Are you proposing a BEC? A BEC cannot form at these temperatures, This is not correct.
A polariton has a mass the is 10^-11 that of an electron. Because of this almost zero polariton mass, a polariton condensate are almost always produced at any temperature. On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > All these electron combining with proton theories violate the conservation > of leptons. These reactions are forbidden. > > Meson production does not violate conservation laws. I went with meson > production because of this. > > > On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Bob Higgins <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Obviously I have some catch-up posting to do. I will begin with some of >> the latter comments. >> >> Jones, you exemplify the other side of the coin: "If I thought of it, so >> it must be right." We stand on the shoulders of giants. I read and try to >> synthesize the best understanding I can piece together from what I read. >> The DDL works by Maly & Va'vra are outstanding inputs. I didn't derive >> the DDL solutions myself, nor, I suspect did you. You obtained your >> knowledge and opinions of their existence from reading the opinions of >> experts who studied the topic for years. Do not promote the delusion that >> just because someone has a different opinion that it is based on unsound >> synthesis of the facts and faith. I do consider Ed Storms an expert as he >> has an order of magnitude more hands on, true analytic experience with this >> technology than perhaps any of us. We should be grateful that he has >> shared his knowledge so willingly. I don't accept everything I read at >> face value, but instead weigh facts and expert opinions to synthesize my >> own view. >> >> Basically, your view has now become Mills-ian. Both you and Mills are >> convinced that all of the excess energy is coming from photon-less >> transitions below hydrogen ground state. I can see your point - it is just >> not my viewpoint because it doesn't fit all of the facts. >> >> As far as I can see, none of the Ni-H experiments have been analytic in >> the sense that the energy/ atomic event has been estimated based on the >> measurements of the system. This has been done for Pd-D and the results >> are far more consistent with fusion than they are with DDL transitions. >> That doesn't mean that DDL energy extraction wasn't happening, only it was >> swamped by a greater energy producing reaction. >> >> As far as a COP of 2 being supportive of DDL vs Fusion - that point is >> ridiculous. The COP of 2 includes the factor of the (number of events per >> second)(energy per event)/(Power in) +1. In most Ni-H cases we have zero >> data for the number of events per second and so the COP is completely >> useless as an indicator of what is happening. A COP of 2 (or anything) >> provides no clue to the value for (energy/event). A COP of 2 is incredibly >> valuable in pointing out new physics being involved, and may prove to have >> some commercial use. But it has nothing to do with elucidating the >> reaction mechanism. >> >> You also seem to gloss over your own miracles. The predictions for DDL >> are that it requires photon-less transitions. You throw out "spin >> coupling" as a mechanism without any additional chain of reaction that >> would lead to dissipating the large energy available from DDL transition >> [you might as well throw out "ice cream sandwich"]. Are you positing that, >> as per the Va'vra paper that the DDL states are many, and like Mills, you >> are only descending a few levels below the normal ground state? How are >> you proposing that coupling occurs? Spin coupling would be a short range >> event requiring close physical proximity of the descending atom to whatever >> you are proposed it is spin coupled to - closer than a gas phase >> statistical concentration [and it would have to work with the low pressure >> of Mizuno's experiments]. What is it that you are proposing as the >> concentrating mechanism? Are you proposing a BEC? A BEC cannot form at >> these temperatures, but some other nano-magnetically confined condensation >> may exist - only there is no real evidence for them, they are purely >> speculative (until proven they exist, they are just another form of >> miracle). >> >> You stated that Mizuno's experiment had no cracks. This is another >> absurd statement. Nano-cracks, as have been implicated by Storms as the >> NAE, would not be visible in an SEM at a scale 100x smaller than what is >> shown. With the processing that Mizuno described, I can guarantee that >> there are cracks. Surfaces that appear smooth and single crystalline are >> the ones unlikely to have significant numbers of cracks. The bubbly >> features in Mizuno's SEM are micron-scale features, not nano-scale >> features; and the features you see are *unlikely* to be those that are >> responsible for the effect. It is just noted that when Mizuno processed >> the wire this way, he got this morphology at the micron-scale and he got >> excess heat. We cannot expect to see the nano-scale features in the SEM >> and can only use these SEMs as signposts in trying to reproduce the >> experiment. >> >> Yeah, the Farnsworth fusor is a strange little device. It is useful as a >> thermal neutron source and novel light bulb. I don't see the connection to >> this discussion. Are you trying to say that production of He and T are >> similar novelties that are unrelated to LENR? >> >> I have been involved in helium leak testing of crystal packages before. >> I can tell you it is possible to make a good seal against He, and He would >> not pass through in any measurable way through even a millimeter of Pyrex >> over a fairly long duration. These Heat/He experiments were expected to be >> controversial and the researchers went to great pains to make sure the data >> was many sigma above the background and control. Experiments of similar >> analytic control simply have not been done (or not reported) for Ni-H. So, >> we don't know where Ni-H is in terms of energy/event. You seem to be able >> to dismiss experiments too easily that don't fit with your view. >> >> This business of the gamma in Rossi's experiments coming from an added >> radioactive ingredient is another absolute absurdity. Focardi, a well >> reputed nuclear scientist, ascribed the measured gamma to the Ni-H reaction >> in his paper. He would not have associated the gamma seen with the >> reaction if he suspected a radioactive source was an ingredient - he would >> have looked like a fool. This business of Rossi using a radioactive >> ingredient is a Bozo speculation based on absolutely nothing. And Rossi is >> not the only one to measure gamma from a LENR experiment - at minimum, Ed >> Storms has also reported this. >> >> Nuclear effects are unquestionably being seen. What is not clear is the >> balance between possible DDL transitions and nuclear effects. >> >> Bob Higgins >> > >
