On Aug 11, 2007, at 7:58 PM, Michel Jullian wrote:
Horace,
Your argument below is flawed because
E = grad (V)
is the definition of V as much as it is the definition of E, so p1
and p2 cannot be fixed, as you imagined, independently of the real
charges which determine the field: once you (the power supply) will
have removed all N electrons from B1 and transferred them to B2,
then the voltage difference will be as determined by the field
created by the real charges. What would be idealized would be to
imagine that a power supply can impose a given voltage difference
across two bodies, regardless of the electrons those bodies can shed.
Guess what Michel, you are certainly right about the above. You
should feel good about that! However, it is still unrelated to the
original debate.
The above essentially was supposed to be *my* point. I can see I
misstated my case. It is very difficult to sensibly debate this side
issue to a side issue and still make progress on my paper at the same
time. I don't have time for both. I certainly agree with what you
wrote above.
What I really meant meant to say is essentially just the above. Once
you pick a gauge, as I did, and measure two potentials in that gauge
(the potentials p1 and p2 have no meaning without some choice of
gauge), you can't then pick any arbitrary potential increment K and
add it to both p1 and p2 and expect E can be maintained. Similarly,
you can't just pick any E and expect electron fugacity to be
maintainable without an appropriate choice of both gauge and
potential. Once you have chosen your gauge, within the limits I
specified, the fugacity can be determined based on potential.
This brings us back to the main side issue, about which I still feel
the same.
The veracity your subject statement under some conditions, or lack
of same, is irrelevant. It is well known that classical
electromagnetism is a gauge theory. However, it is unreasonable and
irrelevant to repeatedly note that fact when a gauge has been
specified. Within the context of the deflation fusion topic, the
context in which you criticized changes to Figure 1, when gauge is
specified as I did, then *absolute* surface potential is an indicator
of electron fugacity. I say once again that to suggest this effect
can be created by relative potentials and not absolute potentials
where potential is defined within the constraints I very clearly laid
out, is to miss the point entirely. It leads to nonsensical designs
and to the inability to understand why CF conditions may be so
difficult to achieve reliably.
The objective is immobilize conduction band electrons, to increase
their density such that the addition of more electrons compresses the
quantum waveform of the electrons such that the momentum and energy
of some electrons is increased via Heisenberg. This method of
momentum and quantum energy state (though not necessarily Newtonian
momentum or energy) increase is only possible when loading exceeds
1-1 (assuming a metal is involved with 1 conduction band electron per
atom) in the metal lattice *and* there are excess charges added, i.e.
local electron fugacity is high. That is the only way to compress the
electron wave functions to a size where Heisenberg becomes
significant. The increase in quantum energy state permits Rydberg
orbital types that have vastly increased nucleus occupancy
probabilities. Inside a Faraday cage, or on the surface of the earth
with no faraday cage (and seeing no Faraday cage around the earth)
this initiating condition can be related to an absolute potential
defined in a context such as I did define it. The initiating
condition certainly can *not* be defined by relative potentials as
you seem to want to do. To attempt a design using only relative
potentials is to be designing with hit or miss techniques. You can
perhaps get away with it provided the earth is neutral or negative
potential as I defined that.
One importance of this condition I have suggested is it creates an
aggregate behavior whereby group electron pressure results in
increased probability of individual electron waveform collapse
events. It is thus in some senses an energy focusing effect. It is
not possible to engineer this effect without consideration of the
effect of an absolute surface potential, using the defined gauge, on
electron fugacity. The changes to Figure 1 were well founded.
On Aug 10, 2007, at 12:18 AM, Michel Jullian wrote:
Your disbelief that only differences of potentials matter (which is
a fact, a very fundamental one) affects many parts of your
otherwise valuable work, not just your unfortunate changes to fig.1,
[snip]
The changes to Figure 1 were not unfortunate but provided more
clarity as to the theory being advanced - without the need for the
comments that were located below Figure 1. The old Figure 1 might
make an interesting control experiment though.
Now here's a an actually important point, to me anyway. Everything
in my paper is speculation. It could *all* be wrong. On the big
issues. It could be some is right, and could lead to some very
improved results. It is certainly true also that I have much more to
write. It makes no sense to waste time on this kind of side issue.
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
