At 02:06 PM 4/5/2010, Horace Heffner wrote:
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.
Cold fusion is absurd, please remember. The question is whether or
not Tetrahedral Symmetric formation is more or less absurd than cold
fusion. If it is less absurd, then the theory is progress, a possible
avenue of approach. If it is more absurd, then it's useless.
In rejecting cold fusion, the focus was on 2D fusion, purely, as
nuclear collisions. Under this assumption, the cross-section was
calculated and found to be so low at room temperature that the
reaction would be undetectable (by far). But, of course, the
assumption was way too narrow. What if it isn't 2D fusion? Or there
is a completely different mechanism for 2D fusion, such as the
electron involvement that you propose, Horace?
In any case, in rejecting TSC theory based on the alleged
preposterousness of the assumption on which it depends (not for the
finding, but for its relevance to cold fusion, by the way), we'd have
to do the same work as the skeptics did with cold fusion itself, we'd
have to calculate, or at least estimate, the cross-section for TS formation.
I have seen absolutely no work done on this. Rather, evidence is
asserted that would reasonably lead to the conclusion that it would
be very rare, but that is actually a kind of confirmation of the
theory! Cold fusion is a rare phenomenon, at least in F-P experiments.
The issue is *how rare?*
I don't "want to question the math," rather, I know that the value of
Takahashi's work is almost unique: it is a clear prediction for
fusion proceeding with 100% completion, with an initial condition
that is merely a particular physical arrangement of two deuterium
molecules. This is at drastic variance from all the assertions of
1989 that fusion was impossible. This is a *chemical* arrangement, if
we want to call it that. It would be formed, it is possible, with
very low frequency, but with energies available in the environment.
If the math is defective, it is baloney. But if the math is good, if
anyone familiar with what he has done, and he did it years ago, then
he has already accomplished something very important, predicted a
path to fusion at low energies. Whether or not it is the actual path
involved is quite a separate question, that will require much more
investigation, and much more theoretical work, as well.
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.
Good. Describe them, get them published, as Takahashi has his
calculations. Takahashi's calculation involves, as far as I can see,
no new physics at all. And the physical condition necessary as an
assumption is not an outrageous one, as seems to be assumed. It would
be very rare. Which is *necessary*. Only if it would be so rare that
it would be below the rate necessary to explain fusion that is
observed would it be a disconfirmation. It's looking to me, now, that
it might well be within a few orders of magnitude, that is, within
the realm of possibility. It might even be possible with some
sophisticated techniques, to estimate TS formation rate, which, if
Takahashi's math is correct, should predict fusion rate. It's a
problem in molecular chemistry, how often two molecules that repel
each other, will "freeze" in the tetrahedral configuration, probably
at the surface of the lattice, at least as a first assumption.
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.
Sad, I am. Some have not learned the lessons of 1989. Takahashi is in
the process of developing a more complete theory, so, necessarily, it
will grow, as it should. It may morph. But what has been published in
the Sourcebook, under peer review, is very simple. There is a
particular physical configuration for deuterium, Tetrahedral
Symmetry, that will fuse if it forms. The energies to create this
configuration, it looks like to me, are relatively low, within
thermal energies. It looks to me, by the way, that the optimal
temperature might be quite a bit hotter than room temperature, which
would explain increase in reaction rate with temperature.
The idea that BEC formation at room temperature is impossible is
based on gross BECs, not the equivalent condensation with only two
molecules, please see my analysis in my correspondence with Dr.
Storms. There would be a certain incidence of formation of two
molecules in the TS condition, at a particular temperature, at the
surface of the lattice, it can be predicted. Without knowing what
that incidence is, isn't it premature to reject it as "nonsensical."
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.
Takahashi's theory does, you know, include the electrons, and they
certainly play a role in "the nuclear reaction." Without them, there
would be no BEC, the formation of which amounts to electron
assistance in much closer approach than otherwise considered possible.
He doesn't assume, however, that the electrons enter the nucleus, but
that they shield the approach.
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.
Maybe. So? The prediction of TSC fusion remains unique, as far as
anything I've seen. It does not postulate a preposterous precursor,
but merely a very rare one. How rare remains to be seen. Without that
calculation, all the cries of "nonsense" mean nothing.
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.
No, he's suggesting three models, and not limiting the possibility to
those three models. The second model, in fact, suggests the "original
two D2 molecules in a tetrahedral site." It's merely describing how
that comes about, probably at the surface. The first model is a
suggestion of how TSC might form within the lattice.
Hugh, I misread this stuff many times.
I am pointing out that your original assertions regarding
Takahasi's theory were and still are flawed:
My original assertions were quite ignorant as to what he was actually
proposing, it took me many reviews and questions and, indeed, some
independent analysis, before I could understand it better, and I
still don't think I understand it well. Just, now, better than you, I
suspect. If you take another look, you could easily remedy this, for
you are far better informed overall.
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.
That's not true. TSC would be neutrally charged, and so could,
itself, fuse, or transmutation might occur from rare reaction
branches, possibly decay modes of Be-8 that generate hotter than
normal helium. I lean toward the former as being more important for
transmutation.
But this is beside the point. TSC theory is not a complete theory of
cold fusion, and all the possible reactions, it is basically a
possible piece of the puzzle. It's the only one I know that doesn't
involve *serious* hand-waving, just a simple physical chemistry
question: how common would the formation of TS be? If it's possibly
common enough (which is very, very rare!), then this is a truly viably theory.
I was asking about the math because, indeed, Takahashi's finding is
quite striking, and, to my knowledge, unique. With no new physics,
but merely a very rare initial condition, and with deuterium gas, it
predicts fusion. The initial condition is purely a physical
arrangement of deuterium molecules. That arrangement is ordinarily
suppressed, because there is a potential barrier to overcome, but
it's an electronic potential barrier. Without the confinement of a
lattice, I'd expect the suppression to be so strong that the state
would not occur. In particular, I've realized, the approach to TS
would possibly dissociate the deuterium, splitting one or both
molecules. I don't think two deuterium molecules could ordinarily
reach, in the gaseous state, the tetrahedral configuration. But the
energy to do this should be available, and normally that energy
results in a certain level of dissociated deuterium in the gas, in
equilibrium with recombination. Indeed, from the level of
dissociation, I'm pretty sure that's known, one might estimate the
frequency of approaches that would, under confinement, possibly
result in TS formation. (The problem would be that there are other
approaches than cross-wise that would dissociate one of the molecules
but not the other. But this could still lead to an estimate.)
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^)
No, the mechanism detail, from the TS condition described, is exactly
what Takahashi has published, and it covers up to the fusion. In
certain prior work, he did analyze, then, the decay modes of the
Be-8, but that was early work.
I described a physical mechanism that would result in TS. It is a
qualitative description, missing quantititative details. I.e., it
does not have any prediction of the frequency with which this
mechanism would occur. But it's a simple physical configuration and a
simple interaction, nothing that would not happen with *some*
frequency, it seems, under conditions at the surface of the lattice.
To me, now, the biggest problem is that the approach to TSC would
tend to dissociate the deuterium. So confinement conditions must
prevent that. If a single deuterium molecule is confined in the cubic
lattice, it would last the longest in a particular orientation, I
expect. What would that be? if it is sideways, with the two deuterium
nuclei sitting in middle of the cubic faces, that molecule might be
susceptible to approach by another deuterium molecule entering the
lattice, crossways to it. Without knowing the dimensions and forces,
this is pretty thin.
But the essence of the formation model I'm describing is what Takahashi wrote:
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."
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.
Takahashi was very early into the "game" in his experimental work
finding evidence for multibody fusion. I should look that up.
No claim is made by me that TSC theory, as it is, is a complete
explanation for cold fusion. But, with more development, it is
possible that it will become that.
You wrote, in 1996,
To be
significant to CF, a condensate of two protons or deuterons in a
lattice site need only
be formed a very short time, if formed often enough.
Your examination was, from the point of view of TSC theory, both more
complex and too simple. There is no analysis showing that two protons
or deuterons in a lattice site will fuse, without some additional
elements. The two protons or deuterons don't have binding forces that
would tend to orient them well, but I certainly know little about
that. However, four deuterons, and particular four deuterons bound to
each other with their electrons, would indeed form a preferential
orientation, just take what you wrote about protons and apply it to
four of them (or four deuterons):
Given two
protons jammed into a lattice site, the Schroedinger Equation
predicts that they
will be instantaneously found in opposing locations within the site.
However, should
they form a Bose condensate, it is logical that their locations
would appear to be the
same to a fast moving particle.
"Fast moving particles" aren't common in there. But Takahashi
predicts that one isn't necessary, the material will fuse all by itself.
Dr. Storms points out the problem: confining deuterium gas in the
lattice would be difficult, the lattice would distort. That,
actually, might help the reaction, if it simply holds a single
deuterium molecule in position for it to mate with an incoming
molecule. That is, the site might be expanded. What's the ideal size
for confinement to enhance TS formation? It has to be tight enough to
suppress dissociation, or at least rapid dissociation.
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.
It's true that this is unexplained. But Takahashi predicts most of
the energy being dumped as photons, radiated prior to fission. The
remaining energy would be left in a number of places: besides the two
helium nuclei, there would be four electrons with energy unknown. I
know of no theory explaining coherently how the energy is transferred
to the lattice without signature radiation that isn't found. Whatever
theory explains it for some other mechanism might explain it for TSC
theory. In particular, the TSC/Be-8 nucleus is central to the lattice
site, it is, as it were, bound as in a crystal to that position. What
if this causes the energy to be released to the crystal, as with the
Mossbauer effect? But it's just an idea.
Bottom line, TSC theory simply establishes a possible mechanism, as
Storms says correctly, if the TSC formation can be justified. The
problem of the "Coulomb barrier" has been reduced to the incidence of
a particular very unusual physical configuration. If you don't see
the significance of this, I throw up my hands!
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.
First of all, the electrons are involved, they are positionally
colocated with the rest of the condensate. As well, the fusion takes
place within a BEC that is positionally bound with respect to the
lattice. I find it far from obvious how this would behave.
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.
Okay, my turn to say "nonsense." Anything that creates fusion can,
through rarer branches, accomplish these other effects. There should
be some signature to photons generated, I'd expect, if Takahashi's
decay modes are correct. My early idea that the result would be two
helium nuclei with 24 MeV each was not at all Takahashi's conclusion,
it was merely my ignorance.
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.
Well, I prefer a house nailed together than none at all. It has an
organizing effect on life.
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.
I'll take that straight. Not true. Predicting the number of angels
does not make them visible.
However, predicting the formation of TSC leads to concern about the
precursor and process to get there, and this can, indeed, be
investigated. I've suggested that it might be possible to form TSC
through collision of, say, pieces of frozen deuterium. It might be
possible to vary the site size and trap double deuterium inside a
lattice of these sites, ideally sized, then rapidly and symmetrically
compress the material to force the double deuterium into the
center-coincident position. Don't try this at home.
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.
Each theory should, still, as a partial explanation, predict certain
phenomena (or it's pretty useless), that can then be tested with
experiment. That process should become more reliable. The field is
going to need funding, it's about time.
What is missing is not sufficient theories, but a sufficient
experimental exploration of the parameter space.
Yes, I've suggested that, as has Hagelstein, and the work I'm doing
should facilitate that, at least a little.
Theories, fully
correct or not, might be useful in reducing the size and cost of such
an exploration.
Yes, that's the point that Hagelstein made.
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.
Well, that is how it *should* be, but the existence of at least
partially plausible theories could help, because the rejection of
experiment has often been based on a "lack of adequate theory to
explain the results." We can rail on and on about how stupid this is,
but it's a real human phenomenon and is simply no longer justified,
in my view. In particular TSC theory provides a fusion mechanism that
should be rare but not impossible, using existing physics, as
described in his paper. It still needs two pieces to complete it:
(1) How does TS form and with what frequency?
(2) What happens *after* TSC forms and fuses?
But the central question of how the Coulomb barrier could be overcome
has been addressed, TSC theory is a possible solution to that,
showing how an initial physical condition not involving high energies
*will* -- if the math is right -- fuse. Overlooking the import of
this is damaging.
That does *not* prove that this is the mechanism, just that some
mechanism could be possible, that the theoretical objections based on
the original triple miracle required are (mostly) overcome. The
problem has been greatly reduced. If other theories do this, fine!
I'm not promoting TSC theory to the detriment of other theories.
(Though I'm beginning to criticize W-L theory ... but if it were
better explained, maybe I'd drop that!)
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.
I've written, not so long ago, that I understood why the DoE panel
members, even those who though the evidence for excess heat
"conclusive" and, then, the majority of those who thought the
evidence for a nuclear origin to be "somewhat convincing,"
recommended, allegedly unanimously, against what might have been a
massive federal program to fund cold fusion research. I said, for a
time, that the risk was real that this would never pay off in terms
of energy generation, that the effect might be too elusive, too
difficult to set up, and the evidence for this was twenty years of
efforts, some of them moderately well-funded.
I no longer think that. I think that the basic science here could be
so important that it's worth very high investment; and that funding
of the very speculative hot fusion research (fifty years of extensive
funding with no major heat generated, enough to justify what heat is
poured in) is probably way more foolish. I agree with the 2004 DoE
panel that research should be focused on the basic questions about
the science, but I think that we have gone beyond the "does this
exist" point to needing to characterize, much better, what it is, how
it happens, how to control the reaction, etc. Even if it never
results in power generation, this will be well worth major
investment, for the development of the science, which may have other
applications.
But it might result in power generation. I'm beginnning to believe
that when the science is known, the engineering will rapidly become
much more efficient. I'm now also becoming afraid of one thing. I'm
not even going to mention it directly. When I started to think about
how to test TSC theory, I happened across it. I thought about
deleting this entire post. I've decided that this wouldn't stop it
from happening. But it does mean that failure to understand the
science could lead to some dangers that would be of massive
governmental concern. Somebody else might understand it. You are
right, Hugh. Huge potential cost.
