On Dec 29, 2011, at 20:09, Horace Heffner <hheff...@mtaonline.net> wrote:
> > 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. How so? It sounds like an electron level below the ground state, forbidden by QM. > > >> >> 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. Sorry, I didn't mean criticism of him personally, but his theory. Doesn't it have less New Physics, and so should be preferable? > > 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. I thought I understood you a few days ago to mean that the energy difference (23MeV?) typically seen as a gamma ray, here is seen as heat. That was my interpretation when you said the heat was the correct quantity to the helium. > 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 would guess people want more math. It's hard to convey over email, but I have a solution for that I'll write up this weekend. > 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/ > > > >
