Eric, my comment has no relationship to any theory, mine or Ron's. It
is based purely on probability of the events you imagine happening at
a useful rate. The most probable event is an encounter between one H
and one Ni. A less probable event will occur when two H arrive at the
same Ni at the same time. A very improbably event will occur when 1 D
and 1 H both arrive at the same Ni at the same time. This is a fact
that is not open to debate. What the H does when it gets to a Ni is an
entirely different discussion. I would expect that if a Ni were able
to fuse with 1D and 1H, it would fuse with 2 H much more often. No
evidence for the resulting nuclear product has been found. And NO, I
do not believe Ron's theory.
If as you say in a later posting, Ron suggests that the H and D are
brought near to a Ni by some process, he is now entering the world of
chemistry. There is no mechanism known in chemistry for this to happen
expect by a random process or because a new structure is formed that
requires generation of Gibbs energy. No such structure is known.
I object when people make up rules that simple do not exist in the
real world of chemical behavior.
Ed Storms
On May 25, 2013, at 11:05 AM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 7:08 AM, Edmund Storms
<stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Eric, when you speculate, you need to apply some basic science. For
example, a reaction involving three nuclei, one of which has a very
low concentration has a probability of occurring that is near zero,
based on the random chance that all three can get together at the
same time at the same location. Then you have to add the ability to
overcome the huge Coulomb barrier at a significant rate, which is
also very small.
Ed, I urge you to familiarize yourself with Ron's theory. If you
were familiar with it, you would see that these concerns are perhaps
misinformed, and that a discussion on the question of fast particles
can proceed without ignoring basic science. There are two points of
basic science that are relevant here -- (1) although there are a
small number of D2 in normal H2, around 1 out of 6000, if the
protons dissociated from the H2 are moving helter-skelter, there is
a high likelihood of their encountering the d dissociated from the
D2. Now the low availability of D2 is no longer relevant, in my
opinion, since there are so many protons.
Concerning the problem of the Coulomb barrier (2), this is a problem
faced by Ron's theory, your theory, and everyone else's theory. If
you want me to apply this particular point of basic science in
determining what to discuss and propose, I'd have to set aside
consideration of everything we talk about on this list. But as it
happens, Ron's theory does address Coulomb repulsion. Ron says that
there is an efficient way to convert photons in the x-ray range into
electrostatic repulsion sufficient to drive a nuclear reaction, by
way of the Auger process. So what is needed are enough events in
which x-ray photons scatter on inner shell Nickel electrons when
protons are close by. If Ron's supposition about the Auger
mechanism is true, there is a possibility that a sufficient number
of protons will receive an electrostatic kick to start moving around
at the energies needed for fusion. I think this is basic science,
although the basic scientists don't seem to think so. ;)
Only then is it worth considering the fast He3, which is not detected.
I am currently tracking down the experimental and theoretical basis
for the conclusion that there are no alphas detected in cold fusion
experiments. Right now I am reading Peter Hagelstein's papers in
JCMNS, vol. 3. So far I am underwhelmed, and the case looks shaky.
If you could point me to comparable evidence showing there is no 3He
emerging from Ni/H systems, that would be helpful. My suspicion is
that people have not yet been systematic about looking for it.
Why would you assume a person who is measuring the mass peak at D2
would not notice if it started to drop?
You are right to call me out on this. My concern about overlooking
a drop in D2 was no doubt misplaced.
Eric
