Good suggestions regarding the LENR calculation. I will proceed as you suggest here, and use the spiral path in a discharge as a specific example so show some “typical” magnitudes (neglecting magnetic pinch effects).
The bowl magnet sounds like a fun calculation. I am also writing a summary of Cartan geometry developments but things are changing so fast in this regard. I think it is time to review Cartan from scratch with the new ideas incorporated from the very start.
Doug,
you are right, the blue and red grids in the video cannot result from a calculation. A calculation can be done by ordinary Maxwell equations since these are the ECE limit. I did this for the Johnson critique paper, but I do no longer have the program because the graphics did not run on newer Linux distributions. We could make this one of our next “projects” if you like.
Concerning the LENR paper 231, the potential energy is given by eq. (82). This has to be inserted into eq.(25) of paper 229, and the transmission coefficient is obtained from eq.(24). The result depends on the phase angle phi (defined in eq.(29) for interpretation) and the “transversal kinetic energy”
E_kin_t = (px^2 + py^2) / (2m)
This can be taken as an additional parameter in the simplest case, so we obtain the transmission coefficient
T(E, phi, E_kin_t).
Probably it is best to plot T(E) for curve sets of different phi, Ekin. I suppose that phi will be the more interesting parameter because it leads to a variation in sign. You could plot T(E, phi) as a contour plot for fixed Ekin.
In an additional step you can calculate the transveral momentum components as you proposed.
Horst
Am 18.01.2013 16:40, schrieb Doug Lindstrom:
Horst:
I watched the video late last night. From the plasma confinement experiments, this appears to be very similar to the magnetic confinement experiments of the 60′s and earlier. This make me suspect the the magnetic bowl, a ceramic magnet, has one pole one the cylindrical hole and the other on the rim of the bowl. The two bowls would then have a pinched field at the top and bottom, and more or less cylindrical geometry in between. I think the red and blue plots lack detail in the bowl area- I do not think they are the result of calculation, but just a wire mesh drawing that has poor mesh connectivity inside the bowl.
I think a calculation of the fields should be straight forward with either FD or FEA software. It would be interesting to see what the ECE model produces.
I will look at your paper later today or this evening.
Doug
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 12:46 AM, Horst Eckardt wrote:
Will think about this but it may take 2 or 3 days.
Another question: did you see the video of LaPoint:
[youtube http://youtube.com/w/?v=9EPlyiW-xGI&feature=player_embedded” title=”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EPlyiW-xGI&feature=player_embedded#]
We discussed it in our Munich group. The question is what the red and blue fields of the “bowls” mean. Similar as in the book of Johnson on ferromagents, there is a confusion on the direction of fields.
Nethertheless it should be possible to make a 3D or 2D FEM calculation on the fields with the permanant magnets replaced by sutiable currents. I am referring to my old paper
http://www.aias.us/documents/otherPapers/Johnson-Magnets.pdf
The field pictures by Johnson have a certain similarity with the bowls of LaPoint.
Horst
