Zephir,
I was trying to tell you how that TOR is easily defeated, and as a windows programmer you should know this information. Please goto the playground and respond.
Speculations on LENR theory, coherence, stimulated emission, and fusion
-
-
QuoteIn order to have your mirror, you will need to have already broken up that 24 MeV quantum into small pieces.
This isn't IMO even comparable situation - during normal X-ray reflection the gamma rays bounce the free space between atoms, which are sparsely arranged within metal lattice. Whereas during cold fusion the gamma rays are conducted along entangled atom nuclei, which serve like the waveguides. The internal reflection mechanism applies in this case.
QuoteI was trying to tell you how that TOR is easily defeated
You tried to tell me, how the proxy can be easily defeated - not Tor. The Tor browser blocks many other additional anti-stealth techniques, which apply to desktop environment. But it's much simpler to recognize the people by their grammar and semantic patterns - especially when they're not native English speakers, like me.
-
Whereas during cold fusion the gamma rays are conducted along entangled atom nuclei, which serve like the waveguides. The internal reflection mechanism applies in this case.
Your contention appears to be that a linear array of atoms will serve as a waveguide for MeV-energy or even 500 keV photons, rather the usual behavior, which is to be mostly transparent to these photons. Is there anything in the mainstream literature that supports this contention at the energies we're talking about?
-
The high energy physics knows phenomena like the jet quenching: during particle collisions the resulting beams of gamma ray and energetic particle fragments get suppressed. This happens when the particles collide in collinear way, so that the quark-gluon condensate gets formed - but at much higher energies above 200 GeV, At the opposite side of energy spectrum inside the boson condensates so-called the Anderson localization applies - but the cold fusion is boycotted research and the thermalization mechanism is studied even less, than the mechanism of Coulomb barrier suppression.
-
Zephir, Try this link on TOR, MS_DRM_Decloaks_TOR
-
The high energy physics knows phenomena like the jet quenching: during particle collisions the resulting beams of gamma ray and energetic particle fragments get suppressed. This happens when the particles collide in collinear way, so that the quark-gluon condensate gets formed - but at much higher energies above 200 GeV, At the opposite side of energy spectrum inside the boson condensates so-called the Anderson localization applies - but the cold fusion is boycotted research and the thermalization mechanism is studied even less, than the mechanism of Coulomb barrier suppression.
Jet quenching pertains to partons. In the range of energies we're talking about, e.g., 500 keV to 24 MeV, there will be nary a cross section for hadronization and related phenomena. Instead what can be expected to happen will be what usually happens: the crystal will be mostly transparent to the photons and will allow them to pass through in any arbitrary direction, rather than serving as a waveguide. Or do you have any reference in the literature for photons in the 500 keV to 24 MeV being channeled by ordinary condensed matter?
-
Quote
Jet quenching pertains to partons
OK, this is written there - but do you understand its mechanism? If the physicists don't understand something, they always promote a new particle.
QuoteOr do you have any reference in the literature for photons in the 500 keV to 24 MeV being channeled by ordinary condensed matterWell, every cold fusion which releases alpha particles and other apparently fusion products from protons or deuterons without releasing the gammas and neutrons into outside is the candidate for such channeling.
But the gammas aren't channeled with ordinary condensed matter during cold fusion - but with highly packed atom nuclei.
For to prove it in independent way, we should prepare the similar system without cold fusion, which should still be interpretable in the same way.
Such an nuclei could be prepared with impulse of infrared laser (it's coherent and as such low-dimensional) and during it we should observe the superabsorbtion of gamma radiation coming from outside.
-
OK, this is written there - but do you understand its mechanism? If the physicists don't understand something, they always promote a new particle.
I do not understand the putative mechanism in the present context. Suggesting that an atomic lattice can be used to guide 0.5 - 24 MeV photos is like suggesting that a small block of aerogel can be used to guide 50 caliber bullets. But let's assume for the sake of argument that the jet quenching has a cross section for photons of this energy range. The cross section will still be finite. If you have 1 W power, that will be in the neighborhood of 1e12 reactions taking place per second. If even a small fraction of those reactions resulted in photons that escape that are not somehow guided by the presumed jet quenching, the number of detectable photons escaping the apparatus would be large.
But there are yet other difficulties: the dd → 4He + γ pathway is normally inhibited.
But the gammas aren't channeled with ordinary condensed matter during cold fusion - but with highly packed atom nuclei.
I'm going to wager that you'd need matter with the density neutronium to make a difference. But let us assume that there are such highly packed nuclei and then enumerate the assumptions we've got so far:
- During an event, there is something that happens to pack the nuclei tight enough to guide MeV photons
- The atoms are able to produce jet quenching in the photons in a phenomenon that is otherwise known only to occur at energies associated with hadronization
- The process of jet quenching in this context is efficient to many decimal places, and as a consequence any stray photons are at the noise threshold
- Somehow the d(d,γ)4He branch is favored enough not to see large numbers of neutrons
- A lattice that has a binding energy in the eV is somehow able to bring together deuterons over a potential barrier in the MeV
-
Quote
Suggesting that an atomic lattice can be used to guide 0.5 - 24 MeV photos is like suggesting that a small block of aerogel can be used to guide 50 caliber bullets
This is a difference: You should guide the gamma rays only to absorb them more effectively. And these gamma rays originate inside the lattice, not outside of it. You should explain superabsorbtion, something like the superabsorbtion of light at the forest of nanotubes (which is also 1D system). So we can imagine, that the atom nuclei packed with nuclear explosions will also form such a nanotube. The scientists have still very rudimentary understanding of energy density profile inside the larger atoms. The quantum mechanics prohibits the electrons to get very close to atom nuclei. Therefore no matter how dense the electron orbitals are, there will be still hole around atom nuclei. If the atoms get close each other, then the pipe composed of bottom electron orbital will be formed and these electrons are quite toughly and densely packed. For example for complete removal of electrons from Dysprosium-66 the energy over 230 keV is required. Once two or more atom nuclei get packed beneath of K-orbitals of single atom, this amount of energy gets multiplied.Quotedd → 4He + γ pathway is normally inhibited.
The 4He particles are still formed in high quantity. Only gamma rays get absorbed.
-
This is a difference: You should guide the gamma rays only to absorb them more effectively.
If we're talking about efficient absorption of the MeV photons and not simply the guiding of them, e.g., in a linear trajectory out of the host lattice, our difficulties multiply. Each time one of those photons scatters off a nucleus or electron, it will either lose very little energy, or it will put the system in a state that will result in the further emission of energetic photons in arbitrary directions.
The quantum mechanics prohibits the electrons to get very close to atom nuclei.
There's nothing in QM to prohibit electrons from spending time in atomic nuclei; in fact, in the case of s-wave electron orbitals the assumption is that this is happening part of the time, and electron capture requires that it happen.
-
Quote
There's nothing in QM to prohibit electrons from spending time in atomic nuclei
The same people oppose the hydrino subquantum level the most - what actually prohibits the electrons to get closer to atom nuclei? They could only gain energy with it.
QuoteEach time one of those photons scatters off a nucleus or electron, it will either lose very little energy
Only if these photons scatter off electrons from outside the atoms, i.e. during excitation from surface to bottom. The energy density is low there or the individual electrons will get ejected to high orbital paths. But how the situation would differ during excitation of electrons from bottom up? The excitation of single electron would require the collective excitation of many others. And as I illustrated above, these bottom electrons can be tough chaps. It's like to draw out a single branch from bottom of pile of brushwood.
-
The same people oppose the hydrino subquantum level the most - what actually prohibits the electrons to get closer to atom nuclei? They could only gain energy with it.
The argument against Hydrinos is not based on the possibility of the electron existing part of the time in the nucleus. Indeed, in Mills's telling, the electron orbits in a two-dimensional plane, with the implication that it would never transit the nucleus. The QM argument against Hydrinos goes back to other difficulties.
Only if these photons scatter off electrons from outside the atoms, i.e. during excitation from surface to bottom. The energy density is low there or the individual electrons will get ejected to high orbital paths. But how the situation would differ during excitation of electrons from bottom up? The excitation of single electron would require the collective excitation of many others. And as I illustrated above, these bottom electrons can be tough chaps. It's like to draw out a single branch from bottom of pile of brushwood.
You seem to be arguing that MeV energy photons will somehow be channeled and thermalized by scattering off of electrons in condensed matter, despite the copious evidence that the opposite of this is what generally happens, namely that even heavy metals are largely transparent to photons in this range of energy. You posit a highly dense phase of matter to pull this trick off, and now suggest that it might be possible to cause collective excitations of electrons. It seems to me that the unsupported assumptions must continue to accumulate in order to go further down this path.
-
Quote
The QM argument against Hydrinos goes back to other difficulties.
IMO the truth is somewhere in the middle: the -s orbitals is neither thin hollow sphere (as R. Mills is drawing it), neither fuzzy sphere with highest probability density at its center - but something inbetween: the sphere with fuzzy hole at its center. When two or more such orbitals collide, the hollow cylinder or waveguide will get formed.
-
You seem to be arguing that MeV energy photons will somehow be channeled and thermalized by scattering off of electrons in condensed matter, despite the copious evidence that the opposite of this is what generally happens, namely that even heavy metals are largely transparent to photons in this range of energy.
The copious evidence of cold fusion is exactly the opposite: not only the Coulomb barrier gets broken, but also symmetric process happens: the resulting energy gets miraculously dissolved within atom lattice. We can observe the similar behavior in many 2D surface catalysts of 3D reactions: not only activation of energy gets lowered, but also the energy of reaction gets diluted, for example during burning of hydrogen at catalyst the achieved temperature remains significantly lower, than inside the hydrogen flame. Therefore I consider analogous just even more pronounced behavior for 1D catalytic system, where the resulting energy gets channeled along 1D systems, which exhibit even higher surface/volume ratio for thermalization than the 2D surface catalysts. This situation must happen - or we would have no cold fusion controversy to solve (compare the Huizenga's "Three Miracles of Cold Fusion").
The metals are transparent to gamma ray photons, because the atom nuclei are smaller and of higher energy density, than these photons, whereas the deBroglie wavelength and energy density of electron orbitals is much lower instead. The artifacts of similar energy density and size interact mutually most effectively. But during cold fusion collisions the temporal phase of averaged energy density may be formed, which would be effective just for absorption of these photons. The formation of this phase would also important for explanation of Coulomb barrier breaking, so we would have two problems solved in a single moment. In addition, the situation with gamma rays during cold fusion is different, as these photons originate from centers of atoms - not from outside of them. Their energy density will be lowered from the very beginning of their spreading, because they would be formed within already very dense nuclear matter entangled with electron orbital matter wave. The assumption of superradiance in Hagelstein theory and the formation of heavy electrons and slow neutrons of Widom-Larsen theory has its origin right here.
-
The copious evidence of cold fusion is exactly the opposite: not only the Coulomb barrier gets broken, but also symmetric process happens: the resulting energy gets miraculously dissolved within atom lattice.
Cold fusion has many possible explanations, only some of which involve fusion. Your reply to my points is general and glosses over the specific objections with vague possibilities. We must move beyond hand waving and rigorously consider specific details.
-
Quote
Cold fusion has many possible explanations, only some of which involve fusion
There are multiple nuclear reactions, from this reasons I'm focused just to the molten-lithium / deuteron system, which is free of lattice artifacts and various complexities and it definitely produces helium. Within metal lattices the 1D effects at the nuclear level can be complemented with another 1D artifacts at higher fractal levels: the molecular orbitals, nanocracks, whiskers, laser beams and so on - but the low-dimensionality is always the key of my approach to LENR catalysis. The fusion can be understood in general sense, once the heat energy gets formed with combining of more/smaller atom nuclei results few or large one (i.e. opposite to fission). It may not include the strong nuclear interaction.
QuoteYour reply to my points is general
This is given just by broadness and complexity of subject. The development of LENR theory is like the hoarding the cats: I'm struggling to find the common ground, which everyone could agree with. From the same reason I cannot agree with various AxilAxil claims, that nanocracks, surface plasmons, superconductivity, dense hydrogen, Bose condensates, Rydberg matter, monopoles, etc. are the KEY for LENR, Whereas in particular LENR systems these concepts may be heavily modified or even completely missing, I prefer to explain, how these particular insights may get linked with more general principles: dimensionality of system, because this may be the only remaining connecting point of multiple LENRs. Once we get more detailed, we will lose the general grasp of subject.
-
In dense aether model the principles of fusion and energy formation are similar at all distance scales, as its geometric effect of leveling of space-time curvature. From this general perspective the LENR theory is similar to recent models of leaking energy from black holes via low-dimensional jets and worm holes. It's important to realize, that the visible matter is metastable: it has been formed during explosions of supernovae in similar way, like the black holes were formed during collapse of quasars. We are living and floating as a thin layer of chemical elements at the molten iron ball: the elements heavier and more lightweight than iron/nickel shouldn't be there, they remained only because these explosions weren't fully equilibrial and they just wait for the opportunity to finish this transform. The atom nuclei of different size therefore have tendency to merge and fuse, which is delayed with surface tension of strong positive space-time curvature at their surface. Their coalescing would require the temporal formation of thin narrow necks of the opposite space-time curvature in similar way, like during merging of mercury droplets shaken inside the test tube, but in essence it's negentropic effect resulting from metastable system.
I even presume, that overunity effects observed within ferromagnetic systems and elsewhere have the similar origin: the observable matter is metastable in contact with vacuum and it tends to equalize its energy content with it. Due to surface tension of matter this equalization can run only at the places, where this surface gets broken with hyperdimensional interactions in similar way, like the black hole evaporates only at the places, where the event horizon gets scratched. At the very end we are generating the energy just by accelerating the evaporation of matter temporarily formed during gravitational collapse back into radiation by punching of worm holes of negative entropy and space-time curvature in it.
