🚀 go-pugleaf

Hi folks,

A few quick comments:


1. WEDGE-OUT

My favorite response so far was from Dieter:  He described my "wedge-out"
mechanism as sounding a lot like wishful thinking.

Alright!  That's exactly the kind of whack-em-about-the-ears criticism
that the UC (ultracavitation) idea needs.  Dieter zeroed in on exactly
the weakest link:  Can you _really_ get massive acceleration through this
kind of proposed mechanism, or not?

So I'll echo the challenge:  Can anyone out there show one way or the
other whether this wedge-out idea is either bogus or has merit?

Also, is there any chance someone out there can simulate this issue?
(I tend to be leary of easy proofs for a system that is so drastically out
of equilibrium.)

Again, the key premise is that a very sharp pressure/vacuum transition on
an inwardly collapsing void will lead to substantial increases in inward
velocity for some fraction of the surface molecules.  True or false?  Why?


2. LIQUID LITHIUM CAVITATION

Very, very premature, but someone is bound to ask, so I'll pre-empt the
question:  If you could get appreciablely high levels of D-T fusion in
liquid lithium, wouldn't that be a good way to breed more T?

FARFETCH (Meaning I _won't_ include the following in the UC draft paper):

IF the effect exists at all (recall that Jones et al will not have their
measurements for a while), then yes, lithium would tend to swallow neutrons
quite nicely and breed T out of them.  Shucks, you might even be able to
use the cavitation effect itself to squeeze out the T into voids.  That
would be rather cute, actually -- feed it Li and D and conceivably you
might be able to keep the T isolated mostly internal to the lithium. (It
would also sort of emphasize that fusion eats Li and D, _not_ "just D.")

I have no idea what the breakeven point would be for such a system would
be, but it could certainly be calculated.  Don't be overly surprised and/or
disappointed if it proves to be astronomically higher than any of the
results that come out of UC fusion experiments over the next few months --
IF in fact UC fusion is demonstrated at all!


3. UC AND PALLADIUM

The Pd media are sufficiently poor candidates for UC that I haven't really
looked at them much.  But I applaud the exploration of the idea on the net,
and will be interested in seeing where it goes.

PLEASE note that under no imaginable conditions could UC in Pd EVER give
the kind of huge-heat-with-negligable-radiation results originally claimed
by P&F.  UC fusion would necessarily be conventional hot fusion with very,
very conventional byproduct and radiation profiles.

Thus if the high-heat effect exists at all, it is an unrelated mechanism.
(Low-radiation from Pd _without_ heat is at least plausible as a UC effect,
however.)


4.  LIQUIDS WITH WIDE TEMPERATURE RANGES

It's implicit in the UC draft, but let me state it in a single sentence:

Liquids that remain liquid over a very wide range of temperatures are
much more likely to be interesting than ones that have only a short range
between solidification and vaporization.

Thus liquid helium would be a _really_ poor UC choice by these criteria,
and liquid mercury would be a quite good one.  Mixtures of liquids will
general do better by this criterion than single-composition liquids

				Cheers,
				Terry