Horace, have you heard about the degenerate state in focus fusion device for pB11 fusion?
2011/12/30 Horace Heffner <[email protected]> > > 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/ > > > > > -- Daniel Rocha - RJ [email protected]
