On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]> wrote:
But there are other ways to conserve momentum. I think Robin has drawn >> attention to the possibility of f/H combining with another nucleus and >> expelling the electron instead of a gamma or a fragment, and Ron Maimon >> proposes something similar with a d+d reaction occuring close to a >> palladium nucleus -- in that case the momentum of the reaction is shared >> with the spectator nucleus, and as a result the cross sections for 4He >> fragments and gammas are proposed to be competitively disfavored over a >> clean 4He + kinetic energy branch. >> >> >> What is the point of considering ideas that have no ability to explain >> all that has been observed? Of course, it is easy to explain individual >> behaviors. The challenge is to explain ALL behaviors using the same basic >> process. >> > > What behaviors are missing from the above? > > > An answer to this question is too complex to give here. > I hope you will find the time to humor me on this one sometime. > The main behaviors are helium and tritium production and their > relationship to transmutation. The present theories no not explain these > reactions and, indeed, are modified to explain the Rossi claim for the > Ni+p=Cu reaction when this is clearly not the source of energy. > 4He and tritium and their relationship to transmutations are all covered by Ron's theory, so there is no complaint against it on these grounds. I don't think there are many people left who take Rossi's claim about an Ni+p → Cu reaction being the main source of energy seriously anymore. Assuming there is net energy production in his devices, it would not surprise me if this particular reaction were either a mistake or a red herring. > Any theory that can be modified to explain something that does not occur > is not a very useful theory. Instead, I predicted that deuterium production > is the source of energy and I'm waiting for people to make the necessary > measurements. I predicted that Rossi and others were wrong based on my > model. No other model made this prediction. We will soon see which > approach is correct. > I like the fact that your model predicts deuterium production in the case of light hydrogen, as this is a falsifiable detail. (This is where I think the weak interaction is required, and either it must be accelerated for your reaction to work, or there must be huge amounts of energy focused on the hydroton to cause it to occur.) As for deuterium, I suspect it is exactly the opposite -- in the light hydrogen systems, I suspect that deuterium is consumed rather than generated. Hopefully more information will come to light about this specific detail. > To the problem of quantum fractionation: I am aware of some of the > considerations that go into this. Hagelstein proceeds to adopt the > requirement that 24 MeV be sliced up into pieces because of the unwanted > result of hot-fusion neutrons that he expects to get when you have fast > deuterons racing around the system at greater than ~20 keV. Since there > are few neutrons, he assumes there must be an energy cap at around 20 keV > on all particles, and to accomplish such an energy cap you cannot have 24 > MeV released all at once; or so we are given to understand. Once we adopt > this premise, it is easy to understand why he has gone on to try to model > things the way he has. And I do not deny that this is an attractive > premise. > > > Yes, his approach is correct, but I do not agree with how he solves the > problem. > My tentative understanding is that his approach is incorrect, and that his desire to fractionate a 24 MeV quantum instead of just letting it happen all at once is leading him and others astray. No need to belabor the point, though, as it is a basic assumption. > Here we have a very basic conflict in approach. I believe that all the > laws now known to control behavior in a lattice must be obeyed by the CF > process. These laws prevent what you propose. I will not explain this here > because it is explained in my papers. If you want to ignore the laws of > thermodynamics, then you have more serious problems in having your ideas > accepted than just explaining CF. > I'm not ignoring thermodynamics to my knowledge, and I haven't proposed much specific -- please elaborate on this. But even if I were ignoring thermodynamics, you're ignoring the weak interaction, the strong interaction and tunneling, so I think we're even. I should add that I have not singled out your explanation as being particularly unpromising -- I think that nearly all of them are equally unpromising. So it's nothing specific with what you've said, in particular. I'm also of the view that it's beneficial to fund research on "long shot" ideas, so I have no issue with your research program. Eric
