I have some posts on the deeper layers of my theory as follows: http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=3200&start=6030#p102654
this post links to some others http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=3200&start=6000#p102568 On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:11 AM, Chuck Sites <[email protected]> wrote: > I guess one of the reasons I just don't get the Rydberg atom hypothesis, > is that mainly has to do with the electron orbitals and not the nuclear > state. That's my understanding at least. Perhaps Kim's paper will > enlighten how the nuclei interact to show a strong interaction; one that > follows E=mc^2. I have a lot of respect for Kim and he always > is enlightening I suppose that I need to understand the Rydberg stuff a > little more before jumping to conclusions; (for example the inverse-Rydberg > atoms sound very much like hydrinos or pseudo-neutrons ). > > But all that is hypothetical. The evidence so far, based on the design, > is it hot and appears to be a plasma in metal. This is where a full > accounting of all possible interactions would be enlightening. > > Then there are the reports of the 1.5 Tesla magnetic fields. I wish there > was a magnetometer in the public demonstration that showed that. 1 Tesla > is HUGE! Most superconducting MRI magnets only reach 1T. > (5T is pretty extreme). I walked past a 1.5T MRI machine accidentally > with an inkpen in my pocket. From 10ft away, the magnet was lifting the > pin out of my pocket (upon which I realized I could quench the magnet, and > so I left the room clutching onto my pen). If the Defkcalion reactor > produces that kind of field in the small space, it might be possible, but > it's another question mark. > > Eric, I would say you have a very good superfecta there (in horse racing > thats picking 1 2 3 & 4). Primarily I think > 2 and 4. 2 from low energy reactions and 4 from recoil atoms caused by 3, > 2 and 1. But that is pure hot fusion. With the intervening metal lattice, > that may not be the case precisely. > > Best Regards.. > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:21 PM, Eric Walker <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Eric Walker <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> >>> 1. p+p -> p+p "reversible" fusion, along the lines of Jones's >>> hypothesis. >>> 2. p+e+p -> d, along the lines of Ed's hypothesis. >>> 3. p+d -> 3He + Q (5.5 MeV) (my own favorite) >>> 4. p+Ni -> Cu (as suggested by Rossi a long time ago, and which no >>> one really likes). >>> >>> I'm betting on (2), somewhere beneath the surface. >>> >> >> Typo -- I'm betting on (3). >> >> Eric >> >> >
