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>>

Reply via email to