Beginning with Larson's atomic structure model,
The Deuterium atom: 2-1-(1)
An object one unit short of the more stable state of the inert gas, helium, 2-1-0. Deuterium is somewhat unstable just in its own right, as hydrogen much prefers the mass one state in nature. Deuterium is relatively rare.
The Lithium atom: 2-1-1
An object one unit above the more stable state of helium. Again, a somewhat unstable element in its propensity to react with other elements and also readily ionize.
If these two atoms were pressed into an extremely close association, it is plausible that the outer mass structures that separate these elements from the stable helium state, would tend to exchange between atoms. In other words, the extra increment on the outer structure of the lithium atom would have a tendency to shift to the deuterium atom, shifting both atoms to the highly stable helium state, a lower energy state. The expected result would be a release of energy, but with conservation of mass.
2-1-(1) + 2-1-1 = 2 × 2-1-0 + Energy
Now consider that Larson's atomic model consists of a 2/1 (1-dimensional) photon rotating in a 3 dimensionally distributed manner, with each such increment of rotation yielding one mass unit. The inward 1-dimensional motion which is the photon is distributed three dimensionally to a t3/s3 motion structure. Each atom is a double system and so the increment is actually 2 units of mass, though in this discussion the increment will be referred to as a single increment to avoid confusion. It will be understood that addition of one mass unit applies to both units in the 2 unit structure. The transfer from lithium to deuterium would be a transfer of one of these units of rotation. It is a transfer of the rotation of the rotational base at the core of the atom, not requiring transfer of the central photon or any internal portion of the central atomic structure. It can be compared to two spinning billiard balls on impact; one may transfer some of its spin to the other, without any special significance for the internal structure of the balls. The point here is that though an atom is a singular compound motion, its exterior region can be modified without disturbing the internal structure. This fully conforms to Larson's theory.
We have derived a potential new method to release energy, but will it actually work? The mathematical physics involved is too complex to determine under what circumstances it could occur, but experimentation can also prove the feasibility. In the Pons-Fleischmann experiments at the University of Utah, a palladium cathode was used in an electrolysis setup in liquid deuterium with lithium as an ion in solution. Palladium, based on Larson's model again, has a lot of potential space within its outer structure, represented by the (8) in 4-3-(8). The negatively charged cathode draws positive ions of lithium and deuterium into the structure. The palladium grows to twice its volume in the experiment and it is easy to imagine the tremendous forces exerted by the interatomic bonds between palladium atoms acting against the atoms drawn into its crystal structure. This should be a good test of the highly pressed association of these atoms. It seems clear that the experiment worked and proved that lithium can exchange a mass increment with deuterium under the proper conditions, because energy was released by the experiment, and excess helium was detected within the cathode.
We see that conventional physicists are correct that fusion of deuterium into helium is not the process involved in cold fusion. They do not however know that it is a really a form of atomic transmutation. Scientists perform atomic transmutation in producing technetium, a material not found in nature but produced by bombarding molybdenum with deuterons. The molybdenum acquires a mass unit from the deuterons in a fashion very reminiscent of the cold fusion transmutation. There may be many other forms of atomic transmutation. Larson's atom building process is entirely dependent on transmutation of one given element into a higher mass element.
Another thing that Larson's theory predicts is that nickel should make a reasonable substitute for palladium in a cathodic transmutation experiment. Its structure is 3-3-(8); again with a large amount of space within the outer structure. In fact, an experiment of electrolysis-transmutation was successful with plain water, a nickel cathode and potassium ions, 3-2-1. The result was production of very significant heat and calcium, which was not present at the outset of the experiment. This process is particularly interesting, because evidently hydrogen mass one ions provided the mass unit to bring potassium up to the calcium, 3-2-2 state, meaning that the mass unit in the hydrogen atom was essentially eliminated, as follows:
3-2-1 [Potassium] + 1-1 <> (1)-1 [Hydrogen=proton/anti-neutrino] =
3-2-2 [Calcium] + 1-0 [positron] + (1)-1 [anti-neutrino] + Energy
Note that I have used the anti-neutrino as the associate of the proton in the hydrogen structure (contrary to Larson's neutrino), because I feel strongly that this is correct, but will not proceed with proof at this time. Those interested should review my article on the subatomic array in the Autumn, 1996 issue of Reciprocity, where I also reveal the array of coding for subatomic particles as used here.
There are some interesting questions concerning this reaction:
- What is the fate of the positron, that is the rotational base within atoms? It would seem that a free positron in a cathode (negative pole) would be annihilated by an electron, yielding significant energy, more than that of the shift from potassium to slightly higher stability of calcium. The energy from this experiment is quite substantial, and the experiment is quite reproducible.
- The anti-neutrino should be released to the environment, but of course is exceedingly difficult to detect. As discussed in my previous article, the Subatomic Array, a positron would not have the 3-dimensional structure capable of retaining the anti-neutrino against its tendency to progress at unit speed. The uniting of the anti-neutrino with an electron might form a muon neutrino, but the probability that both the calcium atom and muon neutrino would form simultaneously without any necessity for that to occur makes it extremely unlikely.