posted on a different thread...
To: Kevmo
First, despite the claims, this is not what is normally referred to as a “peer reviewed journal.” The editorial board of Hagelstein, Miley, McKubre, Storms, etc. is a board of insiders, not an editorial board made up of a broad spectrum of established physicists and engineers with diverse backgrounds and stellar credentials. It is a board of insiders, just like what happened in global climate change.
But putting that aside for the nonce and getting to substance (not that the above fraud is not substantial), this paper fixes none of the problems that I pointed out with the previous one, namely the extension of models far beyond their range of validity to “explain” a violation of the Heisenber uncertainty principle.
It adds to that a fairy tale of nuclear physics, that somehow the deuterons can “tunnel” under the “fragmentation” energy. When two deuterons fuse, assuming they could do so at near 0 relative kinetic energy, the mass defect is 2.4Mev, which is the energy that must be releassed. There is no way that the electromagnetic moments of the nucleus (electric dipole or quadrupole or magnetic dipole) can couple to the lattice because of the incommensurability of resulting scales, wavelengths, photon frequencies, energies, screening lengths, etc). Moreover, nothing about this so-called tunneling would affect significantly the normal branching ratios because the initial kinetic energy of the reacting deuterons is actually irrelevantly little different in either hot fusion or cold fusion. There is plenty of energy around (mass defect energy) for any of the normally observed branches and there is no energy threshhold for the initially reacting particles as the nuclear physics community refers to such things normally. Hot fusion relies upon exactly the same tunneling that cold fusion depends upon. It is just that the barrier penetration rate is exponentially low, and small differences in initial energy make enormous differences is barrier penetration rates.
66 posted on Saturday, July 02, 2011 5:58:33 AM by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
First, despite the claims, this is not what is normally referred to as a “peer reviewed journal.”
***Nothing will satisfy the naysayers when it comes to this peer review baloney. But at least you have some substance to your criticism of the science, as far as I can tell.