Horace, does your theory mentioned below demonstrate the increased reaction rate that appears as the temperature increases within the device core material? Is it capable of operation at the relatively low temperatures expected within the ECAT type of devices? Any idea about the energy release rate as a function of temperature? Also, is there evidence to support that this mechanism is actually occuring?
Thanks, Dave -----Original Message----- From: Horace Heffner <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, Dec 22, 2011 4:32 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cosmic Trigger? I just saw this post. I am only reading about 1 in 20 posts due to lack of time. I hope if anything technical develops in long threads that new threads with meaningful titles are created. On Dec 20, 2011, at 8:41 AM, David Roberson wrote: On an earlier post I suggested that the LENR reactions such as those exhibited by Rossi could have been triggered by cosmic rays. I was a little disappointed by the few comments that were generated and I was hoping to further study this possibility. One of the main skeptic positions is that it takes far more energy to activate the fusion like reaction than is available at normal temperatures. Why should we limit our thoughts to some form of steady state conditions for the initiation of the reactions when it may just take some triggering events to overcome the barriers? How many different initiation locations are required to make a block of TNT explode? Hopefully these are not occurring randomly, and if they were, who could store the material safely? Let’s try to determine whether or not the basic cosmic ray trigger concept is possible. If it is, what evidence should we look for in an effort to make that determination? First, is there enough energy available within a cosmic ray to activate a LENR reaction at any location within a nickel-hydrogen complex? Mr. Cude suggests that it takes in excess of 100 keV to overcome the proton to nickel coulomb barrier. His number seems agreeable to me, and now the question is whether or not this can be obtained by cosmic ray collisions? Second, if a small volume of material achieves reaction and releases several MeV of energy does the material then allow the reaction to spread? Of course the release of many MeV at the active region now would be adequate to enable more reactions since it far exceeds the 100 keV threshold suggested if in the correct form. Is there evidence pro or con as to whether or not this is happening? Third, are the pits seen on the electrodes of electrolysis type systems an indication that small regions are undergoing some form of extreme spot heating? Could this crater forming type of event suggest that miniature reactions involving millions of atoms are occurring? If so, why does the reaction head along one main path toward the surface instead of spread out uniformly? Could it be that the reaction follows the path of one of the suspect cosmic ray particles as it moves like a bulldozer through the matrix? Is it possible that the energy is released in a favorable direction to conserve momentum? Forth, I was reading that muons are one of the main particles remaining once a cosmic ray reaches the ground level. Have they been shown to activate cold fusion reactions in lab experiments and considered a well respected proven concept? I understand that the normal process is for DT reactions to be catalyzed, but there is mention of formation of a neutron like atomic structure. The size of this combination proton-muon group is extremely tiny and might be capable of overcoming the coulomb barrier by tunneling into the nickel nucleus. Why could this not happen within the Rossi type reactor where hydrogen gas is held within a high temperature and pressure environment? Could this then deliver the triggering energy needed? The muon reaction does not work for p + p because p + p is a weak reaction, thus has a very small cross section, very small reaction distance. It requires (in nuclear terms) a much long exposure time and much closer proximity than D+D, D+T or P+D. As you can see, I have listed a lot of questions that seek answers. The vortex community has numerous experts available that could help enlighten me and others if they would take a little time to consider these questions. I would find your responses as a well deserved break from the endless semantic games that are filling the bandwidth. Was the vortex originally formed as a collection of scientifically interested persons intending to discuss new concepts? Please demonstrate that we are here to work together instead of arguing endlessly. Thanks guys. Dave In my deflation fusion theory the Coulomb barrier is overcome due to formation of a small magnetic force based electron orbital. The resulting hydrogen is neutral, thus there is no Coulomb barrier to it tunneling into a nearby nucleus as an ensemble. Further, magnetic gradients make the tunneling energy positive, thus greatly increasing the tunneling range, and thus reducing the lattice half-life of such an entity. Anything that increases electron density and flux around/through absorbed hydrogen nuclei, without destroying the lattice, increases the density of the deflated state and the probability of fusion. I think controlled electron flux is much better than electrons freed by cosmic rays, because lattice destruction should be much less in comparison. There are various means of inducing dense electron flux on nanoparticle surfaces. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
