One of the things that concerns me is the lack of attention paid to Carver Mead's "Collective Electrodynamics" in which he extends the formal rigor of the vector potential.
On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]>wrote: > Eric, your description is basically correct. However, you are not aware > of all that has been observed and reported. In addition, the role of > transmutation in producing radiation is only now being realized. The small > amount of radiation is real and important to understanding the process. > However, it is not what is expected from hot fusion. > > CF is not like any nuclear process that has been observed or explained in > the past. We are looking at an entirely new phenomenon. Physicists simply > have not realized this fact. They keep tying to fit the process into their > models based on how hot fusion behaves. What is worse, people apply ideas > to CF that are in basic conflict with how nature normally behaves. CF is > not an exception to what we know. Is simply a phenomenon that has been > overlooked and ignored in the past because conventional "theory" said it > could not happen. (Yes Jones, this incorrect theory is based on QM.) We > only need to make a few changes in conventional theory to fit all the > observation into one understanding. > > Yes Eric, local energy can be released so rapidly, that local melting can > occur. This only happens where the concentration of NAE is very high, as a > result of the random distribution of NAE on the surface creating a few hot > spots. The fact that melting is possible shows that energy can be generated > by CF at temperatures up to the melting point of the surface. However, this > temperature is much less than the melting point of pure Pd. This is an > important conclusion having an impact on how the theory of the process has > to be structured. > > Ed Storms > > On Dec 22, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 1:36 AM, John Franks <[email protected]> wrote: > > Really, the MB distribution should allow for these outliers then CF would >> be happening with a non-vanishing probability. >> > > I think you're referring to what goes on in nature, outside of CF labs, on > the assumption that cold fusion does not occur? If so, this I do not think > that we can peremptorily rule out cold fusion occurring in nature at this > point. > > >> I am still struggling with the putative process and the result,, which >> should give off gamma rays, neutrons and locally vaporise the lattice. >> > > There are several results -- the results that physicists insist should be > seen for CF to be real (1), the results that explanations should be aiming > to handle (2) and the results that are actually observed (3). > > 1. Results that physicists have insisted should be seen in cold > fusion: copious gammas, neutrons, fast charged particles, byproducts > commensurate with the known branching ratios. > 2. The results that explanations should be aiming to handle: the > results that are actually observed in the lab (3) and not the ones that > physicists insist should be seen (1). > 3. The results that are actually observed: > > 1. evolution of heat out of a system beyond what can be chemically > stored within it if it were, for example, a container of petroleum fuel > or > a very high-capacity battery; > 2. a very small number of gammas and charged particles, several > orders of magnitude below what would be needed to account for the > calorimetric measurements; > 3. in PdD systems, 4He embedded within the outer layers of the Pd > cathode in amounts beyond those seen in controls; > 4. in PdD systems, off-gas that includes an amount of 4He above > background levels commensurate with the heat measured if there were > d(d,ɣ)4He fusion reactions going on. > 5. in NiH systems, apparently heat, no gammas, and transmutations > (beyond this, we don't know much). > > An important point to emphasize here is that there are very few gammas and > fast particles. This is what is observed. The basic facts that an > explanation must contend with (assuming there is only one), then, are heat > beyond what is seen in known chemical reactions, and no gammas and charged > particles above a very low threshold. There are also interesting > observations of tritium and transmutations, but these observations seem to > be quite context dependent. > > Several studies have documented lattice dislocation sites and whole > regions that have been vaporized. Mizuno includes an interesting image of > one vaporization site on the cover of his book [1]. > > Eric > > [1] > http://www.amazon.com/Nuclear-Transmutation-Reality-Cold-Fusion/dp/1892925001 > > >
