Alan, Fran -
The boson (BEC) theories for LENR have been around for twenty years, and it is not clear who was first; but the devil is in the details. I think professor Kim got several important details wrong, but still he has added to a higher level of understanding. Hagelstein was the first to propose one version of the BEC concept IIRC. Fran is probably correct that Casimir cavities are important in the Rossi effect - and even in the more general BEC effect since composite bosons of protons are only available as a transitory phenomenon of paired protons at close distance under compression. The "compreture" scale at close confinement provides "virtual cryogenic conditions" and an effective temperature which can go below absolute zero. This relates to why there is a continuing need to maintain a triggering temperature from outside the local reactants. >From there on - the important paper is by Nyman. Everyone is overlooking Nyman's explanation of how quark alignment trumps electrostatic charge repulsion. I will try to dig this detail out of an old post - and repost it over the weekend. But the main thing Kim is completely wrong about - IMO - is trying to shoehorn Rossi into *known nuclear reactions*. Big mistake. This is not necessary at all, especially when the average mass-energy for the proton in understood to represents a range of values. Let's say the "known mass" of the proton in the standard model is 938.272013 MeV. However, I have argued that this is really an "average mass" based on whatever the most advanced current measurement technique is being employed - and that this can vary all over the place in individual protons, since the quark component of protons is the only component which is "fixed" with a quantum value. Quarks are a small proportion of the proton mass, and this is the detail that everyone seems to overlook: there a range of expendable mass-energy of the non-quark remainder (pion, gluon, etc) - which is extractable as the 'gain' seen in the Rossi effect, and this gain can be replenished via the zero point field (bringing the average mass of the proton back up). Perhaps the proton net mass can go down to say - 937 MeV, for instance, on a temporary basis, and with a decent amount of energy release - and thereafter this deficit is recouped. We do not need to specify how it is recouped (regauged), but the route is surely encompassed in one of the definitions of ZPE (i.e. Dirac's negative energy 'sea'). No permanent transmutation is necessary to derive this kind of 'hidden' nuclear energy, and that ties Rossi (and Mills) into the Casimir force. Unfortunately, this is the 'simplified' version and difficult to recite from memory. Jones From: Alan J Fletcher Roarty, Francis X wrote: http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/yekim/BECNF-Ni-Hydrogen.pdf This sounds familiar to posits by Jones Beene. I'm not convinced it rules out initial ZPE Contributions but it sounds credible for explaining the nuclear paths. Regards Fran Interesting .... explains why the heater is needed. July 4th, 2011 at 1:42 PM < <http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=497&cpage=14#comment-50600> http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=497&cpage=14#comment-50600 > WARNING TO OUR READERS: TODAY IN STOCKOLM I RECEIVED A VERY INTERESTING PAPER: "GENERALIZED THEORY OF BOSE-EINSTEIN CONDENSATION NUCLEAR FUSION FOR HYDROGEN-METAL SYSTEM" THE AUTHOR IS YEONG E. KIM, OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS, PURDUE UNIVERSITY, WEST LAFAYETTE, INDIANA 47907, USA. THE PAPER HAS BEEN ISSUED ON JUNE 18TH 2011. VERY INTERESTING, GOOD JOB, PROF. KIM ( WHOM I DO NOT KNOW PERSONALLY). I took the liberty of adding it to the wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer
