At 10:35 PM 7/10/2009, you wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
> So why does Takahashi not mention the words "Bose-Einstein
condensate," which is what the TSC seems to be?
... not cold enough ?
> And why does Kim not mention Takahashi, his prior experimental work, and
his theory?
... professional jealousy ?
> Have I got this wrong? Is the TSC not a Bose-Einstein condensate?
If a transitory high temperature version of the BEC is possible, then yes,
this could be possible, and would serves to answer a lot of questions.
However there are other hypothetical ways for four nuclei to condense.
AFAIK there is zero real proof that a BEC is possible at anywhere near
300-400 K, although that hypothesis has been mentioned as far back as 1992,
if not earlier. Proof always seems to get in the way.
I think the temperature is misleading. What matters is the *relative*
energies of the two molecules; if they happen to have low relative
energy -- the opposite of what we thought would be needed! --, they
are as if at very low temperature.
In other words, what we think of as a BEC, as a bulk phenomenon,
requires very low temperatures. However, if all we are considering is
two molecules, can those two condense in the same manner as a BEC? I
don't see why not, but, then again, I really don't know enough to do
more than ask a few questions.
However, there is another possibility that goes back to the geometry you
mentioned - the tetrahedron, which is one of nature's most favored
structures. That hypothesis is even further out, but possibly no more of a
stretch than a hot BEC.
Yes, the tetrahedron is important, particularly with respect to
confinement by a cubic lattice.
Although the tetrahedron has no orthocenter in the sense of intersecting
altitudes, there is a 'virtual' center known as the Monge point which could
conceivably hold or even 'entice' a strong negative charge - via the four
nuclei at the vertex getting into some kind of resonance in a tight matrix
situation. The central virtual charge would need to be Spin 1 and not a
lepton, or else a bound pair of leptons. Long before P&F, when Aspden had a
little more credibility than he does these days (due to 40 years of few
confirming experiments) he was talking about bound dual virtual muons. This
citation will be hard to find: H. Aspden: "Physics without Einstein"
(Sabberton, Southampton, 1969)
He was able to tie it all mathematically into the fine structure constant;
and that virtual muon pair might work as an agent of condensation or Coulomb
shield or whatever - for four tetrahedral deuterons in an alternative TSC.
Far enough out there for you?
Takahashi includes the electrons in his analysis. It's important:
what we have isn't simply four deuterons, it's two deuterium
molecules, arranged crosswise for maximum packing efficiency into a
cube. That puts the deuterons into a tetrahedron, one each at the
center of four opposing faces of the cube, or, because of the
electronic binding of the molecule, inward toward the center of the cube.
Whatever the configuration is, it would obviously be quite rare, if
Takahashi's calculations are accurate. He doesn't seem to try to
calculate the efficiency of formation of the TSC, as far as I've
seen, just what happens if if the tetrahedral configuration forms. My
guess is that this would require very low relative velocities of the
deuterium molecules and the lattice, which just may explain the
rarity. It's just due to the distribution of velocities. While this
might seem to predict higher fusion at lower temperatures, perhaps
there are other factors, such as flow rate through the lattice,
dissociation rates and exact dissociation mechanism, etc, that work
in the other direction.
Hey, let's face it - there is nothing that works to everyone's satisfaction.
The best thing about Aspden is that he is (was) able to find all sorts of
strange coincidental values that align ... for (probably) unrelated reasons
... or not.
Thanks for the consideration. I've seen some very superficial (but
tentative) dismissals of TSC theory that aren't explained well
enough. For example, you mention temperature, but, as I think I've
pointed out, that does actually lead to a rejection of the theory, it
would merely indicate that it would be rare. Which we know it is.
The other rejection reason I've seen is that the theory predicts most
energy goes into alpha particles at 23.8 MeV and supposedly this
would cause secondary reactions. But my understanding is that those
secondary reactions are, in fact, observed, so where is the beef? Is
there some quantitative analysis that indicates otherwise? Detecting
the full alpha radiation is quite difficult, most of it is absorbed
pretty quickly, in a very short distance. Is there less
Bremsstrahlung radiation than would be predicted? Perhaps the depth
in the lattice is important; I've been assuming it's a purely surface
phenomenon, but it might be that some of the molecules survive into a
bit deeper in the lattice, how much is known about the exact
dissociation process? *Where* do the molecules break up? If it were
buried in the lattice a bit, that would cause more loss of alpha
energy to the lattice.
