At 08:49 AM 4/5/2010, Roarty, Francis X wrote:
On Sun April 4, 2010 Abd said
That's huge.
He is tracking back from a finding that
multibody fusion happens. Most fusion theories
do not allow for multibody fusion at all, I
think of Kim, which may be some kind of
variation on Takahashi's theory. Or not. I wish
they'd talk to each other and let us listen in!
(3) Bottom line, Takahashi's theory at present
requires the presence of two deuterium
molecules in confinement in some way; the way
he says it in the ACS Low Energy Nuclear
Reactions Sourcebook (p. 58) is to give three
models "to initiate TSC formation":
Abd,
I take it 3 body fusion is quite
different than the 3 body collision Robin spoke
of to produce a photon where one is chemical
and really not a collision at all but rather
orbital interactions while you are speaking of
actual nuclear fusion between 2 d2 molecules.
Could this be mix where the Casimir confinement
maintains a rigid orbital alignment of each
molecule to keep the molecules on a common axis
and reduce the columbic barrier?
What's involved is, indeed, not a collision,
though some kinds of collisions under special
circumstances could produce the condition that
would lead to 2-molecule fusion. What is involved
is practically the opposite of a collision, but a
stationary relationship of two molecules,
confined as they might be under unusual
conditions in the lattice (molecular deuterium is
ordinarily considered to be absent inside the
lattice, which neglects the boundary). 3-body
fusion would be, possibly, a deuterium molecule
that is impacted while confined by an energetic
deuteron under the right conditions. Takahashi
did detect, in the bombardment experiments,
evidence for 3-deuteron fusion, which was quite
unexpected. Those are not the conditions of most
cold fusion experiments, which don't seem to
involve 3-deuteron fusion at all, but rather,
perhaps, 4 deuterons. Two molecules.
These f/h theories dont specify a specific
orientation and one would assume only the size
is modified but if Naudts is correct about the
effect being relativistic would this predict a common orientation?
Regards
Fran
I don't have a clue. TSC theory assumes a
specific orientation, that of maximum packing efficiency. Very much is unknown.
