Bob, let me see if I can simplify the issue. For fusion to occur, two D must get close enough for the two nuclei to combine. This process is prevented by the Coulomb barrier, which requires energy to overcome. A static magnetic field does not supply energy.
Once the two nuclei combine, the mass-energy must be dissipated. This can be done by fragmentation of the resulting nucleus, i.e. hot fusion, or by release of energy as many photons. Observation places a limit on the energy the photons can have. You bring spin into the discussion. The spin state has a limit to how much energy it can hold. In addition, if spin is accepted as an actual rotation about an axis, creating this spin requires the law of conservation of momentum be considered and a process needs to be identified that can apply a force to the particle such that it spins rather than moves in a line. I see no way for this to happen in your description. If spin is viewed only as another variable in equations to allow them to fit data, then I do not know how to evaluate your claim. We know that all energy that is emitted with the alpha particle eventually appears as heat and the helium ends up with its normal spin state. Therefore, energy imagined to exist as spin acts exactly like translational energy in the real world. Therefore, I do not see how the concept of spin has any relevance to the discussion. Ed Storms On Mar 6, 2014, at 12:19 PM, Bob Cook wrote: > Ed--The ionic bonds of a host lattice are not the issue when it comes to the > transfer of energy in small bits. Its whether or not the small bits can find > a host in another nucleus of the QM system or in the spin state of an > electron in that lattice. > > Bob > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Edmund Storms > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Cc: Edmund Storms > Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 10:49 AM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper" > > Bob, you fail to take into account the known and well documented bonding > energy that can exist in a chemical system. This bonding is limited to no > more than about 10 eV, yet you propose to require this bonding to share and > dissipate energy at the MeV level within a cluster of atoms. Only in the > nucleus itself is this level of bonding and interaction available. Atoms are > not attached to each other with the necessary force to share and transmit > this level of energy. > > In addition, for nuclear interaction to take place, the Coulomb barrier must > be overcome. This barrier is real and its magnitude is well known and far in > excess of any source of energy available in a chemical system. LENR requires > a new and so far unknown process to do this. I see no effort to effectively > identify this process. Simply applying IF statements is not a solution. > > Simply applying QM using equations containing arbitrary assumptions does not > change how chemical systems are known to behave. The people discussing these > issues on Vortex seem to be in a different reality than the one I have > occupied for over 60 years of scientific study of LENR, chemistry, and > physics. Any imagined or assumed process described in the modern literature > seems to be as important as what has been observed and accepted in science > for the last 100 years. Any new observation in physics seems to be fair game > as an explanation of LENR whether it has any real world support of not. In > fact, many of the papers used as justification for the proposals are simply > based on more theory and assumptions. > > Ed Storms > > > On Mar 6, 2014, at 8:54 AM, Bob Cook wrote: > >> Ed >> >> You said: >> >> >You must assume that a nuclear energy state can form between a large number >> >of atoms in a chemical system.< >> >> Yes I do assume that. Crystals like in Pd metal I would consider to be one >> QM system as long as long as the ionic chemical bonds hold the atoms >> together. The nuclear magnetic moments of a crystal clearly couple with the >> electrons in the system. Nano particles, although not as large as a >> crystals, are also probably a QM system with many atoms. All molecules are >> QM systems and when close together may have various coupling mechanisms >> although not of any practical intensity. >> >> Bob >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Edmund Storms >> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >> Cc: Edmund Storms >> Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 6:00 AM >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper" >> >> >> On Mar 5, 2014, at 11:10 PM, Eric Walker wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >>> >>> When alpha particles pass through material, a series of nuclear reactions >>> can occur that emit radiation. In addition, bremsstrahlung radiation is >>> emitted as the alpha slows down. Hagelstrin describes these processes in >>> the papers I attached previously. I suggest you read them. >>> >>> If an alpha is born from a [dd]* resonance in which the mass energy is >>> fractionated among a large number of sinks (e.g., nearby electrons and ion >>> cores), the 4He daughter would have no or almost no energy. There would be >>> the bath of photons from the fractionation, the nearly stationary 4He >>> daughter, and no Bremsstrahlung from collisions by a fast particle. >> >> Yes, that is the assumption. The issue is whether that assumption is valid. >> Can a large number of sinks participate in what is a random process such >> that they can share mass-energy? Can this collection remain intact for the >> time required for the process to go to completion. You must assume >> that a nuclear energy state can form between a large number of atoms in a >> chemical system. This concept is in conflict with the laws of >> thermodynamics. >> >> Ed Storms >>> >>> Eric >>> >> >> > >
