At 07:47 PM 3/27/2010, Francis X Roarty wrote:
Abd,
I asked about the normal rate of neutron capture because I thought
it might change with fractional hydrogen. Always the optimist I
find myself looking for the mechanism by which it could work. I
really feel we already have all the information we need to solve
this mystery but no one wants to borrow parts from one another to
solve it correctly.
Probably not change, if by "fractional hydrogen" you mean hydrogen
with a Mills electron in a fractional state (1/N fraction of the
mimimum Bohr orbit). Neutrons would be very little affected, if at
all, by the electrons.
As to "information to solve the mystery," I think not. What we need
is for theorists, using the various extant theories or new ones, to
make predictions, and then see if subsequent experiment matches the
predictions. Sure, it is quite possible that, among the various
theories, there are elements that, put together, might explain the
results, but no theory as far as I know is satisfactory to explain
all of what we already know. Some are closer than others, and if we
could narrow it down with partial predictive success, we might get
closer. But I haven't seen publication of predictions, beyond the
first successful one, Preparata's prediction of helium as the
predominant ash of the heat-producing mechanism.
It appears that there is rivalry in the field, to some degree,
instead of cooperation. That impedes progress. It may not be possible
to fix this, because the potential rewards of being the first with
the right theory or magic technique that could lead to practical
power generation are so great. It could be that this would not be at
all fair, because any discovery now in this field will build on the
work of others.
I.e., the theoretician may come up with the magic key that explains
everything. But to get there, very likely, the field was cleared by
all the dead ends and "failures." It may sound silly, but we need to
fund more failures, very specific failures, to clear the field. Along
with some successes. In real science, no experiment is a failure. In
engineering, failures are also important, but only a little, which is
why engineering does better when there is a solid theoretical
foundation, when new science does not have to be discovered.
