*John, since are acting as Ed’s spokesperson, I assumed you understood a little QM. Apparently that was not a valid assumption.*
I'm not acting as his spokesman, I speak for myself. You toss out some vague reference to how fermions & bosons act differently in nuclear reactions, and because I'm befuddled by the obvious ambiguity of your statement, then that must mean I don't known anything about QM? Seriously? I don't appreciate the needling, just so you know. *Ed is an electrochemist not a physicist. He accuses me of being a lawyer, not a physicist, but at least over the years, I have taken the time to become acquainted with QM and he pretty much rejects the field. Perhaps you do as well.* Again, presumptuous and kind of a rude jab. Have I said something to annoy you? *The Pauli exclusion principle is one of the pillars of QM. It states that the total wave function for two identical fermions is anti-symmetric with respect to exchange of the particles. This means that they simply cannot fuse in circumstances below thermonuclear plasma threshold conditions (which are extremely demanding). Adding an electron as in P-e-P does not really alleviate the problem; and even on the sun, the reaction is extraordinarily rare and almost never happens, so how can anyone even suggest that on earth it will happen regularly at low temperature? That is preposterous, really.* How this is accomplished, if it is in fact the mechanism, is a mystery -- you are not bringing anything new to the table here Jones. LENR violates conventional theory...Duh. You can't say conclusively the mechanism Ed is proposing is impossible based on conventional theory based on high-energy free-space reactions. If that's what the helium evidence in PdD is pointing to then why not follow it until shown otherwise? We'll have a better idea of what's going on in NiH once more ash data becomes available. Perhaps you're right and it is completely different mechanism. We don't know, and you certainly don't either. Until then your presumption that not only BEC's are forming at copious enough rates, but they also react enough at copious enough rates. Where has there ever been solid experimental evidence of a BEC doing any of the things you think it can do? You're taking a leap of faith, and acting like its all so obvious. Like I said, I think BEC is attractive, but not some slam-dunk as a number of vortex posters like to imply. On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > *From:* Foks0904 > > > > OK...you sort of lost me. What are you getting at exactly? It doesn't > contradict what I wrote in the slightest. Yeah, fermions & bosons play > different roles in nuclear process, in all processes actually -- so what? > > > > John, since are acting as Ed’s spokesperson, I assumed you understood a > little QM. Apparently that was not a valid assumption. > > > > The Pauli exclusion principle is one of the pillars of QM. It states that > the total wave function for two identical fermions is anti-symmetric with > respect to exchange of the particles. This means that they simply cannot > fuse in circumstances below thermonuclear plasma threshold conditions > (which are extremely demanding). Adding an electron as in P-e-P does not > really alleviate the problem; and even on the sun, the reaction is > extraordinarily rare and almost never happens, so how can anyone even > suggest that on earth it will happen regularly at low temperature? That is > preposterous, really. > > > > Ed is an electrochemist not a physicist. He accuses me of being a lawyer, > not a physicist, but at least over the years, I have taken the time to > become acquainted with QM and he pretty much rejects the field. Perhaps you > do as well. > > > > Protons are Fermions. Thus, Ed has chosen an impossible reaction for > fusion via the Hydroton theory, one which has no physical reality in LENR, > at least when we are dealing with Fermions. As I said earlier, he could be > correct as to deuterium. > > > > Integer spin particles, Bosons, are not subject to the Pauli exclusion > principle and have a far easier time fusing in condensed matter, at high > probability due to tunneling - especially since they have inherent coulomb > screening from the neutron. Deuterons are Bosons. And even if Ed does not > like tunneling, it is the only reason that his theory has a leg to stand > on. LENR in the hydroton scenario is possible with Bosons and impossible > with Fermions. It is as simple as that. > > > > Hope that helps, > > > > Jones > > > > > > > > > > >
