FusionŠ different than you think!

The standard vision or model of fusion is wrong. It has always been wrong
and so no amount of money expended to build a working nuclear fusion
reactor could lead to success if the basic quantum modeling of the fusion
process itself has been wrong.

Without any compelling evidence to the contrary it seems reasonable to
assume that all fusion reactions are the same in basic process. Fusion
reactions do occur in hot gases but not because of collisional
relationships in the hot gas... If that were true then if we were getting
any fusion reactions as a function of fusion fuel nuclei colliding then
we'd get lots more, exponentially with temperature rise. It would be a
runaway process that could be only controlled by the rate at which the
reaction was given fuel. But it doesn't work that way, does it? However,
experimental data has existed since the 1950's showing that detectable
fusion reactions can occur when none of the interacting nuclei have
sufficient energy to surmount the so-called Coulombic barrier. In a hot
gas of n fusion fuel nuclei there are exactly [(n^2)-1]/2 pair wise
relationships possible. This is just straight forward combinatorics.
But those pair wise relationships can be further categorized into two main
subgroups...those pairs of fusion fuel nuclei that are overlapping in
momentum space [which means that they have a common de Broglie wavelength
{calculated from a center of momentum frame} that is greater than or equal
to their interparticle distance] and those that are not overlapping in
momentum space.

The ratio between the two types can be derived by a clever statistician
who can work puzzles backwards (can use a priori logic) by assuming that
fusion reactions only occur between the pairs of fusion fuel nuclei that
are overlapping in momentum space and are ionized and are within an
approximate distance between each other of a mean free path. Taking the
raw data related to the volume and the temperature and the counted number
of fusion reactions per unit of time and comparing this data to similar
data and counts of fusion reactions per unit of time at different
temperature and pressure regimes this ratio should be calculable. The
data is there... We just need to know how to look at it properly.

Almost all of our experimental data with regard to the interaction of
elementary charged particles is derived from interactions in which the
charged particles are not overlapping in momentum space. The exceptions
to this are interesting because they are the very source of unsolved
problems in physics. We live in a very thermal world (lots of relative
motion between quantum particles, gas atoms and molecules, etc.) but
elementary charged particles that are overlapping in momentum space are
seen to behave opposite to the expectations of Coulomb's law. One of the
best known examples of this is Cooper Pairing of electrons during
superconduction.

Thirty three years after the Nobel Prize was awarded to Bardeen, Cooper
and Schreiffer for their theory of electron pairing the scientific
consensus is finally arriving at the point where it should have been in
1972: The BCS theory is and always has been wrong. It was damn well known
to be wrong prior to 1972 by top researchers in the field. Here's an
example: from Science News 28 Mar 1970 pg 313: "Dr. Bernd T. Matthias (of
UCSD and Bell Labs) spent years giving experimental demonstrations of
superconductivity in metals where the BCS theory said it should not
be."..."Of the theory Dr. Matthias says, 'That theory has been so
consistent in predicting the wrong things that I never paid any attention
to it.' " (That quote were made two years before the Nobel was awarded for
the theory to Bardeen, Cooper and Schreiffer).

Some of the most intellectually dishonest and corrupt people in the world
are physicists. How did they get the Nobel Prize? Simple, they got it
the same way that some high school athletes win some of their wrestling
matches; they simply showed up. In high school wrestling, if no opponent
shows up or if he can't make weight then by default the win is given to
the wrestler who shows up. There was no other theory that had been
advanced to account for Cooper Pairing of electrons. So the BCS Theory
won by default. This is a totally corrupt process that can allow that to
happen in science. Once the Nobel was awarded then all opposition to
this very theory that was, in fact, known to be wrong, evaporated. Why?
Because almost no man in the world had the intellectual courage to stand
up and speak out against the pernicious influence of the Nobel Prize and
how it destroys free thought and true scientific progress... thereby
accomplishing exactly opposite to what it was set up to promote in the
first place. And the scientific press gives very little space at all to
the voices of those who had spoken out against it. This is a very good
example of how consensus triumphs over rational thought.

Wonderfully, people are now beginning to publicly state that the BCS
theory is crap and that it always has been. This rising integrity is a
generation too late and some of it is emerging from men who should have
known better a generation ago when the Nobel was given to those three.

The other example which demonstrates behavior not consistent with
Coulomb's law exists in the nuclei of atoms that have more than one
proton. Again, logic and reason were set aside. When an exception to a
general case is found in logic... by definition it can no longer be the
'general case'. That is all there is to it. But reasonable
epistemological standards were violated, logic and rational thought
dispensed with, and physicists were allowed to advance an ad hoc theory
(the nuclear strong force) that has never been demonstrated to be
derivable from any first principles or that it can be logically deduced.
In fact, it isn't differentiable from the work product of clever
pathological liars. They simply made it up and they couldn't even come up
with a reasonable evaluation of the magnitude of this force but simply
categorized it as about two orders of magnitude greater than the
calculated Coulombic repulsion at the distance of a nuclear diameter. It
was nothing less than a 'just so' story that allowed physicists to allow
themselves to think that they were free of the problem of being utterly
ignorant concerning how the nuclei of atoms that have more than one proton
could be held together. Science couldn't see that manufacturing an
explanation is not the same thing at all as discovery of the truth of a
matter.

The third fallacy is why mainstream gov't supported scientists use the
collisional model to account for fusion. It has everything to do with the
success of the Hydrogen Bomb design by Teller, et al. That's it.
Really... They believed that the fusion events of a hydrogen weapon all
evolved from collisional processes and yet there isn't, to this day, a
single piece of data that can substantiate that belief. The fact that the
weapon works isn't proof that the theory of its operation is correct; but
it is difficult to argue with such success. In reality our fusion weapons
work because we incorporate processes and events in them that induce large
numbers of fusion fuel nuclei to overlap in momentum space and collisional
processes have nothing whatsoever to do with why fusion fuel nuclei
undergo fusion. They have everything to do with the nature of neutrons
and photons as monolithic gravitational charge source structures. A
gravitational charge structure is a time rate gradient structure which is
to say that from the viewpoint of any outside observer that clocks on each
equipotential surface of such a structure or field will run at the same
rate but at different rates on such equipotential surfaces either closer
to the source or further from the source. Clocks run slower as the
curvature of such surfaces increases which is to say that nearer the
source time is dilated. Very near the source the apparent velocity of
particles begins to approach zero and this means that particles begin to
overlap in momentum space. I sure wish you people were bright enough to
grasp this. It is simplicity itself and not an and hoc just so story but
is entirely derivable from first principles. As the relative velocity of
particles begins to approach zero then their common de Broglie wavelength
begins to approach anomalously large values and they immediately begin to
overlap in momentum space. Lamba = h/mv. This isn't hard at all.
That's the problem. The simplicity of the truth was obscured by the
complexity the falsehoods. In another article I showed how easy it is to
prove that charges that are at rest with respect to each other will appear
to be strongly attractively interactive.

Is there a single reasonable mind out there listening?

Best Regards, Charles Cagle

--
for email delete underscores
"I sought the fount of fire in hollow reed Hid privily,
a measureless resource For man, and mighty teacher of all arts."
- Prometheus Bound by Aeschylus -
.

Relevant Pages

  • FusionŠ different than you think!
    ... The standard vision or model of fusion is wrong. ... any fusion reactions as a function of fusion fuel nuclei colliding then ... momentum space [which means that they have a common de Broglie wavelength ... to their interparticle distance] and those that are not overlapping in ...
    (sci.physics.fusion)
  • Re: No Interconnectedness Between Cold & Hot Fusion
    ... not even anything in conventional fusion. ... were getting any fusion reactions as a function of fusion fuel nuclei ... momentum space [which means that they have a common de Broglie wavelength ... to their interparticle distance] and those that are not overlapping in ...
    (sci.physics.fusion)