In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Tue, 19 Oct 2010 23:11:43 -0400: Hi, [snip] >>1) Takahashi >>2) Mine - the energy is carried away from the reaction by a fast >>electron (IC). >>3) Horace's - which I don't quite understand. > >Yes, of course, I often point this out. You are incorrect, however, >Takahashi's theory is not DD fusion. It is 4D fusion, four deuterons >simultaneously collapsing and fusing all at once, that's why the >product is helium and why there is no gamma ray (because there are >two products, so momentum can be conserved.)
Of course, but IMO it still qualifies as DD fusion, in as much as D is the fuel, nothing else is involved, and He4 is the ash. > >What I point out is that perhaps there is some special condition for >2D fusion that causes it to branch exclusively to helium, and that >carries away the reaction energy in a different way. > >Sorry about your fast electron theory, if I'm correct, Hagelstein has >set a limit of about 20 KeV for any substantial levels of charged >particles from the reaction, otherwise stuff, like Bremmstrahlung >radiation, would be observed. That's a problem for about every theory >except cluster fusion. You may be correct about the Bremsstrahlung, but I don't think Hagelstein covered fast electrons in his paper. He did look at fast alpha particles. I even wrote to him to suggest fast electrons, but received no reply. > >I.e., *if* there is D-D fusion, it's taking place within a cluster, >so the reaction energy is shared among all members of the cluster. Quite possible. [snip] >Basically, it appears that anything that just brings two deuterons >together, like muon-catalyzed fusion, produces normal branching and results. See above. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
