Takahashi's theory of the formation of a Tetrahedral Symmetric
Condensate by, as I understand it, two deuterium molecules, i.e.,
four deuterons and the four electrons, which if they arrange with
each deuteron at a vertex of a tetrahedron, which is what would be
optimal packing into the cubic palladium lattice at the surface,
resulting in collapse and fusion to Be-8, which then fissions
promptly to two alpha particles at 23.8 Mev, seems quite interesting;
it seems to me that it predicts most known CF phenomena:
1. No direct neutrons.
2. Surface reaction, since deuterium dissociates on entering the lattice.
3. Takahashi predicts from quantum theory that if the TSC forms, it
will fuse 100%.
4. No momentum transfer problem, all energy is kinetic with the alpha
particles.
5. Alpha radiation.
6. The TSC, in its short lifetime, being neutrally charged, may
itself directly fuse with other elements present, causing the +4
transmutation known from, say, Iwamura.
7. 2 or 3 deuterons, unless they are energetic, packed in the
lattice, might have increase fusion rate, there is some evidence for
that, but 4, we can easily imagine, is where it happens. And 5 is too
damn tight, doesn't happen. Very unusual conditions required,
explaining why the lab didn't vaporize....
8. Apparently no new physics needed. I'm reminded of the
Oppenheimer-Phillips reaction; as an ad-hoc visualization, the
deuterons are polarized, protons out, so they can approach more
closely, possibly closely enough for the strong nuclear force to take
over between the neutrons; and unlike the more traditional O-P
reaction with a heavy nucleus, the repulsive force is only that
between two singular positive charges, so the deuteron doesn't
fracture as it does in the usual O-P reaction, the whole thing is
sucked in. The electrons, of course, help shield the Coulomb barrier as well.
9. The energetic alphas will cause secondary reactions, explaining
low-level neutrons, that's how Mosier-Boss mentions the theory.
So ... while this theory has some substantial notice, Storms
discusses it in The Science of LENR (2007), Mosier-Boss refer to it
in their January Triple-track paper in Naturwissenschaften, there is
a paper by Takahashi on the quantum theory analyzing the "motion" of
the condensate in the ACS LENR Sourcebook (2008), it's mentioned by
He Jing-tang in Frontiers of Physics in China (2007), and, of course,
Takahashi has been publishing on multibody fusion since the early
1990s, but when I watch the videos of, say, the LENR seminar run by
Robert Duncan at the U of Missouri, no mention of it. There was a
presentation on Bose-Einstein condensate theory and LENR, by Kim, and
Kim has a paper published in Naturwissenschaften in May of this year
on this, but ....
No citation of Takahashi. Takahashi mostly cites himself. What's going on?
Storms briefly covers it with:
Takahashi proposed that four deuterons condense to make Be-8. which
quickly decomposes into two alpha particles, each with 23.8 MeV.
This energy is consistent with the measurements provided formation
of Be-8 can be justified.
Now, I can imagine what he was thinking. Two deuterons can't easily
fuse. Three seems remote. Four? That ought to be so totally rare,
forget it! However, if we think, instead, of deuterium *molecules,*
two deuterons electronically bound, entering the lattice, one enters
cubic confinement. It's "tight," the electrons get dissociated and
spread over the lattice, and the two deuterons separate, preferring
one per cubic cell. But for a short while, there is a single
deuterium molecule in there. Add *one* more. Presto: The confinement
conditions shape the proto-TSC, which is predicted to collapse and
fuse. That's why *four*.
So why does Takahashi not mention the words "Bose-Einstein
condensate," which is what the TSC seems to be? And why does Kim not
mention Takahashi, his prior experimental work, and his theory? Kim
doesn't seem to mention 4D fusion, or does he?
Have I got this wrong? Is the TSC not a Bose-Einstein condensate? If
it is, as I believe I understand, then we have two major papers
published, last year and this, that really align with each other.
Takahashi would simply be more specific. Have any quantum physicists
reviewed these papers?
