The link has two drawings on the same page. The top drawing, which is the one I found, doesn't challenge F&P research.
The bottom drawing is my modified version and it is intended to show that the fusion process can be considered reversible as long as it does not reach the final stage. Are you asking yourself "why is he proposing a hypothetical fusion process that does not result in the production energy?" Harry On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 5:10 AM, Alain Sepeda <alain.sep...@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't see how it challenge F&P, > it is theory? > > 2014-09-28 2:34 GMT+02:00 H Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com>: > >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 5:42 PM, <mix...@bigpond.com> wrote: >> >>> In reply to H Veeder's message of Wed, 24 Sep 2014 23:04:12 -0400: >>> Hi Harry, >>> [snip] >>> >Since we are dealing in impossibilities from the outset, it seems like >>> >false logic to argue that the probability of endothermic reactions >>> >is improbable. >>> [snip] >>> I have told you what I think and why. Whether or not you choose to >>> accept it is >>> up to you. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Robin van Spaandonk >>> >>> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html >>> >>> >> >> I found this drawing on a site which happened to be extremely critical of >> P&F's research. >> >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OpDKkgdQKrgP29Nxa0N_biIsLz0qeY8UGDGpFJCFSy0/edit?usp=sharing >> >> What I like about the drawing is that it shows the three d-d fusion >> pathways all passing​ through the same intermediate stage of high energy >> helium 4. I modified the drawing to show the reaction going in both >> directions before the excited intermediate stage has a chance to decay. I >> think that the lattice facilitates the initiation of fusion but it also >> tends to inhibits the completion the fusion process. The question of course >> is of what relevancy is this scenario if it does not produce energy? If it >> can form an epicatalytic >> process then it is very relevant. >> >> >> Harry >> >> >
