Really, the MB distribution should allow for these outliers then CF would be happening with a non-vanishing probability. The electrons obey FD statistics but contribute a small amount to the heat capacity. So there again I cannot see a mechanism, even if they were to switch between MB and FD.
I am still struggling with the putative process and the result,, which should give off gamma rays, neutrons and locally vaporise the lattice. On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 1:59 AM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: > This concept is going to take a while to develop. The first question > that comes to mind is whether or not repulsive forces that vary as 1/R^2 > work in a similar fashion to attractive ones. This will take some > simulation. In the case of planets, all of the interacting bodies attract > each other. Wiki has an interesting article concerning "gravity assist" > that is worth reading. It reveals how the process works with space ships. > > The other issue that has long escaped my understanding is the > photoelectric effect that Einstein explained to get his Nobel prize. He > used this phenomena to more or less prove that photons of light behave as > particles. Each particle resulted in the emission of one electron instead > of sharing the energy among a multitude of them residing on the surface of > the metal. > > The wavelength of the incoming light is far larger than the size of a > single electron yet only one receives the photon energy and is ejected. I > still do not understand why this is so. > > Is it possible that other many body reactions exist that can give a large > quantity of the shared energy to one member? If this is true, then one > might expect the inverse reaction to also occur which would be able to > explain why the fusion energy is released into the larger body of particles > instead of having to be emitted as one energetic gamma. Perhaps it is time > to look into the emission of gamma rays from nickel nuclei to see if there > is anything suspicious occurring. > > This exercise will likely lead to a dead end, but it could offer some > helpful insight. > > Dave > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Franks <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Sat, Dec 21, 2013 8:31 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]: Collective Phenomena > > So if that little guy is a proton against the 10^8 -10^9 collective of > other protons with thermal energy 25meV or so, that gets you in the ball > park... > > What are the conditions to make this so - H2 loading, cracks, a lattice > over say a liquid (no-one uses Hg). Any other pointers? > > Still having trouble with what happens after the reaction because of the > femto level it is free space compared to the lattice on the 0.1nm level and > the thermal wavelength of the heavy nuclei can't be making them overlap to > behave collectively. > > > On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 1:13 AM, David Roberson <[email protected]>wrote: > >> ... > > When one of the bodies is much smaller than the other two, the little guy >> can be sent packing in a hurry. >> >> Dave >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: John Franks <[email protected]> >> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >> Sent: Sat, Dec 21, 2013 11:43 am >> Subject: Re: [Vo]: Collective Phenomena >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_drift >> >> >> On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Eric Walker <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Hi :) >>> >>> On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 8:05 AM, John Franks <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> I was thinking about your desire to have quasi-particles, which are >>>> low energy collective phenomena operating over several 10s of nm, somehow >>>> do the impossible and behave like a real particle with reduced charge etc. >>>> >>> >>> Personally, I think the quasi-particle lead is a red herring when it >>> comes to explaining LENR. I understand that quasi-particles are only very >>> weakly bound -- the binding energy being much less than an eV. I also am >>> not impressed by coherent-motion theories. (As a physics dilettante, I >>> have no basis for not being impressed. I'm just not.) >>> >>> >>>> I was looking at the wandering planets thread and probably the reason >>>> for the observed ejection is a phenomena called "digital energy drift" >>>> (wiki it). >>>> >>> >>> This sounds a little like a rogue wave phenomenon [1]; Jones mentioned >>> something similar sometime back [2]. I'm personally guessing the planets >>> in the simulation are being ejected because of a gradual floating point >>> error (I think James Bowery alluded to this) or just insufficiently >>> sophisticated handling of the startup of the system. >>> >>> Eric >>> >>> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_wave >>> [2] http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg22649.html >>> >>> >> >
