There is a long way to go yet. Dr. Szilard patented the nuclear reaction back in the 1930s. These was a lot to do after that point in nuclear energy development.
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Harry Veeder <[email protected]> wrote: > If Kim et al have now explained CF then there is nothing left for me to > say on this subject. > > Harry > > On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 8:26 AM, Alain Sepeda <[email protected]>wrote: > >> What I have understood is that momentum conservation is a shortcut, >> uncounscious to "free space" physicists. It mean "gamma" as one particle to >> compensate momentum. >> >> In lattice, momentum can be dissipated in many way, moreover particles >> are so bound to other particle that the allowed change/excitation, >> involving many real particle, make some pseudo-particle emerge as >> "excitation of the system"... like phonons, polaritons, hole, virtual mass >> electrons. >> >> >> what I've understood, is such: >> >> in fact particles don't exist as object, but are allowed excitation of >> the fields... >> In a lattice the field are so much coupled, glued, tightened, that the >> pseudo-particle are the only allowed excitation of the field, but this >> excitation involve many fields, and many what are usually independent >> excitation (particle)... >> >> imagine that you see people in a train station exchange hall... >> each passenger have his trajectory, and move interacting with others. For >> pani prediction in public place IBM have modeled them as lone particles >> reacting at 2m by collision avoidance. >> imagine now a couple with kids? a virtual particle appear... you cannot >> break it, or it will create new uncommon interaction, like separating >> quarks. >> In a crowded metro, you can see very funny pseudo particle, like holes, >> compression, some virtual mass, viscosity and rigidity... add a familly, >> luggage, and you will see many pseudo-particles, bigger than individual. >> >> Applying free-space physics, and momentum conservation to LENr is like >> applying ballistic and IBM model of travelers, to a crowded metro cart in >> fire. >> >> I imagine physicist can find a better way to explain it... this way to >> explain is how I understand it. >> >> What I take from that explanation is mostly modesty about lattice QM, >> like one should have in closed place crowd prediction. >> >> >> 2013/6/9 Harry Veeder <[email protected]> >> >>> Another thing I find puzzling is why Kim appends the phrase "in free >>> space" to momentum conservation. >>> I thought conservation of momentum was a universal law, which >>> means it suppose to apply everywhere under any circumstances. >>> For example James Clerk Maxwell made sure his theory of >>> electromagnetism did not violate the conservation of momentum. >>> >>> Harry >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Alain Sepeda <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> are'nt gamma the way to compensate momentum ? >>>> and neutron the expected nuclear products? >>>> >>>> by the way I appreciate the way yeong kim explain why lattice is not >>>> free space : >>>> "even though I clearly recognized that the conventional nuclear >>>> scattering theory at positive energies cannot directly be applied to >>>> nuclear reactions involving deuterons bound in a metal, which is a >>>> negative-energy bound-state problem. Quantum scattering theory describing >>>> the Coulomb barrier problem is applicable to scattering experiments with >>>> nuclear beams." >>>> >>>> a much more sexy explanation than my microelectronic experience that QM >>>> in solid is ... strange... ( ;-) ) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2013/6/7 Harry Veeder <[email protected]> >>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 11:14 PM, Peter Gluck <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> *Prof. Yeong Kim interviewed*: a veteran finally gets optimistic >>>>>> following >>>>>> a technological breakthrough. >>>>>> Please see: >>>>>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/06/a-veterans-voice.html >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Dr. Peter Gluck >>>>>> Cluj, Romania >>>>>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
