Eric - In the end, there’s nothing new under the sun and the best we can do is try to get it right at least once along the pathway.
One good thing about a long-running forum, with a heated give-and-take of
ideas - is that if you can grasp everyone’s position, even for a few hours,
and evolve your own thinking often enough with improvement over time, then
eventually … it should be possible to pick and choose among old posts and
find one that makes the writer look like a genius. :-)
The problem is in making that brilliant post the most recent one!
From: Eric Walker
If you look in the archives, “stripping” was favored by me
for many years, and I first introduced it here - but opinions change.
The first reference I saw to the OP process was from a
thread between you and Abd Lomax, in 2010, in which you appeared to have
introduced the possibility. In these posts I give credit to you:
https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg92455.html
https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg92381.html
If the gain is QM based – which is to say a type of nuclear
tunneling which is different than electron tunneling in semiconductors, then
bosons are highly favored to begin with.
Right now I like neutron stripping and the OP process. In
the past, in approximate chronological order, I've argued for a kind of
nano-Polywell; an ill-conceived dipolariton-based bosonic fusion;
Widom-Larsen; p+d fusion in nickel without thought given to the gammas;
hidden d+d fusion and Pd-attenuated gammas; deuteron and/or proton capture
in nickel; non-equilibrium disruption of the electronic structure of the
metal and attending Coulomb screening; d+d fusion through z-pinch in
electric arcs together with a new kind of electromagnetic channel that
short-circuits the formation of gammas; and now OP and neutron stripping.
As I learn more about the relevant physics and see insurmountable problems,
I'm willing to switch to a new hypothesis. (I continue to take seriously
some of the more recent thought experiments even as I give attention to OP +
neutron stripping in the context of nickel.)
In this particular case it's not so much about arguing
against something that is "QM" based, in which spin is central, in favor of
neutron stripping. I'm addressing an objection you raised earlier on in
this thread:
Note that stripping is closer to brute force thermodynamics,
and unlikely to happen in condensed matter.
I'm saying that the same objection applies to the bosonic
deuteron capture reaction that you've proposed, because the neutron, as you
have clarified, will only screen at short distances.
Eric
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
