ZapperZ said:
http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/9/7/8/1
Strangely enough, while it looks similar, the experiment is actually different than the earlier Taleyarkhan experiment. Other than that, it is still equally controversial.
Stay tune for more development in this saga...
Zz.
So it's indeed easy to dismiss something like this on one's gut feeling.
Where does the actual reasoning go wrong?
- Standing waves create phase changes (liquid -> gas) in the lows.
- Surface cohesion creates spherical surfaces.
- Things get unstable and collapse.
I presume there is this picture of a perfect sphere which collapses into a
perfect point. This is the first mistake.
Then there is the idea that many "slow" moving atoms get concentrated in
the center resulting in sufficient amounts of extremely fast moving atoms.
That's the second and bigger mistake. This is statistically completely unlikely.
(It's statistics that gives some of a mix of particles a higher speed then the
average)
In fusion one has to start with sufficiently high energetic particles and then
increase the
density to increase the
chance for fusion. In bubble fusion
one starts with particles which are fundamentally much to slow.
Having them at a higher density doesn't help at all.
How to "bump" a single atom to very high speed with a huge number of slow
ticks? It doesn't work that way. It's much more likely that the faster atoms
loose speed rather than gain speed from collisions. One can not compare
this for instance with energy concentration like in the focussing of light where
the energy of many (photons) is transferred to a few (atoms)
There is just no organized "many to few" mechanism in bubble fusion.
Regards, Hans
