Jones, As you know, the late Dr. Robert Carroll applied for a patent on fusion close to Absolute Zero. We have a copy of the patent application. I'm home for the weekend, but if memory serves it was filed during the 1960s.
I'll dig it out next week. Mark --- On Sat, 8/29/09, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: From: Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> Subject: RE: [Vo]:Commercial cold fusion proposal, should be immediately practical. To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Saturday, August 29, 2009, 8:45 AM One detail - possibly relevant to this thread, which came up in another discussion, and which jogged my memory is the further implications for LENR which can be "reinterpreted" from the famous Alvarez experiment. In fact, it is clear that low temperature d-d fusion happened long before P&F - and had already been observed in bubble chambers at near absolute zero, and up to room temp - and that two D atoms in a molecule (already at close range) fuse into an alpha particle with a 5.5 MeV gamma ray. The gamma is far lower in energy than a 'hot fusion' variety [is that related to energy being deposited in the catalyst?] Since there was a catalyst in this experiment (the muon), few have made the cross-over connection of the Alvarez work and what occurred in 1989. In P&F fusion there could also been a catalytic reaction (as opposed to a participant reactant) and which catalyst is massive, relative to the electron, but having a negative near-field, so that it can act as a catalyst. In fact, P&F were said to have been motivated by a rumored announcement from their Utah neighbor, relative to muon fusion. Irony of ironies. What if in another decade or two of knocking out heads against a wall - it turns out that they had actually witnessed a new kind of catalytic fusion, wherein the catalyst is so energy deficient (or oscillatory) that it would absorb most, but not all of the excess energy? Had P&F seen the 5.5 MeV signature, or the higher one, then they would have known immediately what the reaction was, but with no apparent signature ... well... the rest is history, as they say. This D+D fusion result in the early sixties was essentially one of the Alvarez bubble chamber experiments which led to his Nobel Prize in 1968. The muon is a short lived catalyst so its spin is not relevant, in my understanding at least, and it would be hard to commercialize in any event. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion In LENR how much attention has been given to the possibility that the effect could also be catalytic but not a muon (in fact a known but 'hidden' catalyst) ? This catalyst is NOT likely to be the hydrino [maybe the hydride however], nor does it fit the hydrex scenario. It would be a hypothetical catalyst - perhaps not unlike but a longer lived Tau (tauon), and it might, or might not, be a lepton. It would need to have a negative near-field, one could surmise. Given that every permutation and combination of possibilities has already been mentioned in LENR, it would not be a surprise if this mystery-species was not already the key point of someone's neglected hypothesis. Matter of fact, in checking just now, I see that there is an 'orphan' page on Wiki, ready and waiting for this proto-theory to materialize: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tauon-catalyzed_fusion In any event, there is the distinction that "it" would be catalytic, and with a much longer life than normal. Perhaps the lifetime issue could be related to our cosmic new understanding of "neutrino oscillation". We have learned this from solar astronomy, and it could is a relatively recent and MAJOR discovery (broader discovery) which may not have been totally fleshed out yet. Hey "tauon-oscillation" has a nice ring to it. The two D would fuse into an alpha particle, but not with a 5.5 MeV gamma ray seen in muonic fusion. That gamma is almost 80% lower in energy than the hot fusion variety, indicating that it carries away or rather disposes of over 18 MeV of mass energy. If you extent the trend, based on catalyst mass, then the more massive tauon would have ??? Well, you guess it - an even more massive 'catalyst' would essentially dispose, carry away (oscillate away) or nullify - more excess energy so that there is no gamma at all. Nice ! to the extent it rationalizes experiment with theory. (but probably misses many other problem areas) ....and may I add, is no less bizarre than magic phonons ;-) Jones All of this simply goes to prove we DO NOT HAVE A CLUE as to what is going on in LENR at the most fundamental level, and to assert that we do weakens the validity of the good experimental work... which is actually "more believable without a theory" at this stage.
