Many thanks Axil! Wow, it really looks like he is really close to show what I'm asking for. Really cool. I have heard others speak about his theory and debunk it on the merit that the BEC have not been observed in room temperature. Then after reading the very good overview it really looks like we do have or close to have a theoretical notion of cold fusion or LENR. Remember if we can say that plain 'ol quantum mecanics allow for cold fusion in theory, I bet people will look for it much more intensely. Why on earth can't people try to find the positive parts and just not be so focused on debunking. My view of this is that in complex materials one get to set up a large range of sites that sometimes mimic what these BEC clusters are doing in Kim's calculations, and dong that right means that we get to see the extra heat that is so much reported. But generally just a small fraction of the sites hence the reason you see it in a complex material like Pd. But maybe Pd is too complex because it does setup a lot of non functioning sites. What Rossi, DGT and all others reporting success may have done is to have performed an extensive search to find a material that can setup a much higher fraction of these sites to mimic the BEC result. It's really not unlikely considering my shallow understanding of the subject.
But the screening is of cause an assumption that probably is based on good 'ol intuition of Kim and others. Can work. And yes Axil I would really like to hear your view of it. /Stefan On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 8:52 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >>> >> >> >
