Anyway, your theory is somewhat similar to the stage III that of Takashi, when the nucleons of the TSC are captured by the nuclear force. TSC is really a "deflated" ground state, simply because electrons screen to the extreme the proton charge. But, the destiny of the electrons is not clear.
Takashi, in his report the 12th meeting of CF in japan, used one of the electrons to be captured by one of the protons and yield He3 + p in NiH loaded lattices. After, he makes considerations from Ni + p collisions, all of them yield stable elements, although I am not sure about Ni60 not giving readioactive remains. 2011/12/30 Daniel Rocha <[email protected]> > 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] > > -- Daniel Rocha - RJ [email protected]
