If Kim et al have now explained CF then there is nothing left for me to say on this subject.
Harry On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 8:26 AM, Alain Sepeda <alain.sep...@gmail.com> wrote: > What I have understood is that momentum conservation is a shortcut, > uncounscious to "free space" physicists. It mean "gamma" as one particle to > compensate momentum. > > In lattice, momentum can be dissipated in many way, moreover particles are > so bound to other particle that the allowed change/excitation, involving > many real particle, make some pseudo-particle emerge as "excitation of the > system"... like phonons, polaritons, hole, virtual mass electrons. > > > what I've understood, is such: > > in fact particles don't exist as object, but are allowed excitation of the > fields... > In a lattice the field are so much coupled, glued, tightened, that the > pseudo-particle are the only allowed excitation of the field, but this > excitation involve many fields, and many what are usually independent > excitation (particle)... > > imagine that you see people in a train station exchange hall... > each passenger have his trajectory, and move interacting with others. For > pani prediction in public place IBM have modeled them as lone particles > reacting at 2m by collision avoidance. > imagine now a couple with kids? a virtual particle appear... you cannot > break it, or it will create new uncommon interaction, like separating > quarks. > In a crowded metro, you can see very funny pseudo particle, like holes, > compression, some virtual mass, viscosity and rigidity... add a familly, > luggage, and you will see many pseudo-particles, bigger than individual. > > Applying free-space physics, and momentum conservation to LENr is like > applying ballistic and IBM model of travelers, to a crowded metro cart in > fire. > > I imagine physicist can find a better way to explain it... this way to > explain is how I understand it. > > What I take from that explanation is mostly modesty about lattice QM, like > one should have in closed place crowd prediction. > > > 2013/6/9 Harry Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> > >> Another thing I find puzzling is why Kim appends the phrase "in free >> space" to momentum conservation. >> I thought conservation of momentum was a universal law, which >> means it suppose to apply everywhere under any circumstances. >> For example James Clerk Maxwell made sure his theory of >> electromagnetism did not violate the conservation of momentum. >> >> Harry >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Alain Sepeda <alain.sep...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> are'nt gamma the way to compensate momentum ? >>> and neutron the expected nuclear products? >>> >>> by the way I appreciate the way yeong kim explain why lattice is not >>> free space : >>> "even though I clearly recognized that the conventional nuclear >>> scattering theory at positive energies cannot directly be applied to >>> nuclear reactions involving deuterons bound in a metal, which is a >>> negative-energy bound-state problem. Quantum scattering theory describing >>> the Coulomb barrier problem is applicable to scattering experiments with >>> nuclear beams." >>> >>> a much more sexy explanation than my microelectronic experience that QM >>> in solid is ... strange... ( ;-) ) >>> >>> >>> >>> 2013/6/7 Harry Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> >>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 11:14 PM, Peter Gluck <peter.gl...@gmail.com>wrote: >>>> >>>>> *Prof. Yeong Kim interviewed*: a veteran finally gets optimistic following >>>>> a technological breakthrough. >>>>> Please see: >>>>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/06/a-veterans-voice.html >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Dr. Peter Gluck >>>>> Cluj, Romania >>>>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
