In particular, this paragraph seems to support my Balloon analogy for
absorbing most of the high energy emissions into the lattice.
"...as in the Mossbauer effect, through a real effect, implicit in the
symmetry associated with rigid lattice translations that preserve periodic
order, it is possible for a lattice to “recoil” elastically, as a whole, in
response to a collision at a point. In the generalization of band theory
[19] to many-body, finite systems, the same symmetry is invoked and leads
to a huge degeneracy. Because indistinguishable particles are involved in
these systems, implicitly, additional degeneracies are also present. The
combined effects provide a means for particles to have appreciable overlap
at many, periodically displaced “points” (as discussed below),
simultaneously, for finite periods of time, in a manner that can result in
new forms of collisions in which momentum is transferred from the locations
where overlap can occur, rigidly to the lattice as a whole. When these
idealized forms of motion are initiated by collisions resulting from the
overlap between d’s in IBS’s, they can result in forms of coupling that can
cause nuclear fusion to take place in which small amounts of momentum and
energy from many different locations are transferred coherently to the
solid as a whole and subsequently transferred to many different particles
in a cooperative fashion. As a consequence, in agreement with experiment,
the associated nuclear energy is predicted to be released without
high-energy particles. "
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 12:01 AM, Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In this old thread, we discussed BECs with Edmund Storms. He
> unsubscribed from Vortex soon after this interaction, hopefully I wasn't
> the one who drove him off.
>
> Anyways, at the time I did not have access to Chubb's theory but now Jed
> has uploaded his Ion Band State Theory (IBST) paper onto Lenr-Canr.org
>
> It is compelling. But I am disheartened that Jones Beene said it is
> above his pay grade. Now I think it is two layers above my pay grade.
> It seems to cover all the bases and it uses conventional physics.
>
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ChubbSRconvention.pdf
>
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> NO!!! That is not the issue Cold fusion produces He4 without radiation.
>>>
>> ***There have been some observances of radiation. Not very much, but
>> some.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Hot fusion produces a mixture of energetic fragments of He.These are two
>>> entirely different processes producing different products. The name is only
>>> used to distinguish between the two different processes.
>>>
>> ***I think I see where the difference lies. Let's say we had a million
>> balloons all filled with air, and around those million balloons there is a
>> lattice of tinker toys such that each balloon is boxed in. Now, in the
>> middle of all those balloons, you pop one of them. Would you be able to
>> hear the explosion? Probably not, because the emitted energy would be
>> absorbed by the lattice & other baloons. Similarly, with billions of H
>> atoms trapped in Palladium lattices, when 2 of them fuse, the emitted
>> energy gets absorbed by the lattice. That's how we end up with
>> transmutations.
>>
>> But if you had a million balloons in a big room (with no tinker toy
>> lattice) and you exploded 50,000 of them at one time, would you hear the
>> explosion? Yes. The emitted energy would not be fully absorbed by the
>> surrounding matter, and indeed could even lead to further explosions &
>> emissions. That's the difference between cold fusion (tinker toy lattice,
>> only very few fusion events) and hot fusion (no tinker toy lattice,
>> thousands of fusion events leading up to a large emission of energy).
>>
>> Imposing the conclusions of hot fusion emitted energy onto cold fusion
>> emitted energy is where your observation loses its validity.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
