At 07:51 PM 2/6/2010, Jones Beene wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
> However, given that MCF as an explanation for palladium deuteride CF is a
very, very long shot, and seems generally contradictory to the evidence ...
No, no - I think this is a slight misinterpretation - if I understand what
you are implying.
Apparently you don't understand.
There is no contradiction that MCF occurs.
That's correct. MCF is a known and accepted process. That it plays
any role with respect to Pd-D CF, however, is not known.
Almost everyone in the mainstream
and even in LENR agrees that MCF is happening, and indeed is proved beyond
reasonable doubt, but the problem is the *statistical probability* of
occurrence in a spatial context is very, very low ... fine point of
distinction.
That's correct, unless.
With the only common source of muons being cosmic rays - that limitation
makes it extremely rare and variable by location, and with no chance of
improvement (except moving to higher elevation).
I've seen no analysis that would consider the possibility of a
*single* muon capture; what I've seen are attempts to show that the
muon flux is too low, assuming a catalyzed reaction in the range of
100 per muon, to explain CF heat. However, the maximum number of
catalyzed reactions is based on conditions in, if I'm correct, liquid
deuterium or the like. The assumption might not hold in the metal
matrix. That's all I'm saying.
I think it is quite a stretch, but, until we do have confirmed
theory, nothing should be tossed in the trash.
If there was another way to
actually make muons, it would be a different story. In fact in 1990, when
labs in other areas near sea level had problems with replication - the high
altitude of SLC was mentioned as a contributing factor to their success, due
to MCF as a possible trigger having greater probability at 5000 ft above sea
level.
Yes. The erratic results are reason to suspect some low-level erratic trigger.
... IOW muon fusion is ongoing but rare. Small but important distinction.
Therefore, I think it is safe to say that MCF *always* occurs in palladium
deuteride CF as a matter of course, in fact it would be difficult to
restrain it from occurring, but the number of fusion events is so low over
any given time span that it cannot explain the excess heating ... or rather
it can explain only a small fraction of the excess heat - probably far less
than one percent.
Way less, I'd think. I did not mean to imply that there was *no* MCF!
It could, however, serve to explain a small diurnal variation. As for a
larger diurnal variation, or as a real triggering event, that would be where
the difficulty lies.
Unless.
The only way that I can imagine that MCF could actually be instrumental in a
larger sense is in the enhancement of a "probability field" for fusion. That
would be the way a trigger effect would be realized. IOW the small effect of
real fusion increases the overall probability of a larger fusion effect from
some other source, if that source is supplied (electrical current, or in the
case of Arata - pressure).
Suppose a muon does catalyze a hundred fusions, probably in a small
region. This, then, could create a shock wave that causes more
fusions from overpressure, in a somewhat larger region. I'm not about
to even try to do the math....
On the subject of probability fields, there is much disagreement, but the
hypothesis is falsifiable.
I think it is fairly easy to test for the influence of cosmic rays on
CF cells. What's needed are standard cells, with known general
characteristics, and hopefully reliable results. The more reliable
the results, the fewer the cells needed to look for some subtle effect.
One possible way to falsify this would be to move on of two identical
experimental setups to a deep mine, where there would be far less cosmic ray
contribution, and then to compare that with an identical experiment at high
altitude.
Yes. I think I said that.
