiments, and hence contributes nothing
to our overall knowledge.
In order for a change in T decay to be useful, one would need to
determine whether or not there was a decrease in gammas from T decay
while excess heat production / transmutation was in progress.
Even this may not be measurable, since likely only a very small
percentage of the T would be reacting at any one time, and
consequently the change in decay rate would be barely perceptible.
Furthermore, you appear to make the assumption that a tight coupling
would eliminate the gammas. This is not the case, see the Mˆssbauer
effect, in which they are not eliminated, but rather the energy
spectrum shifts.
(BTW if T is used instead of D then there should be spare neutrons
floating around from the reaction T + T -> He4 + 2n. Absorption of
these neutrons by Pd nuclei should result in gammas with a measurably
different energy. This in itself would be a sensitive test to the
presence of a CF reaction, not to mention that the neutrons
themselves should be easily detectable - and dangerous).
[snip]
Blue:
>"What I would suggest is that we need to move beyond the mere
existence of a nuclear-lattice coupling to a discussion of the
quantitative aspects of such couplings. If one assigns an energy
scale to the various known couplings there is a pattern that is worth
noting. The energies involved in nuclear-lattice couplings are not
very big. They don't have very large effects on the nuclear states
involved. Now is such experimental data something we can simply
ignore? I claim that all the experimental data that addresses this
question has to be considered and given weight appropriately along
with the CF calorimetry data. To my mind it defies logic to assert
that this body of experimental data should be ignored in this
discussion. The evidence clearly indicates that nuclear-lattice
couplings are, at most, small perturbations on nuclear states. Is
there anyone who would challenge that statement as a good summary for
the vast
>body of data available?" END of quote
Just because no one previously noticed high energy examples, doesn't
necessarily mean that they are not possible. Furthermore, once the
low energy phenomenon has been recognised, many people tend to
explore it, resulting in a "vast body of data". CF may just be an
example of high energy coupling.
>
>I think anyone can easily see that two points have been made in
this and other related posts (and never countered effectively). The
points are that outside of cold fusion, that nuclear lattice-coupling
is a low energy. low probability phenomenon - far from a "bulk" or
common event. For it to be the prime reason that gammas are not found
would imply that it happens *most of the time* in CF, but nowhere
else in all of physics - as even in the best of circumstances it is a
rare event. Moreover, the 24 MeV photon is so incredibly potent and
detectable (and deadly) that it would stick out like a sore thumb in
situations where many joules of excess heat were released unless the
coupling were nearly absolute.
>
>Bottom line - by invoking lattice coupling, the apologist is
piggybacking one even more debilitating controversy on top of another.
>
>Why penalize your good experimental results with such a lame theory?
>
>Jones
The gist of your argument appears to be that even if such coupling
were possible, then there should still be some reactions producing
detectable gamma rays (correct me if this is not what you were trying
to say).
However this argument assumes that the fusion reactions can occur
without the lattice coupling. That may not be the case. IOW no
coupling -> no reaction, and hence no gamma rays.
The coupling itself may be the very agent of the reaction (as well as
the energy removal mechanism).
You can see this as follows. When a tight couple with the lattice is
established, it very favourably alters the chances of a reaction
taking place. IMO this is most likely because a tight lattice
coupling results in zero or very low *relative* velocity between the
deuterium nuclei, which in turn vastly increases their relative De
Broglie wavelengths, such that these overlap, making tunnelling
possible. Then the same tight couple which brought about the reaction
also distributes the energy of the reaction to the lattice, in the
form of a slight shift in the relative positions of many (millions?)
of lattice atoms. This shift is like stressing a spring, which upon
its release redistributes its stress energy in the form of heat in
the lattice. This may appear self serving, however it seems to me
that it is the very overlap of the De broglie waves which is the
essence of the tight coupling in the first place. It is the "matter
waves" which provide the link between the atoms, hence the mechanism
which makes the fusion reaction possible is precisely the same
mechanism which is responsible for distributing the energy. It is
not really two separate processes, but all part of a single process.
Note that we are talking about a hydrogen (isotope) lattice here,
which explains why high loading is necessary. I.e. at low loading,
there are two many discontinuities in the lattice to provide the
necessary long chains required for a tight coupling (which I envisage
to take place in single rows of atoms).
If this scenario is correct, then high amplitude monotonic sound
waves in the lattice should facilitate CF, due to forced resonance.
Particularly when long wave sound (i.e. low frequency) is used.
There is some evidence for this from the Italian nickel-hydrogen
experiments where they stated that a "sharp blow" was required or
helped, as well perhaps from Russ George's ultrasound results.
Given that loading is greater near the surface, it would seem prudent
to introduce these waves parallel to the surface, thus increasing the
length of chains available.
Regards,
Robin van Spaandonk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
end quote
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
