LOL ----- Original Message ----- From: "Terry Blanton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 10:40 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: #CF hypothesis (was Re: surface electron layer catalyzed fusion hypothesis)
Could it get us to Uranus? Terry On 9/29/07, Jones Beene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ha! "sphincter propulsion" Luv it... > > ... don't think anyone has evoked that exact wording before, but lest > the skeptics out there latch-onto to something derogatory like > "toilet-fizzix", can we just call it "venturi propulsion" or something a > little less organic? > > Jones > > Michel Jullian wrote: > > (#CF = DIESECF Desorbing-Incident Excess Surface Electron Catalyzed Fusion, > > # being "dièse" in French) > > > > As I suggested to someone in a private message a few weeks ago, I think the > > desorbing deuteron must have more energy than that due to its free fall in > > the electron layer's electric field, in the form of a "sphincter > > contraction" like expulsion energy (sorry for the gruesome image). This > > would be due to the elastic nature of the Pd crystal which could be > > expected to re-contract locally with the participation of a large number of > > surface Pd atoms after the deuteron's passage. This kinetic energy could be > > a welcome complement to the electron layer's screening effect. > > > > This complementary effect could explain why CF occurs with Pd and D, with > > Ni (tighter lattice) and H (protium), but not (or less) e.g. with Pd and H, > > because the smaller protium would flow "too easily" (with less sphincter > > propulsion) out of the relatively roomy Pd lattice. > > > > Hope this makes some sense. Do let me know anyone if this sphincter aspect > > of hydrogen nuclei expulsion has been evoked before and/or quantified. > > > > Michel > > > > P.S. Of course the whole hypothesis, which I have presented in essentially > > classical terms (my apologies to "real" theoreticians for that), will have > > to be translated to quantum physics language and quantified before it can > > be considered a proper theory. This will be done IF --big if-- it is > > confirmed experimentally, there being obviously little point in theorizing > > further if it is proved wrong. > > > > > >
