In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Fri, 7 Jun 2013 13:15:46 -0400: Hi, If particle emission doesn't relieve the excited nucleus of its energy (#2), then some other means is required. If that is not gamma emission (and the gammas are clearly absent), then the assumption appears to be that the 4He would need to "take off" by itself. This clearly violates conservation of momentum. (Hence both numbers 3 are in fact the same thing.)
However this requirement is clearly nonsense. The obvious truth is that no 3rd miracle is required if an alternative method of satisfying both conservation of energy and momentum can be found. There are several possibilites:- 1) Takahashi. 2) Ron Maimon. 3) Hydrino fusion (fast electron &/or other partner from the shrunken molecule). 4) Prior loss of energy such that by the time the two nuclei merge, there is neither energy nor momentum left to lose. (This would appear to require a new retarding force that does external work however). 5) Loss of energy by some means other than gamma rays after the fusion has taken place (see e.g. Horace's theory). 6) Some form of the Mössbauer effect. >Peter, > >Kim says Huizenga's three miracles are: >(1) suppression of the DD Coulomb repulsion (Gamow factor) * * >(2) no production of nuclear products (D+D ? n+ 3He, etc.) >(3) the violation of the momentum conservation in free space > >In other places I have seen Huizenga three miracles written like this : >(1) the mystery of how the Coulomb barrier is penetrated >(2) the lack of strong neutron emissions >(3) the lack of strong emission of gamma or x-rays >see for example >http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/Chubb93Editorial.pdf >http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/Theories/LiTheory.shtml#miracles > > >The second set does not mention of violation of momentum conservation in >free space. >Which set is correct? > >Harry Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
