On Jan 25, 2010, at 7:41 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
Wow. Impressive amount of computational effort.
This could be helpful for the design stage of many refined
experiments.
One hopes that that the data was set up and crunched in an automated
computer program - or else you must be snowed-in due to El Nino,
with no
other hobbies ;-)
I get to borrow Santa's elves in the off season. 8^)
One question: was nuclear spin not considered for a reason? IOW is
conservation of spin an issue with deflation fusion?
Spin and other constraints were left out intentionally so far. The
intent here is to see how much can be learned without making
unnecessary conventional assumptions. The principal problem is that
heavy element LENR is *already* "impossible" using standard physics.
Probable decay channels for compound nuclei (standard compound nuclei
without deflated electrons) do not include large mass fissions. They
involve only gamma, beta, positron, proton, neutron and alpha
decays. If you throw out neutron and high energy signature decays,
because these were not observed in the heavy LENR experiments, you
are left with alpha decays at best, and no way to explain the lost
energy. The intent here initially was merely to get a picture of the
forest before looking for the best trees. Once the hypothesis of one
of more deflated electrons and a de-energized composite nucleus comes
into play the situation with regard to spin and other constraints
becomes more complex, especially if there are numerous deflated
(negative energy) electrons in the nucleus initially. One
consequence of deflation fusion theory is that these electrons play a
continuously changing role in the nucleus through time, as their
wavefunctions expand out of the nucleus proper due to zero point
field pressure. The problem then is how to determine composite spin
and to account for spin conservation, as well as the decay
probabilities which change through time. The decay time for de-
energized compound nuclei is much longer that for conventional
compound nuclei. I am considering a number of decay models.
Hopefully more reports looking at these alternative models will be
forthcoming.
I was looking through the various tables to try to find reactions
which
seemed most probable from a minority perspective - that is, if one
began
with the premise that Mills is partly correct insofar as his
experimental
results confirm his claims, and that deflation fusion is compatible
with the
early stages of CQM - and also that Iwamura's experimental findings
are
important. He tends to be overlooked.
I don't see Mill's theory as important to deflation fusion theory,
except that the deflated state might be more likely in a fractional
quantum state hydrogen. It also may not be. I just don't know. It
is irrelevant to my current analysis effort. I expect there may
eventually be various uses for the data and kinds of analysis that I
am providing, especially in terms of experiment design, depending on
the theoretical perspective of the user.
As you may be aware, Strontium is one of Mill's best catalysts for
Rydberg
matching in the IP, and the main isotope is 88. The fourth reaction
on your
table for that isotope would then be a great candidate from this
perspective- especially if one wanted to find at least two reaction
products
to carry away excess energy, with one of them being an alpha.
88Sr38 + 6 D* --> 96Mo42 + 4He2 + 77.258 MeV [13.225 MeV]
However, that is almost too much energy to imagine as possible
without a
strong gamma signal, unless much of it could be deposited "elsewhere".
Jones
The above energy levels indicate to me the above reaction is not a
viable reaction, under the assumptions used in its calculation, to
explain Iwamura's results. That was the initial point of the
computation of these tables, to show there is too much energy
involved for any models to date (not involving electrons in the
nucleus) to make any sense. Only reactions with negative energies in
the brackets are feasible to consider further as viable explanations,
unless some additional mechanisms are available to further reduce
that energy quantity in brackets. If you look at Report i3:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rpti3
You will see *no* feasible explanation for strontium transmutation as
observed Iwamura. However, the assumption in Report i3 is that the
deflated electron negative energy is a result of being located at the
mean radius of the compound nucleus. If the electrons are assumed to
reside at an average of 0.9 times that radius, then many of the
strontium reactions start looking like viable explanations. This was
done in Report i4 at:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rpti4
All this means is that, as noted in my paper, the energy deficit
based on electrons at the compound nucleus average radius is not
enough to explain the experimental observations. It is necessary to
use a smaller radius. In fact, only when positive quarks are used as
the nucleating point for deflation fusion does the situation begin to
make sense when you look at the big picture. I think a significant
part of the de-energization comes from the de-energizing of the
proton itself, as described in my paper:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf
One of the strongest criticisms of my theory is that energy is not
conserved, i.e. energy exchange is transacted with the vacuum. I
think this is a necessary and therefore strong point of the theory.
In no other way can any sense be made of the huge lack of energetic
signatures from heavy element transmutation LENR. The importance of
this may go well beyond explaining LENR. For example, the production
of strange matter, especially K0 kaons, via electron catalysis within
the proton, could indicate the feasibility of extracting mass and
energy from the vacuum, and thus of infinite Isp spacecraft, as well
as an unlimited energy supply. I think proving this feasibility is
likely much easier than developing practical hydrogen to helium cold
fusion energy, because pion, and thus kaon, signatures can be readily
discriminated from ordinary fusion products.
There are numerous theories that claim to explain hydrogen to helium
cold fusion. There are few to none that explain the lack of
energetic signatures required by the mass changes that occur in heavy
element LENR. These reports are a first cut at demonstrating this,
and looking to see if there is a clear path through the forest.
Even given the minimal assumptions used to date, some surprising and
experimentally useful information has emerged.
One of the problems with this kind of analysis is that it is very
sensitive to precision. For that reason I have now incorporated the
best experimental mass data available, as provided by the National
Nuclear Data Center at:
http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
