Dr. Kim has worked (maybe is still working) for DGT. He has calculated the increased reaction rates that his theory of LENR+(the optical theory) implies. This theory assumes a charge screening potential that reduces the coulomb barrier.
for an overview of Kim's theory see http://coldfusionnow.org/session-462-advanced-concepts-lenr-anti-matter-and-new-physics/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL2-l5cWWRE http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/yekim/ICCF-18-JCMNS-KH-Pre-2.pdf I have my own ideas about how this charge screening happens. I will go as far in explanation and you can stand. It is up to you! On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe < [email protected]> wrote: > hmm, normal decays are of cause not all that interesting, more in line > with what you can find in > > https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/36783/TheoreticalAnalysisReactionMechanisms.pdf?sequence=1 > > the page with > BEGIN QUOTE > • Important !! The Gamow factor suppression occurs with the > formation of the Boson cluster state (BCS) which may include > a cluster of Bosons, a BEC, etc. The BEC case is only one of > special cases > END QUOTE > > Now I'm really uncertain how well they have calculated the reaction rates, > but my point is that if those numbers are calculated using a reasonable > well model, then you should have shown that you can set up a solid state > system mathematically and deduce high reaction rate for different nuclear > reaction. That in it's self show physics of a nuclear reaction like fusion > that is based by other principles then reaching high kinetic energies. Now > the actual detailed theory for how LENR work can be different than proposed > in that report, and in stead by similarity of principles also give a > motivation that other competing theories can work. > > But I cannot judge how well all this reasoning can be "solidified" into an > accepted principle. So I am looking for some kind of judgement like "this > theory have been discussed intensively, it have a few glitches but the > calculation is right and it mostly look like a sane model" Or "the author > has simplified too much and one cannot do that simplification in order to > draw conclusions .." e.g. there is just this report but I cannot find not > much detailed discussion about the claims and methods used. But in all > finding this link is an important step to engage deeper knowledge how LENR > might work form a bottom up perspective. > > Cheers! > > > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 5:51 PM, Terry Blanton <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Jones Beene <[email protected]>wrote: >> >> >>> To add to the confusion, some “experts” believe that the proton decays, >>> eventually – which essentially means everything decays. >>> >> >> And at 60 years, I'm feeling it. >> > >
