In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Wed, 20 Feb 2008 21:22:57 -0900: Hi,
The message quoted below was not the message to which I was referring. This message had as subject "Re: Fw: The myth of lattice coupling and He ratios", while the message I was referring to had as subject "Another possible helium producing mechanism". However, in that post, I only proposed a mechanism, and didn't explain why the alphas might not be easily detected. I hope to have given some explanation for this in my other posting this morning. > >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/ > > Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
