On Jul 16, 2009, at 6:54 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
I know nothing about theory, but anyway Akito Takahashi sent a
message to Horace Heffner and me:
Actually, he is apparently sending it to me through you. I am very
grateful it is in pdf form.
I was actually aware he was planning a presentation along these
lines, but could not discuss it.
I note first in going through the slides, at slide (page) 8, that he
says "No forces to change BRS [branching ratios] have ever been
proposed!". This is not true. I proposed such a force. See:
H. Heffner, Infinite Energy (I.E.), Volume 14, Issue 80, July/August
2008,
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/HeffnerIE80.pdf
The force I proposed was the Coulomb force, which exists from a small
wavelength electron within the He* nucleus that occurs as a result of
electron catalyzed fusion, specifically deflation fusion in my case,
and which reduces the kinetic energy sufficiently to largely prevent
all but the D + D -> He branch. Further, the energy from each fusion
is not fixed, but a random distribution, with 23.8 MeV being only an
upper bound of the distribution. Also, the trapped catalytic
electron radiates away energy from He* nucleus, eliminating the
theoretical need for a large adjacent lattice to absorb the radiation
in a coordinated fashion.
I wish Takahashi the best on developing a proven and accepted model.
Some of the branches of Be8* look interesting, especially in view of
the presence of multiple particle types observed in the CR-39 of
SPAWAR experiments.
That said, I suspect some resistance to accepting his model may come
from the premise in slide (page) 19, namely that 4 D + 4 e can
squeeze into a tetrahedral site, under 3 dimensional symmetric
constraint, to form a very small charge neutral Pseudo-Particle.
There are a number of problems with this. First is the difficulty
that a single hydrogen atom consumes enough of the room in the
lattice that its electron orbital can not fully form. The electron
must be shared with the conduction bands. The electron orbitals in
molecular hydrogen are much smaller, but a hydrogen molecule only
fits inside the tetrahedral site with a few percent lattice
expansion. It is difficult to accept that not only one, but two
molecules of hydrogen can occupy a tetrahedral site prior to forming
the condensate.
One resolution to this site occupation difficulty is to assume one of
the molecules tunnels into the site. This has the problem that it is
energetically unfavorable unless it happens in a condensed form, i.e.
(2 D + 2 e) -> 2 (D+e)*, where (2 D + 2 e) is a molecule and (D+e)*
is a charge neutral pseudo-particle. If (D+2)* can form in this way,
or 2(D+2)* in one location, then there is no need for the hypothesis
of the formation of Be*. The necessary ingredients for cold fusion
are already present, including the small wavelength electron which
can radiate away the fusion energy and dismiss the need for the two
product particles, i.e. two alphas, to conserve momentum. The two
product particle formation was one of the primary benefits of the
Be8* formation theory, because it eliminated the need to explain how
the D + D -> He branch could become dominant, and without a 23.8 MeV
gamma. However, with one or more electrons in the activated nucleus,
there is no longer any need for two product particles. I would also
note that if a (D + e)* or 2(D+e)* pseudo particle can form, then my
model, and many others, have greatly increased credibility. Most
theories need at least one "miracle" to work, and the existence of
one of these pseudo-particles is typically one of the miracles required.
Another resolution is the hypothesis that a BEC forms in the vicinity
and the 4 hydrogen atom wave functions overlap at the tetrahedral
site, followed by a wave function collapse that forms the Be8*. One
problem with this is the fact phonons will disrupt such large BECs.
The more atoms required for the BEC, the lower its probability of
formation in a room temperature lattice. Another problem is it has
been noted that CF seems to increase in warmer lattices. This would
tend to deny the involvement of large BECs in the CF mechanism.
Another problem is the tendency for the location of like charged
particles in a single wave function to be co-dependent, i.e. distant
from each other. Wave function collapse of a multi-atom hydrogen
BEC would thus tend to not create a single multi-nucleus particle.
The large BEC wave function would not be constrained by the size of
the tetrahedral site wave function.
Perhaps these kinds of objections can be readily overcome. However,
my imperfection and bias are showing because I prefer to accept the
miracles required for my own model. I expect others will suffer from
the same imperfections, as it has been the norm that people have
tended to stick to their own pet beliefs and theories regarding CF.
I expect it is going to take some pretty dramatic proof to advance
any model or theory for CF.
In any case it looks like it will be a very interesting presentation,
and I hope it will be well received.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Dear Horace,
Accidentally I saw your comments on my TSC model, in Vortex-1 blog.
The final state interaction of 4D to Be-8* to break-up channels is
very complex. I am still studying it, and will report some results
in the Rome ICCF15 meeting.
Please consider the attached slides.
Slide #37 is the predicted charged particle energies. The 23.8 MeV
alpha emission channel is now becoming non-major channel!
Best regards,
Akito Takahashi
[email protected]
[email protected]
I uploaded the slides here:
Takahashi, A. Deuterons-to-4He Channels (PowerPoint slides). in The
13th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science.
2007. Sochi, Russia.
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/TakahashiAdeuteronst.pdf
- Jed
