JC: You continue to claim that accelerators use resonance, and therefore that my comment,
"Why does nuclear physics use (BRUTE FORCE) particle accelerators? Because they are boxed in by the thought that the ONLY way to overcome the coulomb barrier is extreme force." is somehow faulty. You continue to make irrelevant points. Sure, application of the energy used to accelerate the particles must be applied in a resonant manner to reach the velocities in the most efficient manner, so a form of resonance is used in accelerator design. That is irrelevant. The END RESULT is brute force smashing things together. there is NO resonance in that! That is, and always has been, my point. The actual interaction of the particles is by brute force, NOT RESONANCE. JC writes: "And I maintain that you're saying resonance like a magician says abbra cadabra. Without specifics, it's meaningless." To answer this sad excuse for a rebuttal, the specifics comes from proposing a hypothesis, and then following that hypothesis to see where it leads and whether it could be reasonable from a physics perspective; and then conducting experiments to test the hypothesis. That is the scientific process. Your attitude reeks of closed-minded, theoretically-impossible-so-why-bother-even-thinking-about-it. We'd all be living in caves and throwing spears with that attitude. -Mark From: Joshua Cude [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 10:32 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint <[email protected]> wrote: JC: Thx for the explanations, relevant or not, however, I still think that the discussion wandered from my initial point, which was, given proper conditions, one can disrupt the natural balance within a nucleus and cause unexpected results using much lower levels of energy by using resonance rather than brute force. And I maintain that you're saying resonance like a magician says abbra cadabra. Without specifics, it's meaningless. Aside from that, your comment that the large accelerators go way beyond the energy necessary for overcoming the Coulomb Barrier seems to be only partially right. In the following article, the physicist states: "In other words, even the most massive stars, at the incredible pressures and temperatures found at their cores, cannot fuse nickel and hydrogen nuclei together." So, even the most powerful accelerator built cannot overcome the CB for the vast majority of atomic elements. The *temperatures* and *pressures* in stars are not enough. An accelerator does not give energy to particles by heating them up, but by accelerating them in electromagnetic fields. You need to think outside the box, and consider the power of resonance, and not just brute force heating. You can fire a proton from a small cyclotron at 50 MeV to produce Cu from Ni, no problem. And in the LHC, protons collide at multi-TeV energies, and even for fixed targets, you can get protons close to 1 TeV. The temperature corresponding to 1 TeV would be more than a quadrillion kelvins (10^16 K). There are no stars that hot. Even 50 MeV corresponds to a trillion degrees, far above star temperatures. So, yes, accelerators go way way way beyond the energy needed to breach any Coulomb barrier in nature.
