On Apr 5, 2010, at 2:40 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
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.
That's irrelevant. I said: "Takahashi is late into *that* game.".
That game being CF as a BEC phenomenon. Here it is again:
There have been plenty of people who have looked at BECs over the
last decade. Takahashi is late into that game.
See?
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.
I'm confused. Are you defending Takahshi's *actual* theory or some
hybrid of his theory and your imagination? Takahashi has explicitly
denied the possibility of electrons in the nucleus, and especially
any possibility of their affecting the nuclear reaction itself, in
particular its timing. If the reaction can not be delayed then there
is no chance for the reaction energy to be dissipated in many long
wave length (low energy) photons.
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):
Nonsense! I explained the required extra conditions. Here is the
explanation given in the 1996 article: "Wave function collapse occurs
probabilistically on the relative approach of two or more quantum
waveforms. One quantum waveform can collapse to the location of the
other. If two overlapped, i.e. relatively to each other slow,
waveforms in a Bose condensate are penetrated by a high velocity
waveform, a condensation can occur. Also,a kind of paradox occurs.
All motion is relative. Assume the condensate is two protons, and the
high velocity waveform is an electron. From the point of view of the
proton condensate, the wavelength (size) of the electron is small.
From the point of view of the electron, though, the condensate must
be very small, and more importantly, since the waveforms of the
proton condensate are phase locked and colocated, the condensate must
appear located in a small volume. Thus, if there is an interaction,
it would seem there would be a high probability that the interaction
would be a 3 body interaction. That is to say the phase locking
tendency of a condensate would greatly change waveform co-location
probabilities. 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."
The key is that a pair of particles in a confined BEC should have co-
centered wavefunctions, unlike those in a Schroedinger style
molecular orbital, which are co-located, i.e. the probability of the
location of one at a given point is a *dependent* probability,
dependent on the location of the other deuteron (not being) at that
point. The nuclei are highly separated for all practical purposes.
In a BEC the wavefuctions are spread out, overlap. A high speed
particle approaching a two particle BEC should see it as a single
particle, a single wavefunction, and a small one too, due to the high
relative velocity, and thus the small de Broglie wavelength.
There have been plenty of people who have looked at BECs over the
last decade. Takahashi is late into that game.
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.
Of course they are. Cosmic rays are common enough to trigger the
reactions. One triggered, the resulting keV electrons should keep
things going a bit. However, I did suggest "If true, the hypothesis
indicates that spiking the cathodes of CF electrolysis cells with
particle emitters should greatly increase the yield and reliability
of the CF effects." This approach is sometimes helpful, especially
using thorium, but not sufficient to sustain practical CF reactions
just by loading a thorium doped Pd lattice with deuterium.
But Takahashi predicts that one isn't necessary, the material will
fuse all by itself.
There lies one of the problems with his or your conclusions. If this
were true then liquid (or possibly even solid) deuterium should go
bang. It doesn't. Many orientations of D2 molecules occur in liquid D2.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
