On Dec 29, 2011, at 3:08 PM, Charles HOPE wrote:
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Horace Heffner
<hheff...@mtaonline.net> wrote:
On Dec 27, 2011, at 9:05 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:
Horace,
Thanks for the comment.
What is needed are some toy models with some simple simulations.
I will check out your theory.
Do you believe any "new physics" is required
- or does standard QM suffice?
I am getting pretty boggled by the complexity of it all.
LP
I think it is presently not computationally feasible to analyze the
deflated state using QM. This is due to the extreme relativistic
effects combined with magnetic effects.
I'm not sure why quantum mechanics couldn't analyze this state,
I think ultimately it can. I know of no analytic method available,
other than possibly FEA. Naudt's relativistic orbital description
has gained little acceptance, and neither has Mulenberg's. The
addition of spin coupling magnetic considerations puts the
complexity over the top, as far as I know. I think the key now is to
focus on the gestalt, experimental implications, and hope detailed
analysis follows as experiment dictates. Also, as an amateur with
limited life expectancy and education, this is the only choice I have.
but I don't believe that the concept of deflation is mainstream
physics, is it?
No, deflation fusion is not mainstream, it is my concept. However,
the deflated state itself can be, was, described using conventional
physics.
Also, what are your criticisms of Takahashi?
I see no use in criticizing Takahashi. I gather it is culturally
difficult for him, especially coming from an amateur like me. No
need to be even more socially insensitive than I already am.
In general, I see the large number of variations of D+D -->
intermediate product --> 4He theories, even my common sense X + 2D --
> X + 4He "nuclear catalysis" idea, as failing to describe the most
important and mysterious aspects of cold fusion, namely heavy element
transmutation without the abundant high energy signatures that should
be observed, or even the massive heat that should be observed if
conservation of mass-energy is necessary. Any such theory that is
adequate to do this can not assume neutrons precede the cold fusion
reactions, because neither neutron activation nor radioactive
byproducts are observed except in very small amounts that do not
correspond to the overall transmutation rate. I think heavy element
transmutation is where the essence of the field lies. It is
unfortunate so much thinking is focused on D+D. Perhaps it is
assumed that since D+D is difficult to explain, that X+H or X+D is
far more difficult or impossible to explain, or even does not exist.
This I think is far from the truth. The most critical impediments are
tunneling distance and tunneling energy. These are impediments
overcome by the shorter distance to lattice atoms from lattice sites,
and the net energy gain to be had from the tunneling of deflated
state hydrogen. Heavy element transmutation is far more credible and
probable to me than direct hydrogen + hydrogen fusion. Perhaps the
latter does not even happen to any significant degree. The lack of
conservation of energy, both on the positive and negative sides, is
explained by the trapped electron concept, which is also not
conventional thinking, but rather part of the deflation fusion
concept. The trapped electron can kinetically absorb the initial EM
pulse of the strong nuclear reaction, radiate in small increments,
and be involved in follow-on weak reactions with greatly elevated
probabilities due to extended lingering time. In some cases it may
help induce fission. Understanding the trapping mechanism in the
first place, once tunneling is accepted, is high school physics.
Understanding how the electron can escape without a weak reaction,
however, takes some understanding of zero point energy.
My theory is really just common sense. I am surprised that it is so
non-palatable. I have assumed that is because my writing skills are
so bad and because I need pictures. I guess I shouldn't be surprised
at all though. Many cold fusion theories are only accepted by their
authors.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
