Ed, I assume you are referring to Maimon's theory, which I am not familiar with.
When you say "the expected reaction is hot fusion", are you only referring to highly energetic collisions? Do you think the theory X.Z.Li, et al, involving resonant tunneling (at low kinetic energy), allegedly avoiding energetic byproducts, might be correct? Some references -- "Deuterium (Hydrogen) Flux Permeating through Palladium and Condensed Matter Nuclear Science" http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/LENR%20home%20page/acrobat/WeiQdeuteriumh.pdf "A Chinese view on summary of condensed matter nuclear science" http://166.111.26.4/JOFE2004Sept.Vol23No3P217.pdf "Fusion energy without strong nuclear radiation" http://www.springerlink.com/index/w4721655219541kk.pdf "Multiple Scattering Theory (MST) and Condensed Matter Nuclear ScienceSuper-Absorption in a Crystal Lattice" http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/LENR%20home%20page/acrobat/LiXZmultiplesc.pdf I am agnostic on this topic, and am very interested in your view. -- Lou Pagnucco > The problem Eric is that once the math is solved, the expected nuclear > reaction is hot fusion, not cold fusion. Consequently, this effort is > a waste of time. This is something the hot fusion field needs to > understand to explain the effect of bombarding materials with > energetic deuterons. The effort has no application to cold fusion. > > > Ed > On Feb 9, 2013, at 9:13 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: > >> Eric, >> >> It's good to hear Ron Maimon is trying to develop this theory. >> >> But, the math is truly confusing, bewildering and intimidating - >> even to formulate the problem, let alone solve it. >> When composite particles are involved, calculating tunneling >> probability >> is almost intractable - even in free space, much less in condensed >> matter. >> >> A recent paper on composite particle tunneling - >> "Tunneling of a molecule with many bound states in three dimensions" >> http://iopscience.iop.org/0953-4075/46/4/045201 >> (free - with registration) >> - (and, the many references it cites) shows how tricky this is. >> There are some related papers on arxiv.org too. >> >> In the case of LENR, I think the empirical trumps the theoretical. >> >> -- Lou Pagnucco >> >> >> Eric Walker wrote: >>> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:08 AM, <pagnu...@htdconnect.com> wrote: >>> >>> While it discusses the extreme focusing of ~1 MeV proton wave- >>> functions, >>>> perhaps particles/ions in micro-/nano-channels in zeolites, >>>> nano-crevices, nanostructures, ..., experience more wave-function >>>> focusing than expected - possibly increasing tunneling probability >>>> by dramatically increasing overlap of channel particle wave- >>>> functions. >>>> >>> >>> Ron Maimon was getting at a similar idea by having two deuterons >>> meet near >>> a palladium spectator nucleus, at the classical turning point where >>> the >>> strength of the positive charge of the palladium nucleus would push >>> the >>> positively charged deuterons back out again. With 20 keV of initial >>> kinetic energy, the deuterons would penetrate the electron shells >>> as far >>> as >>> the K shell before turning around again. At the turning point >>> their de >>> Broglie waves would be "enhanced,", or, presumably, focused, and as a >>> result overlap and tunneling would be more likely. >>> >>> Several significant difficulties with this approach were raised >>> which have >>> not yet been brought to Ron's attention. Presumably he would set us >>> straight on what I misunderstood of what he was saying. >>> >>> Eric >>> >> >> > > >
