On Dec 30, 2011, at 9:15 AM, Charles HOPE wrote:
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 11:58 PM, Horace Heffner
<hheff...@mtaonline.net> wrote:
The deflated state electron, pre-fusion, is not below ground state
energy. It is a degenerate form of the ground state, or whatever
state the hydrogen nucleus and associated electron occupy in the
lattice.
How can the ground state be degenerate? Do you have any arguments
using bra-ket notation?
There are two orbital modes, one the normal atomic mode, the other
the deflated state mode. The mean orbital radius of the two states
differs, and differs for multiple circumnavigations of the nucleus.
They are distinct sates. It takes no energy to hop between the two
states, and no radiation occurs between states. The two states are
thus degenerate. The two states are, or should be, part of the same
Hamiltonian. However, absorbed hydrogen is not like atomic or
molecular hydrogen. There is not room at a normal lattice site for
either atomic or molecular hydrogen orbitals. The electron
(statistically) associated with the absorbed hydrogen is essentially
ionically bonded, populates conduction bands. The partial orbital
structure I think exists there differs from ordinary molecular
orbitals, that the electrons involved have a dual conduction band and
partial orbital existence. For some notes from 1999 see p. 13 ff of:
http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/PartOrb.pdf
This analysis has a significant relationship with degenerate lattice
electrons . Unfortunately, it has been long overdue for a rewrite,
and melding with the rest of my theory.
In any case, on top of having to account for relativistic effects,
and magnetic binding potentials, this kind of *additional* electron
dual existence makes defining a Hamiltonian difficult.
Preferable to what for describing what?
Isn't the Takahashi approach preferable to the deflation fusion
approach
Preferable for describing what? Preferable for answering which
questions regarding the lack of signature events, or conservation of
energy?
because it maintains the standard model? The only reference to
deflated hydrogen comes from vortex.
I assume you mean the problem is deflation fusion theory only comes
from an amateur?
As for external references, did you not see the reference I provided
you to "Deflation Fusion, Speculations Regarding the Nature of Cold
Fusions", Infinite Energy (I.E.), Volume 14, Issue 80, July/August 2008:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/HeffnerIE80.pdf
The table of contents is here:
http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue80/index.html
Also, see "Cold Fusion Nuclear Reactions", Journal of Nuclear Physics
(Nuclear experiments blog), March 28, 2010:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=179
The pdf version is no longer available there without authorization,
but I keep a copy here in which some typos etc are fixed:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf
Perhaps you are referring to Journals referencing my work? No chance
of *that* happening!
Huge numbers of atoms are involved in heavy element
transmutation. Can you imagine Bockris' surprise when he found
them? there was no prior indication that such energetic events
were taking place.
I see. There really are several phenomena all confusingly anomalous!
Yes, much more anomalous than deuterium fusion.
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 do not think the problem is a lack of math. The problem is that I
have not explained the processes with enough simplicity that a
child can follow them. I sincerely doubt that anyone on this list,
at any rate, wants or needs more math for convincing. Math only
obscures the underlying concepts.
I've never heard a scientist express this sentiment before. For
me, I find rather the opposite. My eyes glaze over when confronted
by paragraph after paragraph of prose, without equations to really
explain what's going on. I don't think children should understand
this material!
You should keep in mind that I am an amateur writing for an amateur
audience. As I wrote on my web page: "It has been said ideas are
only one percent inspiration vs the 99 percent that is perspiration.
Given that, if anything here provides even 1 percent of the
inspiration for something truly important to mankind, then the effort
has all been worthwhile. Similarly, if the outlandish thoughts here
make anyone, especially a self learning physics student like me,
question what we really know about the universe, and that leads on to
meaningful investigations, then that too makes the effort worthwhile.
If a concept is flawed, why is it flawed?"
I think in the end, if deflation fusion concepts are useful for
leading the way to any successful experiments and devices, they will
be considered so simple that Popular Science will be able to describe
it in a manner understandable by a child.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
