On Apr 4, 2010, at 5:27 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 03:09 PM 4/4/2010, Horace Heffner wrote:
On Apr 4, 2010, at 9:58 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
If Takahashi's math is confirmed, we have a real candidate for an
explanation, though not necessarily the whole story.
It is not Takahashi's math that is in question, but his assumptions
and the implications of his conclusions.
The math should be in question.
If the assumptions are absurd the math is irrelevant. If you want to
question the math then that just makes the theory even more
questionable.
It is difficult, and it is a finding that, all by itself,
contradicts the assumption that fusion is impossible at room
temperature. Rather, one would have to retreat: fusion may be
impossible unless a particular physical configuration of two
deuterium molecules can form with enough frequency to create an
effect.
(2) Takahashi's math is based, indeed, on an assumption that the
TSC configuration can form. You have to start somewhere! I would
guess that he was looking for an explanation for an experimental
fact: multibody fusion does happen, he found evidence for 3D and 4D
fusion, as I recall. What could possibly lead to this? Normally,
we'd think that if 2D fusion is so rare as to be practically
impossible, 3D would be even more impossible. But what if a lattice
confines molecules in some way, orients them? What could happen.
What Takahashi found was that, under an extreme condition, not
known to occur, but also not known to *not* occur, but only
seemingly very rare, at best, fusion is *expected.*
That's huge.
There are various starting points far more credible.
He is tracking back from a finding that multibody fusion happens.
Most fusion theories do not allow for multibody fusion at all, I
think of Kim, which may be some kind of variation on Takahashi's
theory. Or not. I wish they'd talk to each other and let us listen in!
(3) Bottom line, Takahashi's theory at present
Well, his theory today is not his theory of yesterday, nor will it be
that of tomorrow. Why? The assumptions were nonsensical and the
conclusions neither physical nor broad enough. Maybe his theory will
eventually morph into something meaningful, but I suggest that won't
happen until he abandons his position the electron plays no role in
the nucleus, in the nuclear reaction. When he finally settles on a
theory that works, the question then will remain: since it doesn't
look like his original TSC theory, then whose theory will it look
like? There are dozens of theories out there. I think it will
likely be an amalgam of theories that ultimately works.
requires the presence of two deuterium molecules in confinement in
some way; the way he says it in the ACS Low Energy Nuclear
Reactions Sourcebook (p. 58) is to give three models "to initiate
TSC formation":
One is the TSC formation in regular Pd lattice in D-flow from O-
site to T-site by D-lattice phonon excitation. The second model is
the TSC formation by the collison-combination process between
trapped D2 molecule[s], being lost freedom of rotation, and
incoming D2 molecule on the surface of metal-D systems. The third
idea is the random formation of TSC by combination of two
"bosonized" molecules of dde*(2,2) in the near-surface of Fermi-
level-gap of PdDx and CaO (or other insulator with low work
function); generation of Cooper pair near on Fermi surface may
play a key role in this case.
Who edited this, any way?
The above paragraph is tantamount to a statement that his original
two D2 molecules in a tetrahedral site will not work, if he states
those are the only possibilities. Further, it is clear he is now
grasping at aspects of other theories to see if they might shoehorn
into his theory to make it work. I'm not saying that this is a bad
approach. I am pointing out that your original assertions regarding
Takahasi's theory were and still are flawed:
On Jul 10, 2009, at 4:48 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Takahashi's theory ... it seems to me that it predicts most known
CF phenomena:
1. No direct neutrons.
2. Surface reaction, since deuterium dissociates on entering the
lattice.
3. Takahashi predicts from quantum theory that if the TSC forms,
it will fuse 100%.
4. No momentum transfer problem, all energy is kinetic with the
alpha particles.
5. Alpha radiation.
Further, even if Takahasi's theory did account for all forms of D + D
-> ... -> 4He, i.e. all forms of helium formation, it still leaves
heavy element transmutation unexplained.
I'd read this paper before, but since then, have done a lot of
discussion of TSC theory, and have had to think a lot about how TSC
might form, and I'm gratified to find that I did come up with the
simplest of his three models, in a private e-mail today. I now
understand and can retain more of the paper, but most of it is
still way over my head. (Contrary to what I'd said before, he was
explicit about two deuterium molecules.)
He's not assuming any particular mechanism of TSC formation in his
paper. He mentions three possibilities, that's all. The work to
attempt to predict the frequency that TSC would form has either not
been done, or has not, to my knowledge, been published. But this is
what I think:
Some frequency of trapping of D2 molecules at the surface of the
lattice should be expected. The surface is where, I assume,
dissociation of D2 to individual deuterons takes place. Off the top
of my head, not having studied this process, I'd imagine that a D2
molecule peaks its head into a lattice, crossing a bit of a
potential barrier at the face; perhaps the forces when the head is
in and the neck is squeezed are such to separate them, as those
electrons decide the lattice is a freer place, or perhaps at this
moment, dissociation is aided by the action of other molecules. But
sometimes, as the head is peeking in, the tail is whacked just
right (or it had just the right momentum) and the whole thing is
pushed in. It's tight in there, and i don't think that this is
stable, but it might last for a while. And then another molecule
hits at the right position and angle to squeeze in too. They have
no freedom of motion to speak of now, they can't rotate, they can
only fit in one way, with the deuterium nuclei forming a
tetrahedron. If they are in low relative motion, they condense and
Bang!
Brilliant description of fusion. A concise definition. They
condense and Bang! All you need to do is add a few mechanism
details, and you can publish your own paper. 8^)
Or whatever happens when fusion occurs within a BEC. Do we know how
these behave? What does it mean to "fuse within a BEC?" (if they
aren't separate, how do they fuse, or, perhaps more to the point,
how do they *not* fuse? How tightly coupled will this BEC be to the
confining palladium?
Often it's pointed out that Bose-Einstein Condensates are only
known to form at low temperature. But "temperature" refers to
relative motion of the component molecules. If for some reason they
have no relative motion, they would be at zero temperature. We are
not accustomed to thinking of "pockets" of low temperature within
objects of higher temperature, but this would be a transient
"pocket" of only two molecules. What's the frequency of that?
There have been plenty of people who have looked at BECs over the
last decade. Takahashi is late into that game. Here's my take on it
from 1996:
http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/BoseHyp.pdf
Condensates likely do play some role in cold fusion. I think LENR
happens by more than one means. BEC formation and wavefunction
collapse is just one of them.
What I see is that, without doing the heavy math or other heavy
lifting, TSC theory is being rejected based on assumptions about
what is and what is not possible, that are not examined in detail.
Obviously there are objections, but I'm not seeing that they are
necesarily insuperable.
The way I put it in a mail today was that TSC theory still requires
one miracle: that the TSC forms. I'm pretty sure that there is some
incidence of single molecular confinement. That's not a miracle.
But that another molecule also gets confined, I'll call that a
miracle. Not to be expected. But, then, with what must be an
extraordinarily rare reaction, "not expected" should be looked at
much more closely: *how much* not expected? *How often* would this
be occur?
Widom-Larsen theory requires two miracles. The first is the
unconfirmed and unexpected creation of ULM neutrons at significant
levels. The second is the absence of intermediate and other
products not observed.
Takahashi's theory requires at least two similar miracles. (1) the
miracle of two D2 *molecules* fusing, and (2) the miracle of no
massive radiation from vast numbers of 8Be* nuclei that are formed.
There is 47.6 MeV of energy released by 4 D --> 4He + 4He. Without
an electron and other energy sapping mechanisms in the initial 8Be*
nuclei, there are no means to delay the reaction and release the
energy in small increments. Further, Takahasi's theory doesn't begin
to account for the existence of heavy element LENR, much less the
lack of sufficient energetic signatures from such.
And, of course, "cold fusion," when it was *assumed* that if it's
fusion, it must be d-d fusion, plain and simple, required three
miracles.
Notice how "miracle" is imagined by a poverty of our understanding
of the possibilities.
You seem to have a lack of familiarity with the many other theories
that have been proposed. A man with only a hammer tends to handle
all construction using nails.
If someone has the knowledge and does the math to predict how often
the TSC conditions would form, and it predicts something like
observable fusion rates, it would no longer be a miracle, it would
simply be science.
If someone has the knowledge and does the math to predict how many
angels can sit on the head of a pin he can build a miniature theater
for angels using pinheads and charge admission to see angels attend
his puppet shows.
It would still need to be confirmed! I suspect though, that some
aspects of this are simply not well enough known. We'll see, as
more attention begins to be focused, as publication rates continue
to increase and more of the best theorists start to pay attention,
and experiment turns to testing the predictions of theory. This is
far from easy stuff, and it's possible that no one person can pull
it off.
There are plenty of people working on it, but none can agree on even
a sound basis for a theory much less a theory. Most all theories
have shortcomings or obvious flaws, this in the assumptions, the
implied consequences which are not observed, or in the lack of
generality of application to both hydrogen fusion and transmutation.
This is possibly because more than a single theory is necessary.
More than one mechanism is at work in the various experiments.
What is missing is not sufficient theories, but a sufficient
experimental exploration of the parameter space. Theories, fully
correct or not, might be useful in reducing the size and cost of such
an exploration. However, no theory of any kind should be necessary
to justify increasing funding for such research because the evidence
for the phenomenon is experimental, not theoretical. Theory is just
the tail on the dog in this case. A useful adjunct perhaps, but the
dog can do just fine without it.
Large funding for research of LENR is justified now by (1) the huge
potential benefit compared to the cost, (2) the potential for quick
development if a breakthrough is forthcoming, and now, with global
warming and other issues becoming more universally clear, (3) the
potential huge cost of failure to pursue it in a timely way.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
