If He took off by itself, how fast would it be moving? Detecting and measuring the speed of He particles would be a way checking for a conservation of momentum violation.
harry On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 5:11 PM, <mix...@bigpond.com> wrote: > In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Fri, 7 Jun 2013 13:15:46 -0400: > Hi, > > If particle emission doesn't relieve the excited nucleus of its energy > (#2), > then some other means is required. If that is not gamma emission (and the > gammas > are clearly absent), then the assumption appears to be that the 4He would > need > to "take off" by itself. This clearly violates conservation of momentum. > (Hence > both numbers 3 are in fact the same thing.) > > However this requirement is clearly nonsense. The obvious truth is that no > 3rd > miracle is required if an alternative method of satisfying both > conservation of > energy and momentum can be found. There are several possibilites:- > > 1) Takahashi. > 2) Ron Maimon. > 3) Hydrino fusion (fast electron &/or other partner from the shrunken > molecule). > 4) Prior loss of energy such that by the time the two nuclei merge, there > is > neither energy nor momentum left to lose. (This would appear to require a > new > retarding force that does external work however). > 5) Loss of energy by some means other than gamma rays after the fusion has > taken > place (see e.g. Horace's theory). > 6) Some form of the Mössbauer effect. > > >Peter, > > > >Kim says Huizenga's three miracles are: > >(1) suppression of the DD Coulomb repulsion (Gamow factor) * * > >(2) no production of nuclear products (D+D ? n+ 3He, etc.) > >(3) the violation of the momentum conservation in free space > > > >In other places I have seen Huizenga three miracles written like this : > >(1) the mystery of how the Coulomb barrier is penetrated > >(2) the lack of strong neutron emissions > >(3) the lack of strong emission of gamma or x-rays > >see for example > >http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/Chubb93Editorial.pdf > >http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/Theories/LiTheory.shtml#miracles > > > > > >The second set does not mention of violation of momentum conservation in > >free space. > >Which set is correct? > > > >Harry > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk > > http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html > >
