On Dec 29, 2011, at 4:42 PM, Charles Hope wrote:
On Dec 29, 2011, at 20:09, Horace Heffner <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Dec 29, 2011, at 3:08 PM, Charles HOPE wrote:
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Horace Heffner
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Dec 27, 2011, at 9:05 AM, [email protected] wrote:
Horace,
Thanks for the comment.
What is needed are some toy models with some simple simulations.
I will check out your theory.
Do you believe any "new physics" is required
- or does standard QM suffice?
I am getting pretty boggled by the complexity of it all.
LP
I think it is presently not computationally feasible to analyze
the deflated state using QM. This is due to the extreme
relativistic effects combined with magnetic effects.
I'm not sure why quantum mechanics couldn't analyze this state,
I think ultimately it can. I know of no analytic method
available, other than possibly FEA. Naudt's relativistic orbital
description has gained little acceptance, and neither has
Mulenberg's. The addition of spin coupling magnetic
considerations puts the complexity over the top, as far as I
know. I think the key now is to focus on the gestalt,
experimental implications, and hope detailed analysis follows as
experiment dictates. Also, as an amateur with limited life
expectancy and education, this is the only choice I have.
but I don't believe that the concept of deflation is mainstream
physics, is it?
No, deflation fusion is not mainstream, it is my concept.
However, the deflated state itself can be, was, described using
conventional physics.
How so? It sounds like an electron level below the ground state,
forbidden by QM.
The deflated state electron, pre-fusion, is not below ground state
energy. It is a degenerate form of the ground state, or whatever
state the hydrogen nucleus and associated electron occupy in the
lattice. A prolonged small state is only "forbidden" by QM if
magnetic binding force and energy is excluded from the Hamiltonian.
I provided the deflated deuteron calculation as reference 3 in
"Deflation Fusion, Speculations Regarding the Nature of Cold
Fusions", Infinite Energy (I.E.), Volume 14, Issue 80, July/August 2008:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/HeffnerIE80.pdf
It references this spread sheet:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FusionSpreadDualRel.pdf
I later provided the additional deflated state calculations:
http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DeflateP1.pdf
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FusionUpQuark.pdf
These are of course all rough approximations, but they demonstrate
the main points. I expect to improve the calculations using custom
code soon.
Also, what are your criticisms of Takahashi?
I see no use in criticizing Takahashi. I gather it is culturally
difficult for him, especially coming from an amateur like me. No
need to be even more socially insensitive than I already am.
Sorry, I didn't mean criticism of him personally, but his theory.
The difference is indiscernible.
Doesn't it have less New Physics, and so should be preferable?
Preferable to what for describing what?
In general, I see the large number of variations of D+D -->
intermediate product --> 4He theories, even my common sense X + 2D
--> X + 4He "nuclear catalysis" idea, as failing to describe the
most important and mysterious aspects of cold fusion, namely heavy
element transmutation without the abundant high energy signatures
that should be observed, or even the massive heat that should be
observed if conservation of mass-energy is necessary.
I thought I understood you a few days ago to mean that the energy
difference (23MeV?) typically seen as a gamma ray, here is seen as
heat. That was my interpretation when you said the heat was the
correct quantity to the helium.
That is correct, or correct to an approximation, as far as it goes.
Here you are referring to helium creation. This is the focus of many
theories. I can not emphasize enough that this is a tiny portion of
the field to be explored. The extreme energy anomalies, COE
violations, are not associated with the helium production itself.
The heat from He production was measured to 23 MeV within
experimental error, i.e about 50% if I recall. What is missing is
the energy, and the giant signatures, that should have accompanied
the Pd transmutations which occur simultaneously. This missing
energy and the missing signatures are associated with Pd+D
experiments, as well as numerous other cold fusion heavy element
transmutation modes, including protium initiated modes.
Those who look for heavy element transmutations, even in the original
Fleischmann and Pons type experiment, find them, even when they don't
expect them. For example, see Table 1 in:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MalloveEalchemynig.pdf
There are references to heavy isotopes in Storm's book and some of
his recent papers.To appreciate the amount of energy involved in Pd +
n D, see my table at:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/PdFusion2.pdf
on page 2 in particular. The format of the first part of this table
was based on a table published by Ed Storms in fact, and was made to
initially to address his question as to what energy was missing.
Consider also Table 2 in:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MileyGHreviewoftr.pdf
Huge numbers of atoms are involved in heavy element transmutation.
Can you imagine Bockris' surprise when he found them? there was no
prior indication that such energetic events were taking place.
Any such theory that is adequate to do this can not assume
neutrons precede the cold fusion reactions, because neither
neutron activation nor radioactive byproducts are observed except
in very small amounts that do not correspond to the overall
transmutation rate. I think heavy element transmutation is where
the essence of the field lies. It is unfortunate so much thinking
is focused on D+D. Perhaps it is assumed that since D+D is
difficult to explain, that X+H or X+D is far more difficult or
impossible to explain, or even does not exist. This I think is
far from the truth. The most critical impediments are tunneling
distance and tunneling energy. These are impediments overcome by
the shorter distance to lattice atoms from lattice sites, and the
net energy gain to be had from the tunneling of deflated state
hydrogen. Heavy element transmutation is far more credible and
probable to me than direct hydrogen + hydrogen fusion. Perhaps the
latter does not even happen to any significant degree. The lack
of conservation of energy, both on the positive and negative
sides, is explained by the trapped electron concept, which is also
not conventional thinking, but rather part of the deflation fusion
concept. The trapped electron can kinetically absorb the initial
EM pulse of the strong nuclear reaction, radiate in small
increments, and be involved in follow-on weak reactions with
greatly elevated probabilities due to extended lingering time. In
some cases it may help induce fission. Understanding the
trapping mechanism in the first place, once tunneling is accepted,
is high school physics. Understanding how the electron can escape
without a weak reaction, however, takes some understanding of zero
point energy.
My theory is really just common sense. I am surprised that it is
so non-palatable. I have assumed that is because my writing
skills are so bad and because I need pictures.
I would guess people want more math. It's hard to convey over
email, but I have a solution for that I'll write up this weekend.
I do not think the problem is a lack of math. The problem is that I
have not explained the processes with enough simplicity that a child
can follow them. I sincerely doubt that anyone on this list, at any
rate, wants or needs more math for convincing. Math only obscures
the underlying concepts. I expect a FAQ will help, and/or a book. I
have acquired a new computer and software, which includes some 3D
rendering stuff which should be helpful in this effort.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised at all though. Many cold fusion
theories are only accepted by their authors.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
