On Jan 28, 2011, at 7:42 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
Resend - Vortex not working
-----Original Message-----
From: Horace Heffner
The statement: "Dipole attraction exactly cancels monopole repulsion
at very short H-H distances." indicates the author probably hasn't
even done a basic seat of the pants calculation as to what this
means. This statement is nonsensical or irrelevant when applied to H-
H proximity prior to fusion.
Not at all, in my opinion.
This dipole attraction is also known as magnetism, and is the result
of spin correlations, i.e. spin coupling, that occurs when particles
are close.
No! or should I say yes and no. You may need to take the same
'course' I
took last night:
http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/course/09-723/IntermolecularForces/
IntermolecularF
orces.pdf
IOW the dipole interaction at close distance is "like magnetism"
but not the
precisely the same formalism - and unlike the equation you base your
equations on, it turns out to be incorrect in this case. Keesom
interactions
are attractive interactions of dipoles that are Boltzmann-averaged
over
different rotational orientations of the dipoles. The energy of a
Keesom
interaction depends on the inverse sixth power of the distance, not
the
fourth or third.
ones, you have to note the difference between energy and potentials
(Keesom), and forces (my formula).
Now, like me, you probably were not aware of this possibility until
now, but
obviously the inverse 4th power and inverse sixth power are very
different
in terms of results for LENR ... and this what allows the
possibility of
overcoming Coulomb repulsion without the electron. I do understand
the value
of your hypothesis on the deflated electron otherwise, but this offers
another simpler possibility that cannot be overlooked, since
simplicity does
invoke Ockham (which admittedly is a non-issue).
You may not agree with the conclusion,
That's for sure, for the reasons I stated.
and it certainly needs to be vetted
more aggressively, but it is probably better to argue why you do
not think
the Keesom interaction is appropriate than to impugn Dr Brown or the
publishers of his paper, when you have missed the critical issue.
One does
not easily get to Clarendon Laboratory at Oxford by dreaming up
crank ideas
...
Ah yes, the appeal to authority argument - definitely the sign of a
weak case. 8^)
... otherwise they would have hired me years ago :)
We have a similar proclivity. 8^) Do you suppose it should be in
the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders? Let's see
I'm cranky, and disorderly, so perhaps I have a crank disorder? 8^)
A similar paper is also
in Jed's collection:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BrownJenhancedlo.pdf
Jones
I should also note that I am familiar with the fact that, unlike the
deterministic world of magnets, QM spin coupling is statistical in
nature, with only the *probability* (and thus mean) increasing for
attracting orientation as proximity increases, and with external
magnetic field increases. However, as you can see from this quality,
the deterministic formula for dipole force thus sets an *upper limit*
for the QM dipole force, thus furthering my argument because the
proximity has to be even closer for the magnetic fields to overcome
the Coulomb force.
Also there are forces at work beyond the simple dipole force,
including Lorentz force, and Casimir force, as my calculations
clearly show. The numbers still fall strongly in favor of my above
position, however. It is not even close, by orders of magnitude. Same
goes for the resulting tunneling probabilities. The effect of an
energy barrier is in an exponential term in tunneling probabilities,
as is distance. Dropping the tunneling energy barrier by orders of
magnitude, via cloaking, of course has a large effect on feasible
tunneling distances. These characteristics are required of any
viable explanation of cold fusion, especially high Z transmutation.
This is one of the values of the deflation fusion concept. One
assumption provides an explanation for a wide range of experimental
results.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
