Abstract of Tsyganov paper. http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510
Recent accelerator experiments on fusion of various elements have clearly demonstrated that the effective cross-sections of these reactions depend on what material the target particle is placed in. In these experiments, there was a significant increase in the probability of interaction when target nuclei are imbedded in a conducting crystal or are a part of it. These experiments open a new perspective on the problem of so-called cold nuclear fusion. This paper could be important for two reasons. The "actual fusion" situation is covered in the paper. However, there is probably zero to very little actual fusion in the Rossi device, and the Russian findings relate to accelerator experiments anyway - not lower energy LENR. The paper would therefore be almost irrelevant to the E-Cat, except for one finding - embedded target material. What is completely missed in the paper is that the important precursor state (particles imbedded in so-called "conducting crystals") could be even more effective for "non-fusion" than fusion (to be explained). Apparently from Rossi's surprising interest in this paper - this could be almost an admission that Rossi is imbedding nickel in a conducting ceramic, in the well-known way. Rossi has never claimed fusion before. This 'embedding' technique is essentially what Arata made famous, and is precisely what Ahern replicated using material from Ames. The conducting ceramic is zirconia. The technique results in millions of nickel nanoparticles "islands" imbedded in ~50 micron ceramic powder. A non-fusion modality (as an alternative to fusion, or weak force interaction) has been alluded to many times here, and it is based on extending the Nyman paper to cover nickel-hydrogen QED. This hypothesis is an outgrowth and enhancement of Nyman's modeling of quark interaction, together with the assumption of having IRH - Inverted Rydberg hydrogen - being formed continuously in the reactor from hydrogen spillover, collecting in cavities or pits or between nanoparticles - and other details which have the effect of putting protons into close proximity - within occasional strong force attraction. http://dipole.se/ In this paper, simulations made with two different kinds of physics software both show the following: 1. Two protons placed closely together will repel each other most of the time. 2. Two protons shot at each other will bounce off and repel each other most of the time. 3. However, it is occasionally possible to shoot two protons at each other with the right speed and *quark alignment* so that they latch onto each other instead of repel... IOW quark placement can overcome Coulomb repulsion, in standard physics!!! No magic required (so far). This is where Nyman fails to make the right conclusion. He opines the protons will fuse, which is impossible in these conditions. However, the net reaction which is instigated by strong force attraction can still be gainful as Rossi demonstrates. And indeed the driving force for gain must be a depletion of nuclear mass (by default). However, this reaction does not result in either fusion, or transmutation normally. It does result in fast protons and on occasion these may cause secondary reactions, but net gain is there without anything else. This suggestion is an alternative to the P-e-P reaction where no deflated or other improbable kind of electron is involved, and in the end no fusion will occur. Two protons in this circumstance would have severe negative binding energy, so several things will happen instead of fusion. This is where Nyman falls short - since all we need to know to explain the net gain without nuclear transmutation is that strong force attraction does happen (which essentially the "free" ingredient) followed by some kind of energetic expulsion without fusion. The energy derives from mass loss - and is probably a statistical depletion of nuclear mass (from pions, gluons or gauge bosons). However, we do not need to pin a name on it at this point in time. It is simply energetic, gainful, not fusion, low gamma, low transmutation - and essentially it is new physics. Jones From: Alan J Fletcher Subject: [Vo]:JNP Cold Nuclear Fusion paper Andrea Rossi August 12th, 2011 at 10:58 AM <http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=501&cpage=12> TO ALL OUR READERS: TODAY HAS BEEN PUBLISHED ON THE JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR PHYSICS THE VERY INTERESTING PAPER "COLD NUCLEAR FUSION" OF E.N. TSYGANOV, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN, TEXAS, USA. http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
