Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
Jones, I don't think your leap of faith is restricted to [snip]reversible fusion is slightly energetic [/snip] but rather that the cavity environment or NAE is the energetic source where any 2 body relationship established at one geometry can experience a discount toward disassociation when accomplished at a different geometry. It establishes a linkage between the moving 2 bodies and the sharply serrated fields established by changes in Casimir geometry. The geometry only has to accelerate or decelerate one body relative to the other in an unbalanced manner to accomplish a discount. At the most active geometry Casimir force trumps our square law isotropy and whenever that geometry changes you get breaks or serrations in the isotropy as the rules that limit these changes in value [square law vs Casimir formula] come in conflict with each other. Naudt's paper on relativistic hydrogen would hold that these bodies are unaware of their condition and their underlying motive force is therefore still provided for by normal gas laws such that no external energy has to be provided to load or transport said bodies into lattice or between geometries. My posit is that these changes in inertial frames are accomplished freely, easily and much more rapidly via Casimir suppression than the relativistic effects we are more accustomed to which require velocities in a Pythagorean relationship with C or a very deep gravity Well. Fran From: Eric Walker * why would any form of energy arbitration, in which a magnetic field is used to drain off a little bit of the mass of a proton, not also apply to neutrons and electrons? The leap of faith is that reversible fusion is slightly energetic. There could be reversible fusion with other nuclei but I doubt it, and am not aware of this type of reaction relating to anything other than P+P.
RE: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
Eric, Here are a few other brief points leading to the conclusion that hydrogen mass is not quantized-at least not “in practice”. (to be explained) First off – it would be most unusual for only one isotope of one element in the entire periodic table to be quantized. That would be the case if the proton were to be found quantized in practice. Secondly, and most importantly for moving ahead with this hypothesis - it is possible (if not encouraged) to have a bifurcation between the theoretical and the actual – such that there is a theoretical “ideal” – the so-called Bohr atom - which exists only on paper, and which is quantized. In the pursuit of experimental physics, however, there is variation and there is leeway, and there is a range of masses with an average which corresponds to an ideal value, with populations on either side of the average that exist “in practice”. Third, the proton consists of three quarks which represent less than one half of its mass, combined with other bosons which are essentially “glue” - but most of them are said to be massless. It simply does not add up when you do the numbers. Also quark mass cannot be measured easily and there is NO firm value - and QCD teaches that quark mass is subject to color change (with consequences to mass-energy release) so quark mass itself cannot be constant. If quark mass is not quantized, then it goes without saying that proton mass cannot be quantized. Again – we can define an “ideal” value – but do not expect to see it in practice. Fourth. A so-called massless particle is integral to the standard model and is a particle whose invariant mass is zero. A major category of massless particles is gauge bosons – like the gluon (carrier of the strong force). However, gluons are never observed as free particles, since they are confined within hadrons BUT they cannot be massless to the extent the strong force is dynamic. Thus the entire structure of matter in the standard model is “built on a lie” – which is the massless particle. We know the “real mass” is actually a significant fraction of proton mass. Fifthly, electrons in hydrogen display a spectrum which tells us their energy levels- given by the Rydberg equation. Electrons are quantized, but even so, these lines are a bit fuzzy and imprecise, and their levels are also built on another sandy foundation – the FCC (fine structure constant). The FCC “ought to be” an integer value but is not since each frequency must correspond to an energy (hν) by Einstein’s equation. This photon energy must be the difference between two energy levels, since that is the amount of energy released by the electron moving from one level to the other but that does not depend on the mass of proton. The energy of a state can be characterized by an integer quantum number, n = 1, 2, 3, ... which determines its energy. The end number however is close to 137 – given by the fine structure constant but it is not exact and non-integer, so we suspect that every value in between is also not exact. Moreover, it is likely that this variation is tied to permitted mass variation in the proton mass. IOW there are fudge factors everywhere which are based primarily on the “real” proton having a variable mass (variable but within a narrow range). Even when you must conclude that the energies of electrons in atoms are quantized, that is, restricted to certain values – the slight variation in these lines indicates that the same conclusion does not apply to the underlying proton. This essentially is the best argument for quantization: if the electron is quantized – then why not the proton? But it is a false expectation. Can anyone think of any good theoretical argument which demand quantization in actual protons (as opposed to the Bohr atom, which is the ideal version)? From: Eric Walker I wrote: What is it that is causing the proton in this model to vary in mass, and is the range of possible masses discrete or continuous? I should anticipate one possible answer, which seems like a good explanation -- a proton is not a point particle, like a photon, and it does not travel at the speed of light. It has mass and it has a speed that is less than c. So the mass will vary with its speed; when it is stationary it will have a rest mass, and when it is travelling at relativistic velocities, it has a larger mass. Assuming the above is true, and assuming your model of a proton having an average mass is true, the question for me now becomes, is the (rest) mass a continuous value or discrete across a range? Eric attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
One derivative speculation of all of this, which points to usable details to help to better design NiH experiments, is to know “how much” excess mass-energy exists in hydrogen (as “overage” from the average) which mass can be converted to energy (via goldstone bosons). If this estimate can be based on the FCC: Alpha^-1 = 137.035,999,174. Such that 1/137 represents an “ideal” step in a progression - and we consider the non-integer fudge factor (36 parts per thousand of the final integer) as permitted variation per step, then we are getting somewhere in being able to estimate how much energy can be derived from a population of hydrogen atoms by harvesting only the “heaviest” fraction (densest one percent). We do not know the distribution curve – would be a bell curve or something more Maxwellian? Dunno. But the potential net gain per atom is still quite high – even if we are talking about being able to convert only the heaviest percent of any population. The mass-energy of a proton is roughly one giga eV and one percent of 3.6 MeV or 36 KeV per atom - is huge - in terms of comparative chemical energy. That can be optimized in fact, thus making this speculation “falsifiable” to some degree. Jones BTW - An obvious implication of this for the NiH experimenter (of the “well-funded” variety, if there are any) is to load only the heaviest (densest) protium into a NiH reactor. Don’t laugh, this is doable – even if it is not commercially practical at the present time. After all, some mass-spectrometers operate on a “mini-calutron” principle. Who cares if you waste a lot of hydrogen on a NiH experiment – if it proves an important point. Personal note: I could write a book based on this photo below – and might do that one day; but these machines are the ‘maxi’ version – not the ‘mini’ version needed for NiH … and they are still there (in Oak Ridge). Due to the wartime copper shortage, the electromagnets of these babies were made using literally millions of pounds of pure silver bullion “borrowed” from Fort Knox … but now irradiated and collecting dust. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Y12_Calutron_Operators.jpg _ Here are a few other brief points leading to the conclusion that hydrogen mass is not quantized- at least not “in practice”. (to be explained) First off – it would be most unusual for only one isotope of one element in the entire periodic table to be quantized. That would be the case if the proton were to be found quantized in practice. Secondly, and most importantly for moving ahead with this hypothesis - it is possible (if not encouraged) to have a bifurcation between the theoretical and the actual – such that there is a theoretical “ideal” – the so-called Bohr atom - which exists only on paper, and which is quantized. In the pursuit of experimental physics, however, there is variation and there is leeway, and there is a range of masses with an average which corresponds to an ideal value, with populations on either side of the average that exist “in practice”. Third, the proton consists of three quarks which represent less than one half of its mass, combined with other bosons which are essentially “glue” - but most of them are said to be massless. It simply does not add up when you do the numbers. Also quark mass cannot be measured easily and there is NO firm value - and QCD teaches that quark mass is subject to color change (with consequences to mass-energy release) so quark mass itself cannot be constant. If quark mass is not quantized, then it goes without saying that proton mass cannot be quantized. Again – we can define an “ideal” value – but do not expect to see it in practice. Fourth. A so-called massless particle is integral to the standard model and is a particle whose invariant mass is zero. A major category of massless particles is gauge bosons – like the gluon (carrier of the strong force). However, gluons are never observed as free particles, since they are confined within hadrons BUT they cannot be massless to the extent the strong force is dynamic. Thus the entire structure of matter in the standard model is “built on a lie” – which is the massless particle. We know the “real mass” is actually a significant fraction of proton mass. Fifthly, electrons in hydrogen display a spectrum which tells us their energy levels- given by the Rydberg equation. Electrons are quantized, but even so, these lines are a bit fuzzy and imprecise, and their levels are also built on another sandy foundation – the FCC (fine structure constant). The FCC “ought to be” an integer value but is not since each frequency must correspond to an energy (hν) by Einstein’s equation. This photon energy must be the difference between two energy levels, since that is the amount of energy released by the electron moving from one level to the
Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:50 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: I wrote: What is it that is causing the proton in this model to vary in mass, and is the range of possible masses discrete or continuous? I should anticipate one possible answer, which seems like a good explanation -- a proton is not a point particle, like a photon, and it does not travel at the speed of light. It has mass and it has a speed that is less than c. So the mass will vary with its speed; when it is stationary it will have a rest mass, and when it is travelling at relativistic velocities, it has a larger mass. Assuming the above is true, and assuming your model of a proton having an average mass is true, the question for me now becomes, is the (rest) mass a continuous value or discrete across a range? Eric If a proton can ring like a bell, mass-energy equivalence would imply the proton's mass can vary with pitch. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: One derivative speculation of all of this, which points to usable details to help to better design NiH experiments, is to know “how much” excess mass-energy exists in hydrogen (as “overage” from the average) which mass can be converted to energy (via goldstone bosons). Would you agree that the uncertainty of 7.4 x 10^35 kg http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?mp sets the upper limit for the amount of mass-energy available?
Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
7.4 x 10^-35 rather On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: One derivative speculation of all of this, which points to usable details to help to better design NiH experiments, is to know “how much” excess mass-energy exists in hydrogen (as “overage” from the average) which mass can be converted to energy (via goldstone bosons). Would you agree that the uncertainty of 7.4 x 10^35 kg http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?mp sets the upper limit for the amount of mass-energy available?
Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
This would set the upper limit of available energy somewhere around 83.2 eV per atom. On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: 7.4 x 10^-35 rather On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: One derivative speculation of all of this, which points to usable details to help to better design NiH experiments, is to know “how much” excess mass-energy exists in hydrogen (as “overage” from the average) which mass can be converted to energy (via goldstone bosons). Would you agree that the uncertainty of 7.4 x 10^35 kg http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?mp sets the upper limit for the amount of mass-energy available?
RE: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
Good point Terry - but - I don't have a problem with the sampling uncertainty being less than what is actually available to be captured within samples. This is not an easy point to reconcile, and I could be wrong on how NIST arrived at that number, but - the kind of uncertainty in the table could only define a variability per test sample over time and geography, and not an inherent variability within each sample. Thus you might say that there would be low mass variability between hydrogen split from tropical seawater in 1950 and hydrogen spit from Siberian methane in 2013. But within each of those samples, and independent of where they came from, is a range of mass-energy which varies from high to low at what could be as high as 36 parts per thousand. It may not be that high, but it could be much higher than the NIST uncertainty figure. If the actual variation was 36 parts per million, instead of per thousand - that is still considerably more than chemical energy. In short - even with a wider range of subatomic variability in each sample, hydrogen from any source will be more consistent. This only means that hydrogen is extremely mobile at the molecular level, which narrows variability between time and place - but the quarks and bosons are not as mobile at the subatomic level, preserving inherent variability at a finer level of measurement. After all, these same authorities will tell you that gauge bosons are massless and quarks are only a fraction of proton mass. Never mind that something is missing in that appraisal. -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton 7.4 x 10^-35 rather Terry Blanton wrote: One derivative speculation of all of this, which points to usable details to help to better design NiH experiments, is to know how much excess mass-energy exists in hydrogen (as overage from the average) which mass can be converted to energy (via goldstone bosons). Would you agree that the uncertainty of 7.4 x 10^35 kg http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?mp sets the upper limit for the amount of mass-energy available?
Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Thus you might say that there would be low mass variability between hydrogen split from tropical seawater in 1950 and hydrogen spit from Siberian methane in 2013. That would have profound implications. Some sources of hydrogen would work better than others in a NiH reactor. Remember when we speculated that the Potapov heater efficiency might depend on the water source? Texas water did not work as well as Russian water.
RE: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
Jones: Reading this reminds me of WHACK-A-MOLE :^(but that's chemistry not quantum physics/sorry). None-the-less Eric your comments/assessments are astute. Alternative: Is it that protons don't quantize well because they have singularity-centres that dialate or contract relative to variable 'quantum-frequency' in their 'environment' inputs; and via this, protons so are by their natures 'creatures' of 'quantum-flux' fluctuations due to said dialations /or contractions in mass which MAY explain the 'defacto' gradient variants that you are describing ? From: jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 08:18:53 -0800 Eric, Here are a few other brief points leading to the conclusion that hydrogen mass is not quantized-at least not in practice. (to be explained) First off - it would be most unusual for only one isotope of one element in the entire periodic table to be quantized. That would be the case if the proton were to be found quantized in practice. Secondly, and most importantly for moving ahead with this hypothesis - it is possible (if not encouraged) to have a bifurcation between the theoretical and the actual - such that there is a theoretical ideal - the so-called Bohr atom - which exists only on paper, and which is quantized. In the pursuit of experimental physics, however, there is variation and there is leeway, and there is a range of masses with an average which corresponds to an ideal value, with populations on either side of the average that exist in practice. Third, the proton consists of three quarks which represent less than one half of its mass, combined with other bosons which are essentially glue - but most of them are said to be massless. It simply does not add up when you do the numbers. Also quark mass cannot be measured easily and there is NO firm value - and QCD teaches that quark mass is subject to color change (with consequences to mass-energy release) so quark mass itself cannot be constant. If quark mass is not quantized, then it goes without saying that proton mass cannot be quantized. Again - we can define an ideal value - but do not expect to see it in practice. Fourth. A so-called massless particle is integral to the standard model and is a particle whose invariant mass is zero. A major category of massless particles is gauge bosons - like the gluon (carrier of the strong force). However, gluons are never observed as free particles, since they are confined within hadrons BUT they cannot be massless to the extent the strong force is dynamic. Thus the entire structure of matter in the standard model is built on a lie - which is the massless particle. We know the real mass is actually a significant fraction of proton mass. Fifthly, electrons in hydrogen display a spectrum which tells us their energy levels- given by the Rydberg equation. Electrons are quantized, but even so, these lines are a bit fuzzy and imprecise, and their levels are also built on another sandy foundation - the FCC (fine structure constant). The FCC ought to be an integer value but is not since each frequency must correspond to an energy (hν) by Einstein's equation. This photon energy must be the difference between two energy levels, since that is the amount of energy released by the electron moving from one level to the other but that does not depend on the mass of proton. The energy of a state can be characterized by an integer quantum number, n = 1, 2, 3, ... which determines its energy. The end number however is close to 137 - given by the fine structure constant but it is not exact and non-integer, so we suspect that every value in between is also not exact. Moreover, it is likely that this variation is tied to perm! itted mass variation in the proton mass. IOW there are fudge factors everywhere which are based primarily on the real proton having a variable mass (variable but within a narrow range). Even when you must conclude that the energies of electrons in atoms are quantized, that is, restricted to certain values - the slight variation in these lines indicates that the same conclusion does not apply to the underlying proton. This essentially is the best argument for quantization: if the electron is quantized - then why not the proton? But it is a false expectation. Can anyone think of any good theoretical argument which demand quantization in actual protons (as opposed to the Bohr atom, which is the ideal version)? From: Eric Walker I wrote: What is it that is causing the proton in this model to vary in mass, and is the range of possible masses discrete or continuous? I should anticipate one possible answer, which seems like a good explanation -- a proton is not a point particle, like a photon, and it does not travel at the speed of light. It has mass and it has a speed that is less than c. So the mass will vary with its speed; when
RE: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
Well, if I had the backing to test the hypothesis, one of the first experiments would be to set up three identical reactors using nickel nanopowder, or Ni loaded zeolite. 1) argon fill, as an inert baseline 2) H2 enriched via multi-stage enrichment of the least dense fractional component of bottled hydrogen. 3) H2 enriched via multi-stage enrichment of the densest fractional component of bottled hydrogen. Would there be a significant difference in the three ? Enquiring minds want to know -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton Jones Beene wrote: Thus you might say that there would be low mass variability between hydrogen split from tropical seawater in 1950 and hydrogen spit from Siberian methane in 2013. That would have profound implications. Some sources of hydrogen would work better than others in a NiH reactor. Remember when we speculated that the Potapov heater efficiency might depend on the water source? Texas water did not work as well as Russian water. attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
Yes: That pesky 'Spooky Action @ a Distance' again. Quantum spinning particles 'tailed'/quantum-singularitized through XO-PlasmicSpace(regardless of distance of separation) to be in multiple locations simultaneously interacting in 'real-time' with other particles aka quantum-units. This is also a better explanation that the 'common ion transition' explanations for the action within a HYDROGEN FUEL CELL for instance. Until this is grasped, Practical overunity-Cold Fusion will continue to allude practical application. Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 21:18:12 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions From: janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Energy can be transferred from one molecule to another threw a quantum mechanical mechanism. Yes http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/07/diamonds-entangled-in-physics-feat/ In the case of Walmsley's study, photons were showing up in two spots at the same time and causing vibrations within a pair of diamonds. The researchers made it happen by placing two diamonds about 15 centimeters (about 6 inches) apart on a table and then shooting a series of photons at a device called a beam splitter. Most of them went toward one diamond or the other, but a few of the photons went both ways at the same time. When those multitasking photons struck the pair of diamonds, they caused vibrations called phonons with each of the crystals. The light from each of the beams recombines after exiting the crystals. And sometimes when the light is leaving the crystals, it has less energy than when it entered. That's how the researchers could tell that the photon had caused some vibrations. We know that one diamond is vibrating, but we don't know which one, Walmsley said. In fact, the universe doesn't know which diamond is vibrating – the diamonds are entangled, with one vibration shared between them, even though they are separated in space. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: On Jan 25, 2013, at 3:49 PM, torulf.gr...@bredband.net torulf.gr...@bredband.net wrote: Excuse my grammar. English is not my native language. I will try to answer your questions as simply as possible. Can energy and momentum be transferred from the new He4 to another nucleus at some distains? No Energy can be transferred from one molecule to another threw a quantum mechanical mechanism. Yes, at chemical levels of energy This occurs in photo synthesis there excitations can jump between electrons in different molecules. Yes From an older tread. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg75294.html Maybe a similar phenomenon can occur between nucleus? This means the excitation from a He4 and momentum can be transferred The amount energy generated by a nuclear reaction requires direct emission of a particle, which can include a photon. This is observed fact. The magnitude is too great to use mechanisms available in a chemical structure. That is why most nuclear reactions are almost totally independent of the chemical environment. to one or more receiver nucleus. These receiver nucleus must be a special nuclide suitable for receive the energy and have a mechanism to get rid of it. If several nucleus can get energy from one He4 it may radiate it as UV. If this not is possible I suggest that the receiver nucleus is a C12 how decay to 3 He4 as an reversed triple alpha. In absence of receiver nucleus there will be no reactions. But this did not explain the overcome of the coulomb barrier and why its not works in absence of receiver nucleus. I have heard that the conservation of momentum in LENR is commonly explained to something how would be like the Mössbauer effect. But I understand this not so easily to explain more exactly. The Mossbauer effect involves a very small energy change. It works only because the target nucleus is very sensitive to the energy of the bombarding gamma. Therefore, the slight effect produced by the chemical lattice become visible. This effect is too small to influence energy being emitted by a fusion reaction in any meaningful way. Ed TG
RE: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
TARGETED RESONANT FREQUENCY/Hertz MODULATION at the quantum level indicated by PHONON outputs will be the KEY to discovering the most efficacious input-technique for discovering why(for instance) that Russian water is more salubrious than Texan water and to TRIGGER cascading 'cooler' fusion reactions yielding notable XO-Plamic flux harvest. . . To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 23:21:59 -0500 A thought occurred to me after the brief discussion that was conducted about the subject of D + D fusion. The wikipedia article on fusion of this type suggests that there is always either a neutron or proton emitted from the reaction when hot fusion takes place. This of course makes sense from the conservation of momentum and energy perspective as Dr. Storms has pointed out. I commented that a measurement of the actual energy released to the alpha particles of cold fusion reactions would allow someone to calculate the energy and momentum that had to be left behind for the numbers to make sense. My first thoughts on the matter were that this was going to require a large reactionary force if conservation of momentum was to be maintained. I did not actually calculate the magnitude of the momentum or the energy associated with that mass conversion. My choice of a central location from which to observe the reaction made it clear that the alpha particle would be frozen in place pending the release of this mass. With this in mind I think that it would be wise for us to give very serious consideration to the prospect that direct fusion of D + D is unlikely. It would be a good idea to explore different paths that ultimately lead to the release of one or more alpha particles. Of course the source for the reaction must be deuterium. I am confident that this suggestion has been covered before and I am curious about the possible paths that are available. Do any of these fit into place when a review of the active cold fusion metals is considered? Would the addition of a deuterium nuclei be encouraged by Pd for example? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 25, 2013 9:18 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions Energy can be transferred from one molecule to another threw a quantum mechanical mechanism. Yes http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/07/diamonds-entangled-in-physics-feat/ In the case of Walmsley's study, photons were showing up in two spots at the same time and causing vibrations within a pair of diamonds. The researchers made it happen by placing two diamonds about 15 centimeters (about 6 inches) apart on a table and then shooting a series of photons at a device called a beam splitter. Most of them went toward one diamond or the other, but a few of the photons went both ways at the same time. When those multitasking photons struck the pair of diamonds, they caused vibrations called phonons with each of the crystals. The light from each of the beams recombines after exiting the crystals. And sometimes when the light is leaving the crystals, it has less energy than when it entered. That's how the researchers could tell that the photon had caused some vibrations. We know that one diamond is vibrating, but we don't know which one, Walmsley said. In fact, the universe doesn't know which diamond is vibrating – the diamonds are entangled, with one vibration shared between them, even though they are separated in space. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: On Jan 25, 2013, at 3:49 PM, torulf.gr...@bredband.net torulf.gr...@bredband.net wrote: Excuse my grammar. English is not my native language. I will try to answer your questions as simply as possible. Can energy and momentum be transferred from the new He4 to another nucleus at some distains? No Energy can be transferred from one molecule to another threw a quantum mechanical mechanism. Yes, at chemical levels of energy This occurs in photo synthesis there excitations can jump between electrons in different molecules. Yes From an older tread. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg75294.html Maybe a similar phenomenon can occur between nucleus? This means the excitation from a He4 and momentum can be transferred The amount energy generated by a nuclear reaction requires direct emission of a particle, which can include a photon. This is observed fact. The magnitude is too great to use mechanisms available in a chemical structure. That is why most nuclear reactions are almost totally independent of the chemical environment. to one or more receiver nucleus. These receiver nucleus must be a special nuclide suitable for receive the energy and have a mechanism to get rid of it. If several nucleus can get energy from one He4 it may radiate
Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 8:18 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: This essentially is the best argument for quantization: if the electron is quantized – then why not the proton? But it is a false expectation. Can anyone think of any good theoretical argument which demand quantization in actual protons (as opposed to the Bohr atom, which is the ideal version)? Interesting discussion. It raises for me, among other things, questions about the limits of the instruments used to determine the mass of the various particles being discussed. But it also is suggestive (to a hobbyist) of there being a variable proton mass. Perhaps the variability resides in the gluons not being massless after all. I assume this would cause problems for one or two assumptions in the standard theory? Your argument is general and would seem to go beyond protons, since it operates at the level of quarks and gluons and so on and calls out nothing specific to protons, in particular. You appear to extend the variable-mass hypothesis to electrons; can I assume that it applies to neutrons as well? If so, why would any form of energy arbitration, in which a magnetic field is used to drain off a little bit of the mass of a proton, not also apply to neutrons and electrons? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: If so, why would any form of energy arbitration Typo: arbitrage not arbitration. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Interesting discussion. It raises for me, among other things, questions about the limits of the instruments used to determine the mass of the various particles being discussed. I think this is used for the proton: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penning_trap
Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
I wrote: Your argument is general and would seem to go beyond protons, since it operates at the level of quarks and gluons and so on and calls out nothing specific to protons, in particular. You appear to extend the variable-mass hypothesis to electrons; can I assume that it applies to neutrons as well? If so, why would any form of energy arbitration, in which a magnetic field is used to drain off a little bit of the mass of a proton, not also apply to neutrons and electrons? There is a possible error here, which is partly hidden by the ambiguity of the phrasing, in which I seem to be suggesting that an electron is a hadron, composed of quarks and gluons. I was suggesting that, and I was wrong. I periodically forget that it is a fundamental particle. But the question still applies to neutrons. Eric
RE: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
From: Eric Walker * why would any form of energy arbitration, in which a magnetic field is used to drain off a little bit of the mass of a proton, not also apply to neutrons and electrons? For any energy to transfer, even spin energy - from a disturbed proton to another nucleus (such as Ni), there must first be the energy priming event in the protons – such as QCD color change in two repelling protons which have split from a transient 2He nucleus (in which they were temporarily joined). In short, this coupling follows “reversible fusion” … and as far as I know, this limits the phenomenon to P+P reactions in a confined cavity. The leap of faith is that “reversible fusion” is slightly energetic. There could be reversible fusion with other nuclei but I doubt it, and am not aware of this type of reaction relating to anything other than P+P. But more to the general point of magnons - and magnetic coupling as the pathway for dispersal of that spin energy - the proton has very significant NMR sensitivity and other magnetic properties which are lost or diminished in nuclei with neutrons. Add a neutron to a proton, for instance (to get deuterium) - and the magnetic sensitivity goes down by a factor of about 100. Please do not assume that every detail of this hypothesis has a ready answer. I was slightly prepared on this one, but that will not always be the case. It is a work-in-progress. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
.Martynov, M.I., A.I. Mel'dianov, and A.M. Chepovskii,
Experiments on the detection of nuclear reaction products in
deuterated metals. Vopr. At. Nauki Tekh. Ser.: Termoyader Sintez,
1991(2): p. 77 (in Russian).
17.Matsunaka, M., et al. Studies of coherent deuteron
fusion and related nuclear reactions in solid. in The 9th
International Conference on Cold Fusion, Condensed Matter Nuclear
Science. 2002. Tsinghua Univ., Beijing, China: Tsinghua Univ.,
Beijing, China. p. 237-240.
18.Savvatimova, I.B., G. Savvatimov, and A.A. Kornilova.
Gamma emission evaluation in tungsten irradiated by low energy
deuterium ions. in 8th International Workshop on Anomalies in
Hydrogen/Deuterium Loaded Metals. 2007. Catania, Sicily, Italy: The
International Society for Condensed Matter Science. p. 258.
19. Lipson, A.G., A.S. Roussetski, and G. Miley. Evidence for
condensed matter enhanced nuclear reactions in metals with a high
hydrogen solubility. in International Conference on Condensed Matter
Nuclear Science , ICCF-13. 2007. Sochi, Russia: Tsiolkovsky Moscow
Technical University. p. 248.
On Jan 23, 2013, at 2:07 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:
Excellent find Lou!! Much appreciate it!
The abstract for just one section of the book sounds extremely
interesting
and encouraging:
Our decadal basic research confirmed: Chemonuclear fusion of light
nuclei
in the metallic Li-liquids hold the common mechanism with
pycnonuclear
reactions in the metallic-hydrogen liquids in stars e.g. white-dwarf
supernova progenitors. Both reactions are incorporated with the ionic
reactions forming compressed united atoms and induce enormous rate
enhancement caused by the thermodynamic activity of the liquids.
For the
chemonuclear fusion of hydrogen clusters in the Li permeated metal
hydrogen
systems, the rate enhancement of 2x10e44 is expected via coherent
collapse
of hydrogen-hydrogen bonds. Chemonuclear fusion releases a power
over one
million times as dense as the solar interior power density in the
metal
hydrogen systems, e.g a 1-mole NiH system is capable of some kW
output. The
fusion is followed by the successive reactions mostly with Li metal.
Some key phrases:
- forming compressed united atoms [me: perhaps support for
hydrinos?]
- induce enormous rate enhancement
- rate enhancement of 2x10e44 is expected
- Chemonuclear fusion releases a power over one million times as
dense as
the solar interior
- 1-mole NiH system is capable of some kW output
Can't wait to read the whole book!
-Mark Iverson
-Original Message-
From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com [mailto:pagnu...@htdconnect.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 11:41 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
Courtesy of http://lenrnews.eu --
The Svedberg Laboratory of Uppsala U. in Sweden recently published -
THE NATURE OF THE CHEMONUCLEAR TRANSITION - Hidetsugu Ikegami
http://www.tsl.uu.se/digitalAssets/142/142245_tsl-note-2012-61.pdf
- in which the author proposes that in some environments s-orbital
electron
dynamics greatly enhance certain fission and fusion reactions.
{{ EXTRACT: The Nature of the Chemonuclear Transition
In any nuclear transition undergoing gently compared to atomic
transitions, e.g. nuclear collisions, in its turn, nuclear fusion or
fusion reactions going on more slowly than the gyration speed of
electrons ZvB in the 1s-orbital of reactant atoms, the electrons
adjust
their electronic states continuously and smoothly to the nuclear
transitions or reactions. Here Z and vB denote the atomic number of
reactant atoms/nuclei colliding with light ions and Bohr speed
respectively. Thereby united nuclear and atomic transitions are
likely
to take place. In fact such united transitions have been observed in
the united atom formation in the high energy heavy ion collision
experiments through detecting the characteristic X-rays of united
atoms
in which pairs of colliding nuclei coexist at the center of common
1s-electron orbitals [1].}}
-- Lou Pagnucco
--
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
The proton-proton chain reaction on the sun is mostly “reversible fusion”. P+P - H2 It has been posted here many times that the strong force is overwhelming at close range - and will bring too protons together , despite Pauli. But almost always the He2 nucleus which forms then immediately breaks up. Thus, 99.99+ % of all fusion reactions, on all stars in the Universe, can be said to be reversible, and do not produce much energy. The bigger question for NiH is this: does reversible proton fusion produce any net energy? The currently favored model for solar fusion says NO. He2 does form from the interaction however, and it disappear rapidly - but ever so often there is a beta decay. Only one reversible reaction in 10^20 proceeds to beta decay. Thus the solar model is not compatible with Ni-H. Ed Storms clearly states that he is suggesting a novel form of this reaction - mediated by another particle such as an electron, deflated electron or so on. He is aware of the rarity of the beta decay. There is another hypothesis, or model, which I’ve been airing for about 6 months. It can operate along side of other models or alone. It suggests that proton reversible fusion does produce a small amount of heat due to QCD “color change”. The mass of the proton is slightly reduced in the process. That solves many theoretical problems, but admittedly there is no proof (unless NiH is the proof). The proton - in this model is not quantized. Its “known mass” is an average mass, and can vary slightly up or down from average. In addition to shedding small amounts of energy via QCD, depleted protons can also capture small amounts of mass-energy via free electrons on the sun, under gravity compression. This energy transfer in either case comes from QM - spin transfer via magnons. The mediating quasi-particle for this process is the magnon. That is important for NiH. If nickel were not ferromagnetic, there would probably be no energy transfer from reversible fusion. Before you ask – yes palladium is ferromagnetic in alloy form, and as a hydride: http://cpb.iphy.ac.cn/EN/abstract/abstract25888.shtml From: Eric Walker Chuck Sites wrote: The proton-proton chain reaction is initiated with a strong interaction between two protons, that binds to form a diproton, the diproton then decays via weak interaction (a W boson) into a deuteron + electron + electron neutrino and 0.42 MeV of energy. Wikipedia has a very good description of this processes: The proton-proton chain does seem promising at first, especially when one takes into account some of the difficulties with the kind of activation that would occur if there were a lot of neutron-moderated reactions. But the proton-proton chain has its own difficulties. See [1], below, for an earlier discussion. Briefly, the diproton lasts for a vanishingly small amount of time before it breaks up. Only a very small fraction of diprotons go on to form deuterium; in the sun, this process is a limiting one that prevents it from rapidly burning through its fuel. In known cases, the rate of deuterium formation is small because the weak force requires that a very high energy barrier be surpassed before a proton will convert to a neutron. Widom and Larsen have other ideas on this particular point, and it is part of what makes their writings difficult for physicist types (of which I am not one) to get a handle on. See also the comments to this physics.SE question for more details [2]. I believe Ed Storms proposes an alternate form of weak-force moderated nuclear reaction, along the lines of a slow p-e-p reaction, and I would assume that similar difficulties must be addressed in this instance as well. Assuming the weak interaction really does provide a limiting barrier, any fusion-like reaction is presumably going to have to occur either through the action of deuterium or higher, on one hand, or through proton capture within a larger nucleus, on the other, unless a non-fusion reaction along the lines of what Jones or Mills describes is going on. Obviously there is also the matter of the Coulomb barrier, but I think we've gotten used to ignoring it for the sake of convenience. ;) Eric [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg67691.html [2] http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23640/what-interactions-would-take-place-between-a-free-proton-and-a-dipolariton
Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
d+d=n+He3 and d+d=t+p What about d+d+...+d=? We don't know. This is what many many particle models ends up being. Theyare hot fusion. The only difference it is that there are many, more than 2, incoming nuclei to fuse. You cannot do that in experiments using colliders, it is too unlikely. So, you cannot say that cold fusion is any different than hot fusion that easily. 2013/1/25 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Yes, people try to explain LENR using the behavior described in the paper. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
The human mind is able to imagine endless possibilities. In order to make any progress, a triage must be done by eliminating the ideas that are so improbable or so illogical that they have very little chance of being correct. That is what I'm attempting to do. In any case, several basic rules MUST be considered. Hot fusion is a conventional 2 body-2 body reaction as is required to carry away the energy and momentum. Cold fusion is a 2-body to 1 body reaction that violates this condition. That violation MUST be acknowledged and explained. People are not free to imaginary any thing. Certain rules are known to apply. These rules are so basic that they MUST not be ignored. Ed Storms On Jan 25, 2013, at 8:22 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: d+d=n+He3 and d+d=t+p What about d+d+...+d=? We don't know. This is what many many particle models ends up being. Theyare hot fusion. The only difference it is that there are many, more than 2, incoming nuclei to fuse. You cannot do that in experiments using colliders, it is too unlikely. So, you cannot say that cold fusion is any different than hot fusion that easily. 2013/1/25 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Yes, people try to explain LENR using the behavior described in the paper. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
The number of elements is not an issue. You can just have increase the precision by considering an arbitrarily high quantity of particles, like quarks and gluons and whatever particle of the SM you want. So, there is no rule restricting the number of bodies taking part in the problem. 2013/1/25 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com In any case, several basic rules MUST be considered. Hot fusion is a conventional 2 body-2 body reaction as is required to carry away the energy and momentum. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
On Fri Jan 25th Ed Storms said [snip] Cold fusion is a 2-body to 1 body reaction that violates this condition[/snip]. That might be correct from a purely syntax perspective but is an unfair oversimplification, LENR and cold fusion are forever associated with lattice and geometry defects in said lattice - this is a quantum effect /extreme - multibody in the equivalent sense where gas atoms react to changes in nano geometry. There is literature regarding cavity QED that indicates these changes in cavity geometry violate the square law and break the isotropy. Regards Fran From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 10:38 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions The human mind is able to imagine endless possibilities. In order to make any progress, a triage must be done by eliminating the ideas that are so improbable or so illogical that they have very little chance of being correct. That is what I'm attempting to do. In any case, several basic rules MUST be considered. Hot fusion is a conventional 2 body-2 body reaction as is required to carry away the energy and momentum. Cold fusion is a 2-body to 1 body reaction that violates this condition. That violation MUST be acknowledged and explained. People are not free to imaginary any thing. Certain rules are known to apply. These rules are so basic that they MUST not be ignored. Ed Storms On Jan 25, 2013, at 8:22 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: d+d=n+He3 and d+d=t+p What about d+d+...+d=? We don't know. This is what many many particle models ends up being. Theyare hot fusion. The only difference it is that there are many, more than 2, incoming nuclei to fuse. You cannot do that in experiments using colliders, it is too unlikely. So, you cannot say that cold fusion is any different than hot fusion that easily. 2013/1/25 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.commailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com Yes, people try to explain LENR using the behavior described in the paper. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.commailto:danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
Daniel, we are not communicating. Do you understand the law of conservation of momentum that applies to all nuclear reactions? That is the only thing I'm discussing. When a nuclear reaction occurs, the energy must be communicated to the rest of the world and momentum must be conserved in the process. Quarks and gluons have no role in this requirement. These are particles within the nucleus and are not emitted as separate entities. Ed On Jan 25, 2013, at 8:49 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: The number of elements is not an issue. You can just have increase the precision by considering an arbitrarily high quantity of particles, like quarks and gluons and whatever particle of the SM you want. So, there is no rule restricting the number of bodies taking part in the problem. 2013/1/25 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com In any case, several basic rules MUST be considered. Hot fusion is a conventional 2 body-2 body reaction as is required to carry away the energy and momentum. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
No, we are certainly not. I let this Sisyphean task to Abd. 2013/1/25 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Daniel, we are not communicating. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
Yes, they are forever associated with lattice and geometry defects but that is not relevant. You need to understand what happens at the site of the nuclear reaction. The site of a hot fusion reaction has two d coming together with enough energy to overcome the Coulomb barrier and cause the two d to fuse. Then the resulting single body splits into two bodies. These two bodies go off in opposite directions while carrying the energy and momentum. This is conventional behavior. For cold fusion to occur, the 2 d must come together without extra energy, but nevertheless overcome the Coulomb barrier. How this process can occur is being debated. Nevertheless, the result is a single He4 with 23.8 MeV of energy. How does this energy get released and communicated to the world as heat, which it does, while conserving momentum? That is the ONLY issue. Ed On Jan 25, 2013, at 9:11 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote: On Fri Jan 25th Ed Storms said [snip] Cold fusion is a 2-body to 1 body reaction that violates this condition[/snip]. That might be correct from a purely syntax perspective but is an unfair oversimplification, LENR and cold fusion are forever associated with lattice and geometry defects in said lattice – this is a quantum effect /extreme - multibody in the equivalent sense where gas atoms react to changes in nano geometry. There is literature regarding cavity QED that indicates these changes in cavity geometry violate the square law and break the isotropy. Regards Fran From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 10:38 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions The human mind is able to imagine endless possibilities. In order to make any progress, a triage must be done by eliminating the ideas that are so improbable or so illogical that they have very little chance of being correct. That is what I'm attempting to do. In any case, several basic rules MUST be considered. Hot fusion is a conventional 2 body-2 body reaction as is required to carry away the energy and momentum. Cold fusion is a 2-body to 1 body reaction that violates this condition. That violation MUST be acknowledged and explained. People are not free to imaginary any thing. Certain rules are known to apply. These rules are so basic that they MUST not be ignored. Ed Storms On Jan 25, 2013, at 8:22 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: d+d=n+He3 and d+d=t+p What about d+d+...+d=? We don't know. This is what many many particle models ends up being. Theyare hot fusion. The only difference it is that there are many, more than 2, incoming nuclei to fuse. You cannot do that in experiments using colliders, it is too unlikely. So, you cannot say that cold fusion is any different than hot fusion that easily. 2013/1/25 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Yes, people try to explain LENR using the behavior described in the paper. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
I find the P+P - H2 fusion reaction to be an interesting concept to speculate upon. A simple way that I use to have a possible understanding of why the fusion breaks up is to view the collision as basically an elastic collision between particles. Unless energy of an adequate quantity is released by some mechanism at the precise time of the collision, the kinetic energy of the relative motion between the devices is restored and they fly apart. Consider yourself as an observer located at a position exactly between two equal energy P's heading for a direct collision. When they are far apart you calculate the kinetic energy of each P to be the same and obtain three possible ranges of values. One calculation reveals that the sum of the two kinetic energies is greater than that required to overcome the Coulomb barrier. A second calculation shows that the kinetic energy of the pair before collision is exactly equal to the barrier energy, and the third calculation implies that there is not enough energy. In the case where there is not sufficient energy, the two will approach, but immediately depart from each other with most the action dominated by the Coulomb forces. When the energy is exactly that required to barely overcome the Coulomb barrier, the protons then begin to be be influenced mainly by the strong force. This force is super powerful so the two P's accelerate toward each other until they collide. Since I am assuming an elastic collision with no release of energy, the two rebound apart back to the point where the Coulomb barrier takes over. The two P's will be in close contact for the most time possible under this set of conditions and have the best opportunity to fuse. I consider them to fuse if a particle or quanta of energy is released that results in a reduction of stored energy so that they now do not have adequate energy to break free of each other. The larger the quantity of energy released, the more likely the two P's remain close. If a beta + decay can be arranged, that is sufficient to perform the function well. If the original energy of the two protons is greater than that required to exactly match the Coulomb barrier, then the two will have less time in close proximity and it becomes less likely for an adequate release of binding energy and for fusion to hold. I generally assume that radiation is emitted on a continued basis from the protons as they decelerate towards each other since they carry a charge. This represents energy being taken out of the pairs kinetic sum that might help improve the chance of fusing if emitted just after the Coulomb barrier is breached. Unfortunately, the amount of radiation is small compared to the binding energy between two protons and would only have effect for an extremely tiny proportion of the collisions. Furthermore, an excited pair of protons so loosely bound would easily fall prey to being disrupted by collisions with other protons due to the high temperature. On the other hand, it might be advantageous in some collisions with the other particles. Additional energy could possibly be transferred to these other impactors from the bound pair allowing them to become more bound. Any process that allows the protons to remain near each other for a longer period of time would enhance the chance of a large energy release that completes the binding. This hypothesis assumes that fusion would be optimized for an extremely tiny range of relative kinetic energies. If also would suggest that there is a minimum temperature below which the likelihood of collisions between protons of the correct energies becomes rare and fusion is non productive. It would predict that relatively large energy releases such as beta + decays would be the dominate indicator of successful fusion. I would expect to detect a continuous flux of radiation from the acceleration and deceleration of the protons as they collide. Also, energy would be expected to be transferred into the proton plasma in the form of heat from loosely bound protons as they bind tighter heading toward eventual fusion. And, when a beta + decay occurs, the fusion process is completed between a proton pair and that event is locked into place. This represents my current views toward fusion and do not imply that I consider the above hypothesis original as it seems to be obvious behavior. Perhaps someone with more knowledge about the actual ash of proton to proton fusion would help me to understand what is proven to occur in real life. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 25, 2013 10:17 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions The proton-proton chain reaction on the sun is mostly “reversiblefusion”. P+P - H2 It has been posted here many times that the strong force is overwhelmingat close range - and will bring too protons together
Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
Instead, I suggest you consult any physics text about the law of conservation of momentum. Ed On Jan 25, 2013, at 9:16 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: No, we are certainly not. I let this Sisyphean task to Abd. 2013/1/25 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Daniel, we are not communicating. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
Ed: ..the resulting single body splits into two bodies. These two bodies go off in opposite directions. Just how close to 'opposite'? Exactly 180 degrees opposite? 180 degs +- sigma? What is sigma in these reactions? -Mark From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 8:29 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions Yes, they are forever associated with lattice and geometry defects but that is not relevant. You need to understand what happens at the site of the nuclear reaction. The site of a hot fusion reaction has two d coming together with enough energy to overcome the Coulomb barrier and cause the two d to fuse. Then the resulting single body splits into two bodies. These two bodies go off in opposite directions while carrying the energy and momentum. This is conventional behavior. For cold fusion to occur, the 2 d must come together without extra energy, but nevertheless overcome the Coulomb barrier. How this process can occur is being debated. Nevertheless, the result is a single He4 with 23.8 MeV of energy. How does this energy get released and communicated to the world as heat, which it does, while conserving momentum? That is the ONLY issue. Ed On Jan 25, 2013, at 9:11 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote: On Fri Jan 25th Ed Storms said [snip] Cold fusion is a 2-body to 1 body reaction that violates this condition[/snip]. That might be correct from a purely syntax perspective but is an unfair oversimplification, LENR and cold fusion are forever associated with lattice and geometry defects in said lattice - this is a quantum effect /extreme - multibody in the equivalent sense where gas atoms react to changes in nano geometry. There is literature regarding cavity QED that indicates these changes in cavity geometry violate the square law and break the isotropy. Regards Fran From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 10:38 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions The human mind is able to imagine endless possibilities. In order to make any progress, a triage must be done by eliminating the ideas that are so improbable or so illogical that they have very little chance of being correct. That is what I'm attempting to do. In any case, several basic rules MUST be considered. Hot fusion is a conventional 2 body-2 body reaction as is required to carry away the energy and momentum. Cold fusion is a 2-body to 1 body reaction that violates this condition. That violation MUST be acknowledged and explained. People are not free to imaginary any thing. Certain rules are known to apply. These rules are so basic that they MUST not be ignored. Ed Storms On Jan 25, 2013, at 8:22 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: d+d=n+He3 and d+d=t+p What about d+d+...+d=? We don't know. This is what many many particle models ends up being. Theyare hot fusion. The only difference it is that there are many, more than 2, incoming nuclei to fuse. You cannot do that in experiments using colliders, it is too unlikely. So, you cannot say that cold fusion is any different than hot fusion that easily. 2013/1/25 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Yes, people try to explain LENR using the behavior described in the paper. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
Ed, I am confused by your statement that cold fusion is a 2-body to 1 body reaction. I see two reaction components unless I am missing something. One is the alpha particle and the other appears in the form of mass released as energy into the surrounding structure. Every observer must see that the laws of physics apply to what he sees. My favorite point is to be located precisely between the two protons as they head toward each other with exactly the same energy. In this location an observer sees that a finite amount of kinetic energy is measured for the two particles and that there is exactly zero momentum for the equal velocity pair. When they collide together, there is no motion required for the resulting alpha particle until it releases the excess energy. When that energy is finally emitted in some form, then a reaction force would result in relative motion of the alpha particle. In this manner, both conservation of energy as well as conservation of momentum is shown. In my experience, when these laws are seen by any one observer, then they are true for all of the others. Do you see a hole in this argument? How are the laws true for others but not for the one ideally located? Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Fri, Jan 25, 2013 10:38 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions The human mind is able to imagine endless possibilities. In order to make any progress, a triage must be done by eliminating the ideas that are so improbable or so illogical that they have very little chance of being correct. That is what I'm attempting to do. In any case, several basic rules MUST be considered. Hot fusion is a conventional 2 body-2 body reaction as is required to carry away the energy and momentum. Cold fusion is a 2-body to 1 body reaction that violates this condition. That violation MUST be acknowledged and explained. People are not free to imaginary any thing. Certain rules are known to apply. These rules are so basic that they MUST not be ignored. Ed Storms On Jan 25, 2013, at 8:22 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: d+d=n+He3 and d+d=t+p What about d+d+...+d=? We don't know. This is what many many particle models ends up being. Theyare hot fusion. The only difference it is that there are many, more than 2, incoming nuclei to fuse. You cannot do that in experiments using colliders, it is too unlikely. So, you cannot say that cold fusion is any different than hot fusion that easily. 2013/1/25 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Yes, people try to explain LENR using the behavior described in the paper. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
The problem with such exchanges is that the messages to different people cross so that I have to explain the same thing several times, which is a waste of time. That is why I write papers so that everyone can study the same explanation. On Jan 25, 2013, at 9:51 AM, David Roberson wrote: Ed, I am confused by your statement that cold fusion is a 2-body to 1 body reaction. I see two reaction components unless I am missing something. One is the alpha particle and the other appears in the form of mass released as energy into the surrounding structure. The energy release must result from emission of something. Normally in hot fusion, the release results from emission of a strong gamma when He4 forms. This gamma is not present when He4 forms during cold fusion. Why not? The mechanism of energy transfer is obviously not conventional, yet it must be consistent with the law of conservation of momentum. I try to solve this problem in my theory. Most people ignore the issue. Ed Every observer must see that the laws of physics apply to what he sees. My favorite point is to be located precisely between the two protons as they head toward each other with exactly the same energy. In this location an observer sees that a finite amount of kinetic energy is measured for the two particles and that there is exactly zero momentum for the equal velocity pair. When they collide together, there is no motion required for the resulting alpha particle until it releases the excess energy. When that energy is finally emitted in some form, then a reaction force would result in relative motion of the alpha particle. In this manner, both conservation of energy as well as conservation of momentum is shown. In my experience, when these laws are seen by any one observer, then they are true for all of the others. Do you see a hole in this argument? How are the laws true for others but not for the one ideally located? Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Fri, Jan 25, 2013 10:38 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions The human mind is able to imagine endless possibilities. In order to make any progress, a triage must be done by eliminating the ideas that are so improbable or so illogical that they have very little chance of being correct. That is what I'm attempting to do. In any case, several basic rules MUST be considered. Hot fusion is a conventional 2 body-2 body reaction as is required to carry away the energy and momentum. Cold fusion is a 2-body to 1 body reaction that violates this condition. That violation MUST be acknowledged and explained. People are not free to imaginary any thing. Certain rules are known to apply. These rules are so basic that they MUST not be ignored. Ed Storms On Jan 25, 2013, at 8:22 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: d+d=n+He3 and d+d=t+p What about d+d+...+d=? We don't know. This is what many many particle models ends up being. Theyare hot fusion. The only difference it is that there are many, more than 2, incoming nuclei to fuse. You cannot do that in experiments using colliders, it is too unlikely. So, you cannot say that cold fusion is any different than hot fusion that easily. 2013/1/25 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Yes, people try to explain LENR using the behavior described in the paper. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
From: David Roberson I find the P+P - H2 fusion reaction to be an interesting concept to speculate upon… Unless energy of an adequate quantity is released by some mechanism at the precise time of the collision, the kinetic energy of the relative motion between the devices is restored and they fly apart. Correct. That is the problem in a nutshell. In fact, the kinetic energy is largely restored! It is spin energy of bosons in the proton which is slightly depleted. The effect from that, on kinetic energy, is negligible. It is very difficult, at this point in a discussion, to introduce “QCD color change”, but it is the mechanism which must be involved in reversible strong force reactions - for there to be a small amount of gain (derived from the transitory 2He nucleus, as it flies apart without diminished kinetic energy). QCD is about as popular a topic, even among non-specialist scientists - as modern poetry, aka rap. In the end - it’s hard enough to convince observers that proton mass varies between atoms in any population - instead is an “average mass” which is not quantized. But there are hundreds of precise measurement over time (and especially in other countries) where mass value does not correspond to the currently accepted value in the USA. Close but not the same. Efforts to quantize the proton like this one: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0512108 are hopeless, and actually make a strong case for the opposite conclusion. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
Sometimes the emails do get crossed up with the number of responses. In this particular case I think that my input helped to clarify the problem to many others who may be following this discussion. My choice of observation locations proves that there are two bodies or body equivalents that must exit the reaction. Now it is plain for all to see that it is not possible for an alpha particle to be the only result since I have demonstrated that the conservation of momentum would be violated it this were to happen. Before my mental example, it was just a statement that was difficult to defend. Now we can more readily understand the type of reaction that must take place in this form of fusion. For one, it is not possible for an alpha with that total energy to be released. If we could get a measure of the energy of the alphas that actually are emitted, then that information can be directly used to calculate the transferred momentum and energy which is received by the matrix. Now, I have shown that some reactionary force is required through which the energy and momentum is transferred to the system. This is an important observation in my opinion. It is good that the members of vortex-l can discuss issues of this nature since much is not known about the reactions that take place. Sometimes a small spark of incite at the correct moment will lead to added knowledge. Perhaps others now will realize that what I have written here is educational. The next time, they might use my ideal observation location or something of a similar nature to understand other physics problems. Had I written a paper, it is likely that I would have overlooked this particular tidbit of knowledge and left out a major issue that should have been considered. So, I suggest that we continue to engage in similar discussions within vortex and enlarge our knowledge base since no one person is required to be the holder of all that is important. Knowledge is always advancing as more minds are engaged. I vote for open discussion within vortex. And, my post was not a waste of anybodies time. Proof of this assertion will be from this point forth since most of those engaged in the current discussion will now understand the issue of energy and momentum requirements. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Fri, Jan 25, 2013 12:12 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions The problem with such exchanges is that the messages to different people cross so that I have to explain the same thing several times, which is a waste of time. That is why I write papers so that everyone can study the same explanation. On Jan 25, 2013, at 9:51 AM, David Roberson wrote: Ed, I am confused by your statement that cold fusion is a 2-body to 1 body reaction. I see two reaction components unless I am missing something. One is the alpha particle and the other appears in the form of mass released as energy into the surrounding structure. The energy release must result from emission of something. Normally in hot fusion, the release results from emission of a strong gamma when He4 forms. This gamma is not present when He4 forms during cold fusion. Why not? The mechanism of energy transfer is obviously not conventional, yet it must be consistent with the law of conservation of momentum. I try to solve this problem in my theory. Most people ignore the issue. Ed Every observer must see that the laws of physics apply to what he sees. My favorite point is to be located precisely between the two protons as they head toward each other with exactly the same energy. In this location an observer sees that a finite amount of kinetic energy is measured for the two particles and that there is exactly zero momentum for the equal velocity pair. When they collide together, there is no motion required for the resulting alpha particle until it releases the excess energy. When that energy is finally emitted in some form, then a reaction force would result in relative motion of the alpha particle. In this manner, both conservation of energy as well as conservation of momentum is shown. In my experience, when these laws are seen by any one observer, then they are true for all of the others. Do you see a hole in this argument? How are the laws true for others but not for the one ideally located? Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Fri, Jan 25, 2013 10:38 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions The human mind is able to imagine endless possibilities. In order to make any progress, a triage must be done by eliminating the ideas that are so improbable or so illogical that they have very little chance of being correct. That is what
Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
On Jan 25, 2013, at 11:17 AM, David Roberson wrote: Sometimes the emails do get crossed up with the number of responses. In this particular case I think that my input helped to clarify the problem to many others who may be following this discussion. I agree My choice of observation locations proves that there are two bodies or body equivalents that must exit the reaction. Now it is plain for all to see that it is not possible for an alpha particle to be the only result since I have demonstrated that the conservation of momentum would be violated it this were to happen. Before my mental example, it was just a statement that was difficult to defend. Now we can more readily understand the type of reaction that must take place in this form of fusion. For one, it is not possible for an alpha with that total energy to be released. If we could get a measure of the energy of the alphas that actually are emitted, then that information can be directly used to calculate the transferred momentum and energy which is received by the matrix. Now, I have shown that some reactionary force is required through which the energy and momentum is transferred to the system. This is an important observation in my opinion. Yes, Dave that is the basic conclusion that results from the law of conservation of momentum. Thanks for making this clearer. It is good that the members of vortex-l can discuss issues of this nature since much is not known about the reactions that take place. Sometimes a small spark of incite at the correct moment will lead to added knowledge. Perhaps others now will realize that what I have written here is educational. The next time, they might use my ideal observation location or something of a similar nature to understand other physics problems. Had I written a paper, it is likely that I would have overlooked this particular tidbit of knowledge and left out a major issue that should have been considered. So, I suggest that we continue to engage in similar discussions within vortex and enlarge our knowledge base since no one person is required to be the holder of all that is important. Knowledge is always advancing as more minds are engaged. I vote for open discussion within vortex. And, my post was not a waste of anybodies time. Your point was not a waste. However, everyone should read every message before replying. Ed Proof of this assertion will be from this point forth since most of those engaged in the current discussion will now understand the issue of energy and momentum requirements. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Fri, Jan 25, 2013 12:12 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions The problem with such exchanges is that the messages to different people cross so that I have to explain the same thing several times, which is a waste of time. That is why I write papers so that everyone can study the same explanation. On Jan 25, 2013, at 9:51 AM, David Roberson wrote: Ed, I am confused by your statement that cold fusion is a 2-body to 1 body reaction. I see two reaction components unless I am missing something. One is the alpha particle and the other appears in the form of mass released as energy into the surrounding structure. The energy release must result from emission of something. Normally in hot fusion, the release results from emission of a strong gamma when He4 forms. This gamma is not present when He4 forms during cold fusion. Why not? The mechanism of energy transfer is obviously not conventional, yet it must be consistent with the law of conservation of momentum. I try to solve this problem in my theory. Most people ignore the issue. Ed Every observer must see that the laws of physics apply to what he sees. My favorite point is to be located precisely between the two protons as they head toward each other with exactly the same energy. In this location an observer sees that a finite amount of kinetic energy is measured for the two particles and that there is exactly zero momentum for the equal velocity pair. When they collide together, there is no motion required for the resulting alpha particle until it releases the excess energy. When that energy is finally emitted in some form, then a reaction force would result in relative motion of the alpha particle. In this manner, both conservation of energy as well as conservation of momentum is shown. In my experience, when these laws are seen by any one observer, then they are true for all of the others. Do you see a hole in this argument? How are the laws true for others but not for the one ideally located? Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor
Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
Thanks Ed, I think we are pretty much in agreement at this time. I tend to view processes from the other side which sometimes can simplify understanding of complex events and that is why I commented. Perhaps I got a bit too riled at the suggestion that my post was a total waste of time! I greatly honor your contributions to and knowledge of this important field and I look forward to receiving additional guidance from your inputs to vortex. We all appreciate the opportunity to converse with you when you join us. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Fri, Jan 25, 2013 1:27 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions On Jan 25, 2013, at 11:17 AM, David Roberson wrote: Sometimes the emails do get crossed up with the number of responses. In this particular case I think that my input helped to clarify the problem to many others who may be following this discussion. I agree My choice of observation locations proves that there are two bodies or body equivalents that must exit the reaction. Now it is plain for all to see that it is not possible for an alpha particle to be the only result since I have demonstrated that the conservation of momentum would be violated it this were to happen. Before my mental example, it was just a statement that was difficult to defend. Now we can more readily understand the type of reaction that must take place in this form of fusion. For one, it is not possible for an alpha with that total energy to be released. If we could get a measure of the energy of the alphas that actually are emitted, then that information can be directly used to calculate the transferred momentum and energy which is received by the matrix. Now, I have shown that some reactionary force is required through which the energy and momentum is transferred to the system. This is an important observation in my opinion. Yes, Dave that is the basic conclusion that results from the law of conservation of momentum. Thanks for making this clearer. It is good that the members of vortex-l can discuss issues of this nature since much is not known about the reactions that take place. Sometimes a small spark of incite at the correct moment will lead to added knowledge. Perhaps others now will realize that what I have written here is educational. The next time, they might use my ideal observation location or something of a similar nature to understand other physics problems. Had I written a paper, it is likely that I would have overlooked this particular tidbit of knowledge and left out a major issue that should have been considered. So, I suggest that we continue to engage in similar discussions within vortex and enlarge our knowledge base since no one person is required to be the holder of all that is important. Knowledge is always advancing as more minds are engaged. I vote for open discussion within vortex. And, my post was not a waste of anybodies time. Your point was not a waste. However, everyone should read every message before replying. Ed Proof of this assertion will be from this point forth since most of those engaged in the current discussion will now understand the issue of energy and momentum requirements. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Fri, Jan 25, 2013 12:12 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions The problem with such exchanges is that the messages to different people cross so that I have to explain the same thing several times, which is a waste of time. That is why I write papers so that everyone can study the same explanation. On Jan 25, 2013, at 9:51 AM, David Roberson wrote: Ed, I am confused by your statement that cold fusion is a 2-body to 1 body reaction. I see two reaction components unless I am missing something. One is the alpha particle and the other appears in the form of mass released as energy into the surrounding structure. The energy release must result from emission of something. Normally in hot fusion, the release results from emission of a strong gamma when He4 forms. This gamma is not present when He4 forms during cold fusion. Why not? The mechanism of energy transfer is obviously not conventional, yet it must be consistent with the law of conservation of momentum. I try to solve this problem in my theory. Most people ignore the issue. Ed Every observer must see that the laws of physics apply to what he sees. My favorite point is to be located precisely between the two protons as they head toward each other with exactly the same energy. In this location an observer sees that a finite amount of kinetic energy is measured for the two particles
RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
Just a small caveat regarding your statement “relative motion between the devices”… inside this environment you can have equivalent accelerations /gravitational changes to these devices that don’t obey the square law where tiny spatial displacements can result in huge changes in inertial frames due to suppression by geometry changes. This is why I see the quantum geometry as a contributing party to the multibodies under discussion. Fran _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 12:43 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions From: David Roberson I find the P+P - H2 fusion reaction to be an interesting concept to speculate upon… Unless energy of an adequate quantity is released by some mechanism at the precise time of the collision, the kinetic energy of the relative motion between the devices is restored and they fly apart. Correct. That is the problem in a nutshell. In fact, the kinetic energy is largely restored! It is spin energy of bosons in the proton which is slightly depleted. The effect from that, on kinetic energy, is negligible. It is very difficult, at this point in a discussion, to introduce “QCD color change”, but it is the mechanism which must be involved in reversible strong force reactions - for there to be a small amount of gain (derived from the transitory 2He nucleus, as it flies apart without diminished kinetic energy). QCD is about as popular a topic, even among non-specialist scientists - as modern poetry, aka rap. In the end - it’s hard enough to convince observers that proton mass varies between atoms in any population - instead is an “average mass” which is not quantized. But there are hundreds of precise measurement over time (and especially in other countries) where mass value does not correspond to the currently accepted value in the USA. Close but not the same. Efforts to quantize the proton like this one: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0512108 are hopeless, and actually make a strong case for the opposite conclusion. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
Thanks Dave, I welcome the opportunity. Please forgive my brief style and frequent typos. This results from slow typing skill and an assumption that much of what I might say is already known by the reader, requiring only a hint to reach the answer. Also, I do not encourage discussion about detail or arguments about basic ideas. We all know that a lot is missing in our understanding of Nature, but I do not have the time to address any of these interesting issues except LENR. My policy is fight only one war at a time.:-) Ed On Jan 25, 2013, at 11:38 AM, David Roberson wrote: Thanks Ed, I think we are pretty much in agreement at this time. I tend to view processes from the other side which sometimes can simplify understanding of complex events and that is why I commented. Perhaps I got a bit too riled at the suggestion that my post was a total waste of time! I greatly honor your contributions to and knowledge of this important field and I look forward to receiving additional guidance from your inputs to vortex. We all appreciate the opportunity to converse with you when you join us. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Fri, Jan 25, 2013 1:27 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions On Jan 25, 2013, at 11:17 AM, David Roberson wrote: Sometimes the emails do get crossed up with the number of responses. In this particular case I think that my input helped to clarify the problem to many others who may be following this discussion. I agree My choice of observation locations proves that there are two bodies or body equivalents that must exit the reaction. Now it is plain for all to see that it is not possible for an alpha particle to be the only result since I have demonstrated that the conservation of momentum would be violated it this were to happen. Before my mental example, it was just a statement that was difficult to defend. Now we can more readily understand the type of reaction that must take place in this form of fusion. For one, it is not possible for an alpha with that total energy to be released. If we could get a measure of the energy of the alphas that actually are emitted, then that information can be directly used to calculate the transferred momentum and energy which is received by the matrix. Now, I have shown that some reactionary force is required through which the energy and momentum is transferred to the system. This is an important observation in my opinion. Yes, Dave that is the basic conclusion that results from the law of conservation of momentum. Thanks for making this clearer. It is good that the members of vortex-l can discuss issues of this nature since much is not known about the reactions that take place. Sometimes a small spark of incite at the correct moment will lead to added knowledge. Perhaps others now will realize that what I have written here is educational. The next time, they might use my ideal observation location or something of a similar nature to understand other physics problems. Had I written a paper, it is likely that I would have overlooked this particular tidbit of knowledge and left out a major issue that should have been considered. So, I suggest that we continue to engage in similar discussions within vortex and enlarge our knowledge base since no one person is required to be the holder of all that is important. Knowledge is always advancing as more minds are engaged. I vote for open discussion within vortex. And, my post was not a waste of anybodies time. Your point was not a waste. However, everyone should read every message before replying. Ed Proof of this assertion will be from this point forth since most of those engaged in the current discussion will now understand the issue of energy and momentum requirements. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Fri, Jan 25, 2013 12:12 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions The problem with such exchanges is that the messages to different people cross so that I have to explain the same thing several times, which is a waste of time. That is why I write papers so that everyone can study the same explanation. On Jan 25, 2013, at 9:51 AM, David Roberson wrote: Ed, I am confused by your statement that cold fusion is a 2-body to 1 body reaction. I see two reaction components unless I am missing something. One is the alpha particle and the other appears in the form of mass released as energy into the surrounding structure. The energy release must result from emission of something. Normally in hot fusion, the release results from emission of a strong gamma when He4 forms. This gamma is not present when He4
Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
*For one, it is not possible for an alpha with that total energy to be released.* I would like to introduce a complicating factor: electron screening.. Both the cross section of alpha decay and nuclear fusion can be significantly reduced by electron screening. In fact I believe that the helium 4 seen in cold fusion experiments are many times derived from enhanced alpha emissions from high Z elements rather than fusion of hydrogen. In the presence of an electron cloud, the consideration of the coulomb barrier potential must be replaced by the Tomas Fermi potential to account for electron screening. Furthermore In astrophysics, cross sections of low energy fusion events can increase by a factor of one million based on the extent of electron screening around the fusion site. In fact, it is impossible to experimentally produce correct stellar fusion reaction cross sections because both theory and experiment is not able to explain astrophysical fusion based observations due to the electron screening problem. Astrophysics uses the Trojan horse approximation to get around this electron screening conundrum. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 1:17 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Sometimes the emails do get crossed up with the number of responses. In this particular case I think that my input helped to clarify the problem to many others who may be following this discussion. My choice of observation locations proves that there are two bodies or body equivalents that must exit the reaction. Now it is plain for all to see that it is not possible for an alpha particle to be the only result since I have demonstrated that the conservation of momentum would be violated it this were to happen. Before my mental example, it was just a statement that was difficult to defend. Now we can more readily understand the type of reaction that must take place in this form of fusion. For one, it is not possible for an alpha with that total energy to be released. If we could get a measure of the energy of the alphas that actually are emitted, then that information can be directly used to calculate the transferred momentum and energy which is received by the matrix. Now, I have shown that some reactionary force is required through which the energy and momentum is transferred to the system. This is an important observation in my opinion. It is good that the members of vortex-l can discuss issues of this nature since much is not known about the reactions that take place. Sometimes a small spark of incite at the correct moment will lead to added knowledge. Perhaps others now will realize that what I have written here is educational. The next time, they might use my ideal observation location or something of a similar nature to understand other physics problems. Had I written a paper, it is likely that I would have overlooked this particular tidbit of knowledge and left out a major issue that should have been considered. So, I suggest that we continue to engage in similar discussions within vortex and enlarge our knowledge base since no one person is required to be the holder of all that is important. Knowledge is always advancing as more minds are engaged. I vote for open discussion within vortex. And, my post was not a waste of anybodies time. Proof of this assertion will be from this point forth since most of those engaged in the current discussion will now understand the issue of energy and momentum requirements. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Fri, Jan 25, 2013 12:12 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions The problem with such exchanges is that the messages to different people cross so that I have to explain the same thing several times, which is a waste of time. That is why I write papers so that everyone can study the same explanation. On Jan 25, 2013, at 9:51 AM, David Roberson wrote: Ed, I am confused by your statement that cold fusion is a 2-body to 1 body reaction. I see two reaction components unless I am missing something. One is the alpha particle and the other appears in the form of mass released as energy into the surrounding structure. The energy release must result from emission of something. Normally in hot fusion, the release results from emission of a strong gamma when He4 forms. This gamma is not present when He4 forms during cold fusion. Why not? The mechanism of energy transfer is obviously not conventional, yet it must be consistent with the law of conservation of momentum. I try to solve this problem in my theory. Most people ignore the issue. Ed Every observer must see that the laws of physics apply to what he sees. My favorite point is to be located precisely between the two protons as they head toward each other with exactly the same energy. In this location
Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
That is an interesting complication Axil. There is no doubt that the electrons can act as a screen of the electric field to an extent. Once, I tried to get a handle upon the magnitude of this effect from a simple mental model point of view and a few things seemed to show up. The COE and COM like to make it difficult to visualize. I placed an electron between two protons and realized that as long as the electron was in the middle, there was no Coulomb barrier to counter since the negative charge exerted a slightly larger pull than the opposite positive charge repelled as the combination gets smaller. This model leads to an interesting idea. If the electron could be judiciously placed precisely between the protons, there would be no net force acting upon it. If we then allow the protons to slowly come together, there would be no net energy imparted upon the electron as the system shrinks. Each proton would actually be drawn towards the other one and a small amount of energy would be imparted upon each. This is due to the fact that the electron charge is closer to the proton charge than is the other positive repelling charge. This process could be continued until something gives. A net amount of energy is given to the protons as they head towards each other. The electron is merely kept in the center without expending any energy. Now, if the electron squirts out of the line at right angles to the axis between the protons, then it must be given energy equal to the amount of Coulomb energy that it helped overcome as the protons came towards each other. This would be expected if the electron were to escape the vicinity. The protons would then possess the same amount of energy that they would have obtained had they not had the electron to help. If an electron could be coaxed into this behavior and remain between the proton pair until the group merges, then fusion would be common. Since this is not true, one must assume that the electron diverts at some point. Perhaps a gamma ray comes along to set it free, but more likely, quantum mechanics intervenes and the electron begins some form of orbital motion around one or both protons. Unless the orbit that it settles within allows for the release of extremely high energy, then the protons are not close enough to fuse. I suspect that a process of this general nature might lower the net Coulomb barrier to a degree, but I have no idea how much. I began to think of a multiple electron case, but grew weary as my mind wasted away. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 25, 2013 2:21 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions For one, it is not possible for an alpha with that total energy to be released. I would like to introduce a complicating factor: electron screening.. Both the cross section of alpha decay and nuclear fusion can be significantly reduced by electron screening. In fact I believe that the helium 4 seen in cold fusion experiments are many times derived from enhanced alpha emissions from high Z elements rather than fusion of hydrogen. In the presence of an electron cloud, the consideration of the coulomb barrier potential must be replaced by the Tomas Fermi potential to account for electron screening. Furthermore In astrophysics, cross sections of low energy fusion events can increase by a factor of one million based on the extent of electron screening around the fusion site. In fact, it is impossible to experimentally produce correct stellar fusion reaction cross sections because both theory and experiment is not able to explain astrophysical fusion based observations due to the electron screening problem. Astrophysics uses the Trojan horse approximation to get around this electron screening conundrum. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 1:17 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Sometimes the emails do get crossed up with the number of responses. In this particular case I think that my input helped to clarify the problem to many others who may be following this discussion. My choice of observation locations proves that there are two bodies or body equivalents that must exit the reaction. Now it is plain for all to see that it is not possible for an alpha particle to be the only result since I have demonstrated that the conservation of momentum would be violated it this were to happen. Before my mental example, it was just a statement that was difficult to defend. Now we can more readily understand the type of reaction that must take place in this form of fusion. For one, it is not possible for an alpha with that total energy to be released. If we could get a measure of the energy of the alphas that actually are emitted, then that information can be directly used to calculate the transferred momentum and energy which is received by the matrix. Now, I have shown that some
Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
In reply to MarkI-ZeroPoint's message of Wed, 23 Jan 2013 13:07:46 -0800: Hi, [snip] systems, the rate enhancement of 2x10e44 is expected via coherent collapse This is properly written 2E44. The E implies 10^. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
Quantum mechanics lives in the realm of the wave. The electron will exert it influence on the positive charge nucleus in bits and pieces. Take a look at this to give your imagination a brake: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas%E2%80%93Fermi_screening The Thomas-Fermi formula is a more general potential than the Coulomb's lawhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law . For the nonlinear Thomas-Fermi formula, solving these simultaneously can be difficult, and usually there is no analytical solution. However, the linearized formula has a simple solution: R= (Q/r)((e)exp(-kr)) With *k*=0 (no screening), this becomes the familiar Coulomb's lawhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law . The infuence of about 2000 electrons near the site of fusion will lower the coulomb barrier. On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 3:01 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: That is an interesting complication Axil. There is no doubt that the electrons can act as a screen of the electric field to an extent. Once, I tried to get a handle upon the magnitude of this effect from a simple mental model point of view and a few things seemed to show up. The COE and COM like to make it difficult to visualize. I placed an electron between two protons and realized that as long as the electron was in the middle, there was no Coulomb barrier to counter since the negative charge exerted a slightly larger pull than the opposite positive charge repelled as the combination gets smaller. This model leads to an interesting idea. If the electron could be judiciously placed precisely between the protons, there would be no net force acting upon it. If we then allow the protons to slowly come together, there would be no net energy imparted upon the electron as the system shrinks. Each proton would actually be drawn towards the other one and a small amount of energy would be imparted upon each. This is due to the fact that the electron charge is closer to the proton charge than is the other positive repelling charge. This process could be continued until something gives. A net amount of energy is given to the protons as they head towards each other. The electron is merely kept in the center without expending any energy. Now, if the electron squirts out of the line at right angles to the axis between the protons, then it must be given energy equal to the amount of Coulomb energy that it helped overcome as the protons came towards each other. This would be expected if the electron were to escape the vicinity. The protons would then possess the same amount of energy that they would have obtained had they not had the electron to help. If an electron could be coaxed into this behavior and remain between the proton pair until the group merges, then fusion would be common. Since this is not true, one must assume that the electron diverts at some point. Perhaps a gamma ray comes along to set it free, but more likely, quantum mechanics intervenes and the electron begins some form of orbital motion around one or both protons. Unless the orbit that it settles within allows for the release of extremely high energy, then the protons are not close enough to fuse. I suspect that a process of this general nature might lower the net Coulomb barrier to a degree, but I have no idea how much. I began to think of a multiple electron case, but grew weary as my mind wasted away. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 25, 2013 2:21 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions *For one, it is not possible for an alpha with that total energy to be released.* I would like to introduce a complicating factor: electron screening.. Both the cross section of alpha decay and nuclear fusion can be significantly reduced by electron screening. In fact I believe that the helium 4 seen in cold fusion experiments are many times derived from enhanced alpha emissions from high Z elements rather than fusion of hydrogen. In the presence of an electron cloud, the consideration of the coulomb barrier potential must be replaced by the Tomas Fermi potential to account for electron screening. Furthermore In astrophysics, cross sections of low energy fusion events can increase by a factor of one million based on the extent of electron screening around the fusion site. In fact, it is impossible to experimentally produce correct stellar fusion reaction cross sections because both theory and experiment is not able to explain astrophysical fusion based observations due to the electron screening problem. Astrophysics uses the Trojan horse approximation to get around this electron screening conundrum. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 1:17 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: Sometimes the emails do get crossed up with the number of responses. In this particular case I think that my input helped
Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
2000 electrons? I expect that this many would do the trick. If one can help a bit, then 2000 would help a lot more. The end result I suspect is that the Coulomb energy must be absorbed from this group by some means if only for a brief period. The fusion event would repay the loan with interest. Perhaps quantum mechanics is the process that arranges the loan. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 25, 2013 3:31 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions Quantum mechanics lives in the realm of the wave. Theelectron will exert it influence on the positive charge nucleus in bits and pieces. Take a look at this to give your imagination a brake: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas%E2%80%93Fermi_screening The Thomas-Fermiformula is a more general potential than the Coulomb'slaw. For the nonlinearThomas-Fermi formula, solving these simultaneously can be difficult, and usuallythere is no analytical solution. However, the linearized formula has a simplesolution: R= (Q/r)((e)exp(-kr)) With k=0(no screening), this becomes the familiar Coulomb'slaw. The infuence of about 2000electrons near the site of fusion will lower the coulomb barrier. On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 3:01 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: That is an interesting complication Axil. There is no doubt that the electrons can act as a screen of the electric field to an extent. Once, I tried to get a handle upon the magnitude of this effect from a simple mental model point of view and a few things seemed to show up. The COE and COM like to make it difficult to visualize. I placed an electron between two protons and realized that as long as the electron was in the middle, there was no Coulomb barrier to counter since the negative charge exerted a slightly larger pull than the opposite positive charge repelled as the combination gets smaller. This model leads to an interesting idea. If the electron could be judiciously placed precisely between the protons, there would be no net force acting upon it. If we then allow the protons to slowly come together, there would be no net energy imparted upon the electron as the system shrinks. Each proton would actually be drawn towards the other one and a small amount of energy would be imparted upon each. This is due to the fact that the electron charge is closer to the proton charge than is the other positive repelling charge. This process could be continued until something gives. A net amount of energy is given to the protons as they head towards each other. The electron is merely kept in the center without expending any energy. Now, if the electron squirts out of the line at right angles to the axis between the protons, then it must be given energy equal to the amount of Coulomb energy that it helped overcome as the protons came towards each other. This would be expected if the electron were to escape the vicinity. The protons would then possess the same amount of energy that they would have obtained had they not had the electron to help. If an electron could be coaxed into this behavior and remain between the proton pair until the group merges, then fusion would be common. Since this is not true, one must assume that the electron diverts at some point. Perhaps a gamma ray comes along to set it free, but more likely, quantum mechanics intervenes and the electron begins some form of orbital motion around one or both protons. Unless the orbit that it settles within allows for the release of extremely high energy, then the protons are not close enough to fuse. I suspect that a process of this general nature might lower the net Coulomb barrier to a degree, but I have no idea how much. I began to think of a multiple electron case, but grew weary as my mind wasted away. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 25, 2013 2:21 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions For one, it is not possible for an alpha with that total energy to be released. I would like to introduce a complicating factor: electron screening.. Both the cross section of alpha decay and nuclear fusion can be significantly reduced by electron screening. In fact I believe that the helium 4 seen in cold fusion experiments are many times derived from enhanced alpha emissions from high Z elements rather than fusion of hydrogen. In the presence of an electron cloud, the consideration of the coulomb barrier potential must be replaced by the Tomas Fermi potential to account for electron screening. Furthermore In astrophysics, cross sections of low energy fusion events can increase by a factor of one million based on the extent of electron screening around the fusion site. In fact, it is impossible to experimentally produce correct stellar fusion reaction cross
Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
On Jan 25, 2013, at 1:31 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Quantum mechanics lives in the realm of the wave. The electron will exert it influence on the positive charge nucleus in bits and pieces. Alex, you are using the wave model and I'm using the particle model. Both are accepted by science and are useful. However, it is best to stick to one or the other in a discussion. Otherwise, the discussion gets too confusing to be useful. Take a look at this to give your imagination a brake: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas%E2%80%93Fermi_screening The Thomas-Fermi formula is a more general potential than the Coulomb's law. Yes, screening occurs. The question is, Is this process alone sufficient to create LENR at over 10^11 times/sec and how does it allow the resulting energy be dissipated? Please answer this question. For the nonlinear Thomas-Fermi formula, solving these simultaneously can be difficult, and usually there is no analytical solution. However, the linearized formula has a simple solution: R= (Q/r)((e)exp(-kr)) With k=0 (no screening), this becomes the familiar Coulomb's law. The infuence of about 2000 electrons near the site of fusion will lower the coulomb barrier. No material has 2000 electrons at any nucleus where they must be located to lower the barrier. Ed On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 3:01 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: That is an interesting complication Axil. There is no doubt that the electrons can act as a screen of the electric field to an extent. Once, I tried to get a handle upon the magnitude of this effect from a simple mental model point of view and a few things seemed to show up. The COE and COM like to make it difficult to visualize. I placed an electron between two protons and realized that as long as the electron was in the middle, there was no Coulomb barrier to counter since the negative charge exerted a slightly larger pull than the opposite positive charge repelled as the combination gets smaller. This model leads to an interesting idea. If the electron could be judiciously placed precisely between the protons, there would be no net force acting upon it. If we then allow the protons to slowly come together, there would be no net energy imparted upon the electron as the system shrinks. Each proton would actually be drawn towards the other one and a small amount of energy would be imparted upon each. This is due to the fact that the electron charge is closer to the proton charge than is the other positive repelling charge. This process could be continued until something gives. A net amount of energy is given to the protons as they head towards each other. The electron is merely kept in the center without expending any energy. Now, if the electron squirts out of the line at right angles to the axis between the protons, then it must be given energy equal to the amount of Coulomb energy that it helped overcome as the protons came towards each other. This would be expected if the electron were to escape the vicinity. The protons would then possess the same amount of energy that they would have obtained had they not had the electron to help. If an electron could be coaxed into this behavior and remain between the proton pair until the group merges, then fusion would be common. Since this is not true, one must assume that the electron diverts at some point. Perhaps a gamma ray comes along to set it free, but more likely, quantum mechanics intervenes and the electron begins some form of orbital motion around one or both protons. Unless the orbit that it settles within allows for the release of extremely high energy, then the protons are not close enough to fuse. I suspect that a process of this general nature might lower the net Coulomb barrier to a degree, but I have no idea how much. I began to think of a multiple electron case, but grew weary as my mind wasted away. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 25, 2013 2:21 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions For one, it is not possible for an alpha with that total energy to be released. I would like to introduce a complicating factor: electron screening.. Both the cross section of alpha decay and nuclear fusion can be significantly reduced by electron screening. In fact I believe that the helium 4 seen in cold fusion experiments are many times derived from enhanced alpha emissions from high Z elements rather than fusion of hydrogen. In the presence of an electron cloud, the consideration of the coulomb barrier potential must be replaced by the Tomas Fermi potential to account for electron screening. Furthermore In astrophysics, cross sections of low energy fusion events can increase by a factor of one million based on the extent of electron screening around the fusion site. In fact
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
Perhaps quantum mechanics is the process that arranges the loan. - Well said, and perhaps cavity QED allows these thousands of electrons to participate as a virtual body in the reaction. Fran From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 3:40 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions 2000 electrons? I expect that this many would do the trick. If one can help a bit, then 2000 would help a lot more. The end result I suspect is that the Coulomb energy must be absorbed from this group by some means if only for a brief period. The fusion event would repay the loan with interest. Perhaps quantum mechanics is the process that arranges the loan. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.commailto:janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.commailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 25, 2013 3:31 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions Quantum mechanics lives in the realm of the wave. The electron will exert it influence on the positive charge nucleus in bits and pieces. Take a look at this to give your imagination a brake: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas%E2%80%93Fermi_screening The Thomas-Fermi formula is a more general potential than the Coulomb's lawhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law. For the nonlinear Thomas-Fermi formula, solving these simultaneously can be difficult, and usually there is no analytical solution. However, the linearized formula has a simple solution: R= (Q/r)((e)exp(-kr)) With k=0 (no screening), this becomes the familiar Coulomb's lawhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law. The infuence of about 2000 electrons near the site of fusion will lower the coulomb barrier. On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 3:01 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.commailto:dlrober...@aol.com wrote: That is an interesting complication Axil. There is no doubt that the electrons can act as a screen of the electric field to an extent. Once, I tried to get a handle upon the magnitude of this effect from a simple mental model point of view and a few things seemed to show up. The COE and COM like to make it difficult to visualize. I placed an electron between two protons and realized that as long as the electron was in the middle, there was no Coulomb barrier to counter since the negative charge exerted a slightly larger pull than the opposite positive charge repelled as the combination gets smaller. This model leads to an interesting idea. If the electron could be judiciously placed precisely between the protons, there would be no net force acting upon it. If we then allow the protons to slowly come together, there would be no net energy imparted upon the electron as the system shrinks. Each proton would actually be drawn towards the other one and a small amount of energy would be imparted upon each. This is due to the fact that the electron charge is closer to the proton charge than is the other positive repelling charge. This process could be continued until something gives. A net amount of energy is given to the protons as they head towards each other. The electron is merely kept in the center without expending any energy. Now, if the electron squirts out of the line at right angles to the axis between the protons, then it must be given energy equal to the amount of Coulomb energy that it helped overcome as the protons came towards each other. This would be expected if the electron were to escape the vicinity. The protons would then possess the same amount of energy that they would have obtained had they not had the electron to help. If an electron could be coaxed into this behavior and remain between the proton pair until the group merges, then fusion would be common. Since this is not true, one must assume that the electron diverts at some point. Perhaps a gamma ray comes along to set it free, but more likely, quantum mechanics intervenes and the electron begins some form of orbital motion around one or both protons. Unless the orbit that it settles within allows for the release of extremely high energy, then the protons are not close enough to fuse. I suspect that a process of this general nature might lower the net Coulomb barrier to a degree, but I have no idea how much. I began to think of a multiple electron case, but grew weary as my mind wasted away. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.commailto:janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.commailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 25, 2013 2:21 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions For one, it is not possible for an alpha with that total energy to be released. I would like to introduce a complicating factor: electron screening.. Both the cross section of alpha decay and nuclear fusion can be significantly reduced by electron screening. In fact I believe that the helium 4 seen in cold fusion experiments are many times
Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
%E2%80%93Fermi_screening The Thomas-Fermi formula is a more general potential than the Coulomb's law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law. Yes, screening occurs. The question is, Is this process alone sufficient to create LENR at over 10^11 times/sec and how does it allow the resulting energy be dissipated? Please answer this question. For the nonlinear Thomas-Fermi formula, solving these simultaneously can be difficult, and usually there is no analytical solution. However, the linearized formula has a simple solution: R= (Q/r)((e)exp(-kr)) With *k*=0 (no screening), this becomes the familiar Coulomb's lawhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law . The infuence of about 2000 electrons near the site of fusion will lower the coulomb barrier. No material has 2000 electrons at any nucleus where they must be located to lower the barrier. Ed On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 3:01 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: That is an interesting complication Axil. There is no doubt that the electrons can act as a screen of the electric field to an extent. Once, I tried to get a handle upon the magnitude of this effect from a simple mental model point of view and a few things seemed to show up. The COE and COM like to make it difficult to visualize. I placed an electron between two protons and realized that as long as the electron was in the middle, there was no Coulomb barrier to counter since the negative charge exerted a slightly larger pull than the opposite positive charge repelled as the combination gets smaller. This model leads to an interesting idea. If the electron could be judiciously placed precisely between the protons, there would be no net force acting upon it. If we then allow the protons to slowly come together, there would be no net energy imparted upon the electron as the system shrinks. Each proton would actually be drawn towards the other one and a small amount of energy would be imparted upon each. This is due to the fact that the electron charge is closer to the proton charge than is the other positive repelling charge. This process could be continued until something gives. A net amount of energy is given to the protons as they head towards each other. The electron is merely kept in the center without expending any energy. Now, if the electron squirts out of the line at right angles to the axis between the protons, then it must be given energy equal to the amount of Coulomb energy that it helped overcome as the protons came towards each other. This would be expected if the electron were to escape the vicinity. The protons would then possess the same amount of energy that they would have obtained had they not had the electron to help. If an electron could be coaxed into this behavior and remain between the proton pair until the group merges, then fusion would be common. Since this is not true, one must assume that the electron diverts at some point. Perhaps a gamma ray comes along to set it free, but more likely, quantum mechanics intervenes and the electron begins some form of orbital motion around one or both protons. Unless the orbit that it settles within allows for the release of extremely high energy, then the protons are not close enough to fuse. I suspect that a process of this general nature might lower the net Coulomb barrier to a degree, but I have no idea how much. I began to think of a multiple electron case, but grew weary as my mind wasted away. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 25, 2013 2:21 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions *For one, it is not possible for an alpha with that total energy to be released.* I would like to introduce a complicating factor: electron screening.. Both the cross section of alpha decay and nuclear fusion can be significantly reduced by electron screening. In fact I believe that the helium 4 seen in cold fusion experiments are many times derived from enhanced alpha emissions from high Z elements rather than fusion of hydrogen. In the presence of an electron cloud, the consideration of the coulomb barrier potential must be replaced by the Tomas Fermi potential to account for electron screening. Furthermore In astrophysics, cross sections of low energy fusion events can increase by a factor of one million based on the extent of electron screening around the fusion site. In fact, it is impossible to experimentally produce correct stellar fusion reaction cross sections because both theory and experiment is not able to explain astrophysical fusion based observations due to the electron screening problem. Astrophysics uses the Trojan horse approximation to get around this electron screening conundrum. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 1:17 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: Sometimes the emails do get crossed up
Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
on the positive charge nucleus in bits and pieces. Alex, you are using the wave model and I'm using the particle model. Both are accepted by science and are useful. However, it is best to stick to one or the other in a discussion. Otherwise, the discussion gets too confusing to be useful. Take a look at this to give your imagination a brake: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas%E2%80%93Fermi_screening The Thomas-Fermi formula is a more general potential than the Coulomb's law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law. Yes, screening occurs. The question is, Is this process alone sufficient to create LENR at over 10^11 times/sec and how does it allow the resulting energy be dissipated? Please answer this question. For the nonlinear Thomas-Fermi formula, solving these simultaneously can be difficult, and usually there is no analytical solution. However, the linearized formula has a simple solution: R= (Q/r)((e)exp(-kr)) With *k*=0 (no screening), this becomes the familiar Coulomb's lawhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law . The infuence of about 2000 electrons near the site of fusion will lower the coulomb barrier. No material has 2000 electrons at any nucleus where they must be located to lower the barrier. Ed On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 3:01 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: That is an interesting complication Axil. There is no doubt that the electrons can act as a screen of the electric field to an extent. Once, I tried to get a handle upon the magnitude of this effect from a simple mental model point of view and a few things seemed to show up. The COE and COM like to make it difficult to visualize. I placed an electron between two protons and realized that as long as the electron was in the middle, there was no Coulomb barrier to counter since the negative charge exerted a slightly larger pull than the opposite positive charge repelled as the combination gets smaller. This model leads to an interesting idea. If the electron could be judiciously placed precisely between the protons, there would be no net force acting upon it. If we then allow the protons to slowly come together, there would be no net energy imparted upon the electron as the system shrinks. Each proton would actually be drawn towards the other one and a small amount of energy would be imparted upon each. This is due to the fact that the electron charge is closer to the proton charge than is the other positive repelling charge. This process could be continued until something gives. A net amount of energy is given to the protons as they head towards each other. The electron is merely kept in the center without expending any energy. Now, if the electron squirts out of the line at right angles to the axis between the protons, then it must be given energy equal to the amount of Coulomb energy that it helped overcome as the protons came towards each other. This would be expected if the electron were to escape the vicinity. The protons would then possess the same amount of energy that they would have obtained had they not had the electron to help. If an electron could be coaxed into this behavior and remain between the proton pair until the group merges, then fusion would be common. Since this is not true, one must assume that the electron diverts at some point. Perhaps a gamma ray comes along to set it free, but more likely, quantum mechanics intervenes and the electron begins some form of orbital motion around one or both protons. Unless the orbit that it settles within allows for the release of extremely high energy, then the protons are not close enough to fuse. I suspect that a process of this general nature might lower the net Coulomb barrier to a degree, but I have no idea how much. I began to think of a multiple electron case, but grew weary as my mind wasted away. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 25, 2013 2:21 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions *For one, it is not possible for an alpha with that total energy to be released.* I would like to introduce a complicating factor: electron screening.. Both the cross section of alpha decay and nuclear fusion can be significantly reduced by electron screening. In fact I believe that the helium 4 seen in cold fusion experiments are many times derived from enhanced alpha emissions from high Z elements rather than fusion of hydrogen. In the presence of an electron cloud, the consideration of the coulomb barrier potential must be replaced by the Tomas Fermi potential to account for electron screening. Furthermore In astrophysics, cross sections of low energy fusion events can increase by a factor of one million based on the extent of electron screening around the fusion site. In fact, it is impossible to experimentally produce correct stellar fusion reaction cross
Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
would estimate that as example a gamma ray with an energy of 8 MeV would instead distribute the energy into an average of 80 keV slices. The binding energy made available by the fusion reaction is transferred to the coherent and entangled ensemble of protons when the fusion process completes. Whenever energy on any kind is transferred within an entangled ensemble, this assemblage becomes decoherent. As Dr. Kim states, this thermalization process can be proven when the nuclear reaction products from the Ni-H reaction are characterized. These products of double proton fusion are unique and are easily described. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: On Jan 25, 2013, at 1:31 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Quantum mechanics lives in the realm of the wave. The electron will exert it influence on the positive charge nucleus in bits and pieces. Alex, you are using the wave model and I'm using the particle model. Both are accepted by science and are useful. However, it is best to stick to one or the other in a discussion. Otherwise, the discussion gets too confusing to be useful. Take a look at this to give your imagination a brake: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas%E2%80%93Fermi_screening The Thomas-Fermi formula is a more general potential than the Coulomb's law. Yes, screening occurs. The question is, Is this process alone sufficient to create LENR at over 10^11 times/sec and how does it allow the resulting energy be dissipated? Please answer this question. For the nonlinear Thomas-Fermi formula, solving these simultaneously can be difficult, and usually there is no analytical solution. However, the linearized formula has a simple solution: R= (Q/r)((e)exp(-kr)) With k=0 (no screening), this becomes the familiar Coulomb's law. The infuence of about 2000 electrons near the site of fusion will lower the coulomb barrier. No material has 2000 electrons at any nucleus where they must be located to lower the barrier. Ed On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 3:01 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: That is an interesting complication Axil. There is no doubt that the electrons can act as a screen of the electric field to an extent. Once, I tried to get a handle upon the magnitude of this effect from a simple mental model point of view and a few things seemed to show up. The COE and COM like to make it difficult to visualize. I placed an electron between two protons and realized that as long as the electron was in the middle, there was no Coulomb barrier to counter since the negative charge exerted a slightly larger pull than the opposite positive charge repelled as the combination gets smaller. This model leads to an interesting idea. If the electron could be judiciously placed precisely between the protons, there would be no net force acting upon it. If we then allow the protons to slowly come together, there would be no net energy imparted upon the electron as the system shrinks. Each proton would actually be drawn towards the other one and a small amount of energy would be imparted upon each. This is due to the fact that the electron charge is closer to the proton charge than is the other positive repelling charge. This process could be continued until something gives. A net amount of energy is given to the protons as they head towards each other. The electron is merely kept in the center without expending any energy. Now, if the electron squirts out of the line at right angles to the axis between the protons, then it must be given energy equal to the amount of Coulomb energy that it helped overcome as the protons came towards each other. This would be expected if the electron were to escape the vicinity. The protons would then possess the same amount of energy that they would have obtained had they not had the electron to help. If an electron could be coaxed into this behavior and remain between the proton pair until the group merges, then fusion would be common. Since this is not true, one must assume that the electron diverts at some point. Perhaps a gamma ray comes along to set it free, but more likely, quantum mechanics intervenes and the electron begins some form of orbital motion around one or both protons. Unless the orbit that it settles within allows for the release of extremely high energy, then the protons are not close enough to fuse. I suspect that a process of this general nature might lower the net Coulomb barrier to a degree, but I have no idea how much. I began to think of a multiple electron case, but grew weary as my mind wasted away. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 25, 2013 2:21 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions For one, it is not possible for an alpha with that total
Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
Excuse my grammar. English is not my native language. Can energy and momentum be transferred from the new He4 to another nucleus at some distains? Energy can be transferred from one molecule to another threw a quantum mechanical mechanism. This occurs in photo synthesis there excitations can jump between electrons in different molecules. From an older tread. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg75294.html Maybe a similar phenomenon can occur between nucleus? This means the excitation from a He4 and momentum can be transferred to one or more receiver nucleus. These receiver nucleus must be a special nuclide suitable for receive the energy and have a mechanism to get rid of it. If several nucleus can get energy from one He4 it may radiate it as UV. If this not is possible I suggest that the receiver nucleus is a C12 how decay to 3 He4 as an reversed triple alpha. In absence of receiver nucleus there will be no reactions. But this did not explain the overcome of the coulomb barrier and why its not works in absence of receiver nucleus. I have heard that the conservation of momentum in LENR is commonly explained to something how would be like the Mössbauer effect. But I understand this not so easily to explain more exactly. TG
Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
On Jan 25, 2013, at 3:49 PM, torulf.gr...@bredband.net torulf.gr...@bredband.net wrote: Excuse my grammar. English is not my native language. I will try to answer your questions as simply as possible. Can energy and momentum be transferred from the new He4 to another nucleus at some distains? No Energy can be transferred from one molecule to another threw a quantum mechanical mechanism. Yes, at chemical levels of energy This occurs in photo synthesis there excitations can jump between electrons in different molecules. Yes From an older tread. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg75294.html Maybe a similar phenomenon can occur between nucleus? This means the excitation from a He4 and momentum can be transferred The amount energy generated by a nuclear reaction requires direct emission of a particle, which can include a photon. This is observed fact. The magnitude is too great to use mechanisms available in a chemical structure. That is why most nuclear reactions are almost totally independent of the chemical environment. to one or more receiver nucleus. These receiver nucleus must be a special nuclide suitable for receive the energy and have a mechanism to get rid of it. If several nucleus can get energy from one He4 it may radiate it as UV. If this not is possible I suggest that the receiver nucleus is a C12 how decay to 3 He4 as an reversed triple alpha. In absence of receiver nucleus there will be no reactions. But this did not explain the overcome of the coulomb barrier and why its not works in absence of receiver nucleus. I have heard that the conservation of momentum in LENR is commonly explained to something how would be like the Mössbauer effect. But I understand this not so easily to explain more exactly. The Mossbauer effect involves a very small energy change. It works only because the target nucleus is very sensitive to the energy of the bombarding gamma. Therefore, the slight effect produced by the chemical lattice become visible. This effect is too small to influence energy being emitted by a fusion reaction in any meaningful way. Ed TG
RE: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
Torulf: *The first modern accomplishment of a relative high-power(but easily containable) Chemonuclear Transition cascading reaction was accomplished by a kid named David Adair who designed and fabricated what he called a 'Controlled Fusion Rocket-Reactor.' No kidding; exactly what kid-Adair claimed happened and it eclipsed expectations when tested at White Sand NM and handily pin-point landed at Groom Lake Nevada runway. He had been mentored by Werner von Braun. Adair's been designing for NASA ever since. He simply used quasi-conventional chemical fuel reactions but 'bottled' within a powerful Electro-Magnetic Sleeved Reactor Chamber. . . they build and use large versions of this a MIT often and it's all tantamount to 'cutting' a 'chunk' from the Magneto-Track of Fermi or Hadron Collider in miniature. Using H2-O2 as fuel has let us accomplish much of the 'not as conventional as it looked' NASA rocketry success. But they also got a yeild of notable transitory He/Helium. . . we getting this yet? Per my description: any reaction~uh like 'cold fusion'~would reach easily the energy thresh-holds to accomplish the cascading energy exchange at the atomic-molecular level that we're looking for with the 'high-yield' of the transitional nuclear bonding energy that we're looking for. The atomic 'proton-micro-singularity' eyes are DIALATED within this type of Adair-Bottle which ingress and then yield the desired 'higher quasi-unstable' energy levels that even at the level of prozaic chemical reactions can achieve what Dave Adair called 'Controlled Fusion' controlled reaction 'profound' energy output levels. . . these actually have been accomplish functional overunity for years but nobody bothered to use scrutinized exactly what the Mag-Bottle Reactors were actually accomplishing so did not subsequently exploit it. . . But this is the NATURAL marriage of technologies that 'Cold Fusion' has been waiting for that has been staring us all in the face. . . Cheers Dudes~:) Jack Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 23:49:32 +0100 From: torulf.gr...@bredband.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com CC: stor...@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions Excuse my grammar. English is not my native language. Can energy and momentum be transferred from the new He4 to another nucleus at some distains? Energy can be transferred from one molecule to another threw a quantum mechanical mechanism. This occurs in photo synthesis there excitations can jump between electrons in different molecules. From an older tread. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg75294.html Maybe a similar phenomenon can occur between nucleus? This means the excitation from a He4 and momentum can be transferred to one or more receiver nucleus. These receiver nucleus must be a special nuclide suitable for receive the energy and have a mechanism to get rid of it. If several nucleus can get energy from one He4 it may radiate it as UV. If this not is possible I suggest that the receiver nucleus is a C12 how decay to 3 He4 as an reversed triple alpha. In absence of receiver nucleus there will be no reactions. But this did not explain the overcome of the coulomb barrier and why its not works in absence of receiver nucleus. I have heard that the conservation of momentum in LENR is commonly explained to something how would be like the Mössbauer effect. But I understand this not so easily to explain more exactly. TG
RE: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
Oops - let me correct a major typo. The proton-proton chain reaction on the sun is mostly “reversible fusion”. P+P - H2 This, of course, should be: P+P - 2He (the helium-2 nucleus, which is unstable). It has been posted here many times that the strong force is overwhelming at close range - and will bring too protons in a cavity together, despite Pauli (Pauli exclusion principle). But almost always Pauli prevails and the He2 nucleus which forms, immediately breaks up into the same two protons as if it was an elastic collision. Thus, 99.99+ % of all the fusion reactions, on all the stars in the Universe, can be said to be reversible, and do not produce much energy. The bigger question for NiH on earth is this: does reversible proton fusion produce any net energy at all? The currently favored model based on remote solar fusion from protium says NO, but there is really little way to be sure – except via P+P experiments on earth.
Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
*Energy can be transferred from one molecule to another threw a quantum mechanical mechanism.* Yes http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/07/diamonds-entangled-in-physics-feat/ In the case of Walmsley's study, photons were showing up in two spots at the same time and causing vibrations within a pair of diamonds. The researchers made it happen by placing two diamonds about 15 centimeters (about 6 inches) apart on a table and then shooting a series of photons at a device called a beam splitter. Most of them went toward one diamond or the other, but a few of the photons went both ways at the same time. When those multitasking photons struck the pair of diamonds, they caused vibrations called phonons with each of the crystals. The light from each of the beams recombines after exiting the crystals. And sometimes when the light is leaving the crystals, it has less energy than when it entered. That's how the researchers could tell that the photon had caused some vibrations. We know that one diamond is vibrating, but we don't know which one, Walmsley said. In fact, the universe doesn't know which diamond is vibrating – the diamonds are entangled, with one vibration shared between them, even though they are separated in space. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: On Jan 25, 2013, at 3:49 PM, torulf.gr...@bredband.net torulf.gr...@bredband.net wrote: Excuse my grammar. English is not my native language. I will try to answer your questions as simply as possible. Can energy and momentum be transferred from the new He4 to another nucleus at some distains? No Energy can be transferred from one molecule to another threw a quantum mechanical mechanism. Yes, at chemical levels of energy This occurs in photo synthesis there excitations can jump between electrons in different molecules. Yes From an older tread. http://www.mail-archive.com/**vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg75294.**htmlhttp://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg75294.html Maybe a similar phenomenon can occur between nucleus? This means the excitation from a He4 and momentum can be transferred The amount energy generated by a nuclear reaction requires direct emission of a particle, which can include a photon. This is observed fact. The magnitude is too great to use mechanisms available in a chemical structure. That is why most nuclear reactions are almost totally independent of the chemical environment. to one or more receiver nucleus. These receiver nucleus must be a special nuclide suitable for receive the energy and have a mechanism to get rid of it. If several nucleus can get energy from one He4 it may radiate it as UV. If this not is possible I suggest that the receiver nucleus is a C12 how decay to 3 He4 as an reversed triple alpha. In absence of receiver nucleus there will be no reactions. But this did not explain the overcome of the coulomb barrier and why its not works in absence of receiver nucleus. I have heard that the conservation of momentum in LENR is commonly explained to something how would be like the Mössbauer effect. But I understand this not so easily to explain more exactly. The Mossbauer effect involves a very small energy change. It works only because the target nucleus is very sensitive to the energy of the bombarding gamma. Therefore, the slight effect produced by the chemical lattice become visible. This effect is too small to influence energy being emitted by a fusion reaction in any meaningful way. Ed TG
Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
A thought occurred to me after the brief discussion that was conducted about the subject of D + D fusion. The wikipedia article on fusion of this type suggests that there is always either a neutron or proton emitted from the reaction when hot fusion takes place. This of course makes sense from the conservation of momentum and energy perspective as Dr. Storms has pointed out. I commented that a measurement of the actual energy released to the alpha particles of cold fusion reactions would allow someone to calculate the energy and momentum that had to be left behind for the numbers to make sense. My first thoughts on the matter were that this was going to require a large reactionary force if conservation of momentum was to be maintained. I did not actually calculate the magnitude of the momentum or the energy associated with that mass conversion. My choice of a central location from which to observe the reaction made it clear that the alpha particle would be frozen in place pending the release of this mass. With this in mind I think that it would be wise for us to give very serious consideration to the prospect that direct fusion of D + D is unlikely. It would be a good idea to explore different paths that ultimately lead to the release of one or more alpha particles. Of course the source for the reaction must be deuterium. I am confident that this suggestion has been covered before and I am curious about the possible paths that are available. Do any of these fit into place when a review of the active cold fusion metals is considered? Would the addition of a deuterium nuclei be encouraged by Pd for example? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 25, 2013 9:18 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions Energy can be transferred from one molecule to another threw a quantum mechanical mechanism. Yes http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/07/diamonds-entangled-in-physics-feat/ In the case of Walmsley's study, photons were showing up in two spots at the same time and causing vibrations within a pair of diamonds. The researchers made it happen by placing two diamonds about 15 centimeters (about 6 inches) apart on a table and then shooting a series of photons at a device called a beam splitter. Most of them went toward one diamond or the other, but a few of the photons went both ways at the same time. When those multitasking photons struck the pair of diamonds, they caused vibrations called phonons with each of the crystals. The light from each of the beams recombines after exiting the crystals. And sometimes when the light is leaving the crystals, it has less energy than when it entered. That's how the researchers could tell that the photon had caused some vibrations. We know that one diamond is vibrating, but we don't know which one, Walmsley said. In fact, the universe doesn't know which diamond is vibrating – the diamonds are entangled, with one vibration shared between them, even though they are separated in space. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: On Jan 25, 2013, at 3:49 PM, torulf.gr...@bredband.net torulf.gr...@bredband.net wrote: Excuse my grammar. English is not my native language. I will try to answer your questions as simply as possible. Can energy and momentum be transferred from the new He4 to another nucleus at some distains? No Energy can be transferred from one molecule to another threw a quantum mechanical mechanism. Yes, at chemical levels of energy This occurs in photo synthesis there excitations can jump between electrons in different molecules. Yes From an older tread. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg75294.html Maybe a similar phenomenon can occur between nucleus? This means the excitation from a He4 and momentum can be transferred The amount energy generated by a nuclear reaction requires direct emission of a particle, which can include a photon. This is observed fact. The magnitude is too great to use mechanisms available in a chemical structure. That is why most nuclear reactions are almost totally independent of the chemical environment. to one or more receiver nucleus. These receiver nucleus must be a special nuclide suitable for receive the energy and have a mechanism to get rid of it. If several nucleus can get energy from one He4 it may radiate it as UV. If this not is possible I suggest that the receiver nucleus is a C12 how decay to 3 He4 as an reversed triple alpha. In absence of receiver nucleus there will be no reactions. But this did not explain the overcome of the coulomb barrier and why its not works in absence of receiver nucleus. I have heard that the conservation of momentum in LENR is commonly explained to something how would be like the Mössbauer effect. But I understand this not so easily to explain
Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: In the end - it’s hard enough to convince observers that proton mass varies between atoms in any population - instead is an “average mass” which is not quantized. One question I have about this approach has to do with a seeming move away from quantization. I take no position on whether this is possible or not, and I may have misunderstood, so just trying to better understand. In order for the proton to have an average mass and not a fixed one, I think there would need to be a degree of freedom that is not quantum, but possibly discrete across a range of values or even continuous? I think you've mentioned the spin magnon in the past. I believe this is a quasi particle that is made up of the spins of the three quarks that make up the proton? What is it that is causing the proton in this model to vary in mass, and is the range of possible masses discrete or continuous? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
I wrote: What is it that is causing the proton in this model to vary in mass, and is the range of possible masses discrete or continuous? I should anticipate one possible answer, which seems like a good explanation -- a proton is not a point particle, like a photon, and it does not travel at the speed of light. It has mass and it has a speed that is less than c. So the mass will vary with its speed; when it is stationary it will have a rest mass, and when it is travelling at relativistic velocities, it has a larger mass. Assuming the above is true, and assuming your model of a proton having an average mass is true, the question for me now becomes, is the (rest) mass a continuous value or discrete across a range? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.0079 These authors showed how to approach one of the fundamental problems of hadronic physics, the calculation of the baryon masses from the Lagrangian and the vacuum condensates of QCD. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:50 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: I wrote: What is it that is causing the proton in this model to vary in mass, and is the range of possible masses discrete or continuous? I should anticipate one possible answer, which seems like a good explanation -- a proton is not a point particle, like a photon, and it does not travel at the speed of light. It has mass and it has a speed that is less than c. So the mass will vary with its speed; when it is stationary it will have a rest mass, and when it is travelling at relativistic velocities, it has a larger mass. Assuming the above is true, and assuming your model of a proton having an average mass is true, the question for me now becomes, is the (rest) mass a continuous value or discrete across a range? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
Electrons moving in certain solids can behave as if they are a thousand times more massive than free electrons, but at the same time act as superconductors.. http://phys.org/news/2012-06-mass-scientists-electrons-heavy-speedy.html#jCp See the included video that displays heavy electrons at different energies and shows their standing wave patterns (like water in a pond) around individual atomic defects placed intentionally in a compound. The patterns in these images allowed the Princeton scientists to understand the formation of heavy electron waves and to identify a hard-to-measure quantum entanglement process that controls their mass. Cheers: Axil On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 2:28 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: By the way, Anderson localization will concentrate degenerate electrons near cracks in a metal lattice. This will catalyze the formation of proton crystals within the cracks as seen by Miley in his experimentation. Ed Storm said this about Miley’s experimentation in “Edmund Storms / Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science 9 (2012) 1–22:” A source of screening electrons has been suggested to exist between two materials having different work functions, the so-called swimming electron theory [85–87]. These electrons are proposed to reduce the Coulomb barrier and explain the transmutation observations reported by Miley [88,89]. Unfortunately, this theory ignores how the required number of protons can enter the available nuclei in the sample without producing radioactive isotopes, which are seldom detected. Miley et al. [90] try to avoid this problem by creating another problem. Their mechanism involves formation of a super-nucleus of 306X126 from a large cluster of H and D. This structure then experiences various fission reactions. The cluster is proposed to form as local islands of ultra dense hydrogen [91] using Rydberg-like process [92]. Why so many deuterons would spontaneously form a cluster in a lattice in apparent violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics has not been explained. The SE effect may be the explanation. Cheers:Axil On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 1:43 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The description of the Shukla-Eliasson (SE) force is just been released and is a major breakthrough in understanding electron screening behavior within heavy concentrations of degenerate electrons. http://nanopatentsandinnovations.blogspot.com/2012/03/new-physical-attraction-between-ions-in.html The SE paper http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=sfrm=1source=webcd=6sqi=2ved=0CD8QFjAFurl=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1209.0914ei=OSBQUO6SJKnF0AH5uoG4CAusg=AFQjCNHGAqMvSJxjgufVpRf7kYFcJtBBIwsig2=8fhHq-SEQvQCAJKvWP4j2A On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 1:04 AM, Chuck Sites cbsit...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Ed, and fellow vortexians, I've been thinking about the issue of proton fusion in metals, that is can H in metals be so condensed to start the proton-proton chain reaction within a metal lattice. The proton-proton chain reaction is initiated with a strong interaction between two protons, that binds to form a diproton, the diproton then decays via weak interaction (a W boson) into a deuteron + electron + electron neutrino and 0.42 MeV of energy. Wikipedia has a very good description of this processes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton%E2%80%93proton_chain_reaction Dr. Storm, you have suggested that lattice dislocations may be ideal locations to form long linear chains of protons that have nuclear potential. That is an intriguing idea, A screened 1D trapped string of protons presents some interesting physics. For one thing, it might be modeled with the Kronig-Penney model of the periodic potential, kind of what S Chubbs was hinting at. Maybe the KP periodic potential model for a chain of protons does supply enough energy for the proton-proton chain to initiate. A screened proton-proton chain in a 1D lattice dislocation. Chuck --- On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Well Lou, I doubt this can be practical. Most of the energy in the D+ beam will result in heat with a little energy from fusion added. Meanwhile, an apparatus is required to supply a very intense D+ beam.I suspect that once the D+ concentration gets too high in the target, the enhanced effect of electrons will drop off, thereby creating an upper limit that will be too small to be useful. The engineering problems will determine how practical this will be, not the physics. Ed On Jan 23, 2013, at 2:55 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Thanks for the input, Ed I am agnostic on the underlying physics, but am interested in whether this approach make any type of fusion viable. If you have the time, or interest, in some of this author's patent applications, here are a few: Method of and apparatus for generating recoilless nonthermal nuclear fusion
RE: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
Speaking of chemo-nuclear transitions in a general way - and especially in
regards to hydrogen thermal anomalies, it is possible that the very
definition of chemical energy is in jeopardy soon - to the extent that
Mills finally delivers.
This is because of the Rydberg teachings - which is Sweden's great gift to
humanity 130 years ago. Wiki has a number of related entries under Johannes
Rydberg's name and also under nascent hydrogen. Nascent hydrogen was the
term used by Mills in his original discovery of Nickel-hydrogen thermal
anomalies - of the non-nuclear variety.
Mills may have missed the boat on several other parts of his theory,
especially in trying to abandon QM in favor of his version - but he did
understand one important point: the reliance on chemical or nuclear as
the source of energy under CoE falls apart with nascent hydrogen ... and a
massive apparent overunity potential is available from nascent hydrogen on
paper even with no apparent nuclear participation.
Chemical is a proximate cause of gain, so to avoid CoE issues - one still
must identify an ultimate source of mass to energy conversion beyond
electron orbitals - and that is what Mills got wrong. Mills said the gain
was only in orbitals - and that is NOT correct. However, this point is what
the LENR crowd got equally wrong, but that is fodder for another day. As for
now, we are awaiting CIHT.
Until CIHT device comes out from BLP, and it is long-delayed already but my
N.J. source is certain that a semi-public demo will happen before the end of
February - Mills has failed miserably in many eyes. He has failed to back up
his massive theory with an operating device that can be seen by the public
or independent scientists. Moreover, he has been dishonest about his
numerous failures in the past ...yet ... he will probably get most of the
credit for any non-deuterium version of NiH, no matter how many lies that
Piantelli wishes to foster on the community.
This ostensibly non-nuclear but supra-chemical gain is available because of
the Rydberg value of mass-energy of 13.6 eV for hydrogen. This basically
represents the energy which is obtainable from a proton capturing an
electron, and it is astronomically high, so to speak. I do not know if this
extreme value has ever been conclusively seen except in Space. Since protons
in Space are more common than any other form of mass out there - UV
spectroscopy can be used to pick up this signature everywhere we look - but
closer to home it is harder to see the strongest Rydberg evidence.
In stark contrast to this 13.6 eV Rydberg value, the highest amount of
chemical energy that can be obtained practically from burning hydrogen in
oxygen is about 1.4 eV and seldom does that happen (it is a rough
equivalence to 14,000 degrees K). A figure of about half that represents
practical reality as seen in rocketry.
In short, as you can see instantly from comparing 13.6 eV to 1.4 eV or less
- that hydrogen without combustion would offer an easy (but not naïve) way
to achieve a COP of ~10 ... if (big IF) ... we can simply engineer a proton
conductor which is not electrically conductive - to occasionally allow the
full transition energy of a free electron capture.
Thus Mills, or LENR, needs little else, other than nascent hydrogen magic in
order to show high gain (COP ~10) and to do it ostensibly through only
chemistry. After all, chemistry is also {mass to energy conversion} in one
perspective, so we are really talking semantics with nascent hydrogen being
non-nuclear. There is a way that it can be both.
More on those details later,
Jones
attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
Jones,
I can see how the 13.6 eV of energy would be very substantially larger than the
normal burning of hydrogen at 1.4 eV as you mention. My problem with this
concept arises when I try to find the original source of the 13.6 eV of energy.
Clearly, free hydrogen is available to burn with oxygen delivering the 1.4 eV
since it exists in nature with the energy stored ahead of time. But the 13.6
eV you mention is nowhere to be found until the electron is stripped away from
the proton in the initial phase.
Do you know of a source for stripped protons that can be obtained without that
input of energy?
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Jan 24, 2013 10:53 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
.
This ostensibly non-nuclear but supra-chemical gain is available because of
the Rydberg value of mass-energy of 13.6 eV for hydrogen. This basically
represents the energy which is obtainable from a proton capturing an
electron, and it is astronomically high, so to speak. I do not know if this
extreme value has ever been conclusively seen except in Space. Since protons
in Space are more common than any other form of mass out there - UV
spectroscopy can be used to pick up this signature everywhere we look - but
closer to home it is harder to see the strongest Rydberg evidence.
In stark contrast to this 13.6 eV Rydberg value, the highest amount of
chemical energy that can be obtained practically from burning hydrogen in
oxygen is about 1.4 eV and seldom does that happen (it is a rough
equivalence to 14,000 degrees K). A figure of about half that represents
practical reality as seen in rocketry.
In short, as you can see instantly from comparing 13.6 eV to 1.4 eV or less
- that hydrogen without combustion would offer an easy (but not naïve) way
to achieve a COP of ~10 ... if (big IF) ... we can simply engineer a proton
conductor which is not electrically conductive - to occasionally allow the
full transition energy of a free electron capture.
Thus Mills, or LENR, needs little else, other than nascent hydrogen magic in
order to show high gain (COP ~10) and to do it ostensibly through only
chemistry. After all, chemistry is also {mass to energy conversion} in one
perspective, so we are really talking semantics with nascent hydrogen being
non-nuclear. There is a way that it can be both.
More on those details later,
Jones
RE: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
David,
Good question … and yes - nature provides us with a few clues.
Without getting into anything proprietary – you need only look at the oceans of
earth for the source you are asking about.
In effect – “hydronium” is a component of water and represents a free source of
protons – albeit transitory. The hydronium ion is a cation H3O+ formed
naturally- is the result of temporary protonation. The pH of the oceans
represents the free protons available, and it is gigatons at any given moment.
The emphasis there is on “at any given moment”. :-)
So far, attempts to harvest hydronium have been in the easy ways have been
futile – that goes without saying, since we are still burning oil. That may not
be the case with advancing technology. Note that while hydrogen as a gas is
diamagnetic, the proton is intensely magnetic.
The important point is that QM (nature) can provide protons which are
essentially “free”. It is up to inventors to find a cost effective way to
harvest them.
From: David Roberson
Jones,
I can see how the 13.6 eV of energy would be very substantially larger than the
normal burning of hydrogen at 1.4 eV as you mention. My problem with this
concept arises when I try to find the original source of the 13.6 eV of energy.
Clearly, free hydrogen is available to burn with oxygen delivering the 1.4 eV
since it exists in nature with the energy stored ahead of time. But the 13.6
eV you mention is nowhere to be found until the electron is stripped away from
the proton in the initial phase.
Do you know of a source for stripped protons that can be obtained without that
input of energy?
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Jan 24, 2013 10:53 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
.
This ostensibly non-nuclear but supra-chemical gain is available because of
the Rydberg value of mass-energy of 13.6 eV for hydrogen. This basically
represents the energy which is obtainable from a proton capturing an
electron, and it is astronomically high, so to speak. I do not know if this
extreme value has ever been conclusively seen except in Space. Since protons
in Space are more common than any other form of mass out there - UV
spectroscopy can be used to pick up this signature everywhere we look - but
closer to home it is harder to see the strongest Rydberg evidence.
In stark contrast to this 13.6 eV Rydberg value, the highest amount of
chemical energy that can be obtained practically from burning hydrogen in
oxygen is about 1.4 eV and seldom does that happen (it is a rough
equivalence to 14,000 degrees K). A figure of about half that represents
practical reality as seen in rocketry.
In short, as you can see instantly from comparing 13.6 eV to 1.4 eV or less
- that hydrogen without combustion would offer an easy (but not naïve) way
to achieve a COP of ~10 ... if (big IF) ... we can simply engineer a proton
conductor which is not electrically conductive - to occasionally allow the
full transition energy of a free electron capture.
Thus Mills, or LENR, needs little else, other than nascent hydrogen magic in
order to show high gain (COP ~10) and to do it ostensibly through only
chemistry. After all, chemistry is also {mass to energy conversion} in one
perspective, so we are really talking semantics with nascent hydrogen being
non-nuclear. There is a way that it can be both.
More on those details later,
Jones
Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
Thanks Jone,
I have never really thought about that natural source of energy. It sounds
like there are people attempting to tap the stored joules and I wish them
success.
In a manner of speaking, the energy you mention is a form of fossil fuel.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Jan 24, 2013 12:10 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
David,
Good question … and yes - natureprovides us with a few clues.
Without getting intoanything proprietary – you need only look at the oceans of
earth for the sourceyou are asking about.
In effect – “hydronium” isa component of water and represents a free source of
protons – albeit transitory.The hydronium ion is a cation H3O+ formed
naturally- is the result of temporaryprotonation. The pH of the oceans
represents the free protons available, and itis gigatons at any given moment.
The emphasis there is on “at any given moment”.J
So far, attempts toharvest hydronium have been in the easy ways have been
futile – that goeswithout saying, since we are still burning oil. That may not
be the case withadvancing technology. Note that while hydrogen as a gas is
diamagnetic, theproton is intensely magnetic.
The important point isthat QM (nature) can provide protons which are
essentially “free”. It is up toinventors to find a cost effective way to
harvest them.
From:David Roberson
Jones,
I can see how the 13.6 eV of energy would be very substantiallylarger than the
normal burning of hydrogen at 1.4 eV as you mention. Myproblem with this
concept arises when I try to find the original source of the13.6 eV of energy.
Clearly, free hydrogen is available to burn withoxygen delivering the 1.4 eV
since it exists in nature with the energystored ahead of time. But the 13.6 eV
you mention is nowhere to befound until the electron is stripped away from the
proton in the initial phase.
Do you know of a source for stripped protons that can be obtainedwithout that
input of energy?
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Jan 24, 2013 10:53 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
.
This ostensibly non-nuclear but supra-chemical gain is available because of
the Rydberg value of mass-energy of 13.6 eV for hydrogen. This basically
represents the energy which is obtainable from a proton capturing an
electron, and it is astronomically high, so to speak. I do not know if this
extreme value has ever been conclusively seen except in Space. Since protons
in Space are more common than any other form of mass out there - UV
spectroscopy can be used to pick up this signature everywhere we look - but
closer to home it is harder to see the strongest Rydberg evidence.
In stark contrast to this 13.6 eV Rydberg value, the highest amount of
chemical energy that can be obtained practically from burning hydrogen in
oxygen is about 1.4 eV and seldom does that happen (it is a rough
equivalence to 14,000 degrees K). A figure of about half that represents
practical reality as seen in rocketry.
In short, as you can see instantly from comparing 13.6 eV to 1.4 eV or less
- that hydrogen without combustion would offer an easy (but not naïve) way
to achieve a COP of ~10 ... if (big IF) ... we can simply engineer a proton
conductor which is not electrically conductive - to occasionally allow the
full transition energy of a free electron capture.
Thus Mills, or LENR, needs little else, other than nascent hydrogen magic in
order to show high gain (COP ~10) and to do it ostensibly through only
chemistry. After all, chemistry is also {mass to energy conversion} in one
perspective, so we are really talking semantics with nascent hydrogen being
non-nuclear. There is a way that it can be both.
More on those details later,
Jones
Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
It would appear that clusters of electrons can form in some materials at low temperature. The BIG question is whether these have the ability to initiate a nuclear reaction, especially at a rate of near 10^11 times/sec as is required to explain CF. As for the Miley idea, the question is whether a large cluster of deuterons can form in PdD in violation of the laws of thermodynamics and whether these would form a new nucleus in violation of all that is known about nuclear interaction. None of these questions has been answered. Simply seeing a new effect in a material at low temperature is not an answer. Ed Storms On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:28 AM, Axil Axil wrote: By the way, Anderson localization will concentrate degenerate electrons near cracks in a metal lattice. This will catalyze the formation of proton crystals within the cracks as seen by Miley in his experimentation. Ed Storm said this about Miley’s experimentation in “Edmund Storms / Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science 9 (2012) 1–22:” A source of screening electrons has been suggested to exist between two materials having different work functions, the so-called swimming electron theory [85–87]. These electrons are proposed to reduce the Coulomb barrier and explain the transmutation observations reported by Miley [88,89]. Unfortunately, this theory ignores how the required number of protons can enter the available nuclei in the sample without producing radioactive isotopes, which are seldom detected. Miley et al. [90] try to avoid this problem by creating another problem. Their mechanism involves formation of a super-nucleus of 306X126 from a large cluster of H and D. This structure then experiences various fission reactions. The cluster is proposed to form as local islands of ultra dense hydrogen [91] using Rydberg-like process [92]. Why so many deuterons would spontaneously form a cluster in a lattice in apparent violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics has not been explained. The SE effect may be the explanation. Cheers:Axil On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 1:43 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The description of the Shukla-Eliasson (SE) force is just been released and is a major breakthrough in understanding electron screening behavior within heavy concentrations of degenerate electrons. http://nanopatentsandinnovations.blogspot.com/2012/03/new-physical-attraction-between-ions-in.html The SE paper http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=sfrm=1source=webcd=6sqi=2ved=0CD8QFjAFurl=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1209.0914ei=OSBQUO6SJKnF0AH5uoG4CAusg=AFQjCNHGAqMvSJxjgufVpRf7kYFcJtBBIwsig2=8fhHq-SEQvQCAJKvWP4j2A On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 1:04 AM, Chuck Sites cbsit...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Ed, and fellow vortexians, I've been thinking about the issue of proton fusion in metals, that is can H in metals be so condensed to start the proton-proton chain reaction within a metal lattice. The proton-proton chain reaction is initiated with a strong interaction between two protons, that binds to form a diproton, the diproton then decays via weak interaction (a W boson) into a deuteron + electron + electron neutrino and 0.42 MeV of energy. Wikipedia has a very good description of this processes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton%E2%80%93proton_chain_reaction Dr. Storm, you have suggested that lattice dislocations may be ideal locations to form long linear chains of protons that have nuclear potential. That is an intriguing idea, A screened 1D trapped string of protons presents some interesting physics. For one thing, it might be modeled with the Kronig-Penney model of the periodic potential, kind of what S Chubbs was hinting at. Maybe the KP periodic potential model for a chain of protons does supply enough energy for the proton-proton chain to initiate. A screened proton- proton chain in a 1D lattice dislocation. Chuck --- On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Well Lou, I doubt this can be practical. Most of the energy in the D + beam will result in heat with a little energy from fusion added. Meanwhile, an apparatus is required to supply a very intense D+ beam.I suspect that once the D+ concentration gets too high in the target, the enhanced effect of electrons will drop off, thereby creating an upper limit that will be too small to be useful. The engineering problems will determine how practical this will be, not the physics. Ed On Jan 23, 2013, at 2:55 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Thanks for the input, Ed I am agnostic on the underlying physics, but am interested in whether this approach make any type of fusion viable. If you have the time, or interest, in some of this author's patent applications, here are a few: Method of and apparatus for generating recoilless nonthermal nuclear fusion http://www.google.com/patents/US20090052603 Method Of Controlling
Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 10:04 PM, Chuck Sites cbsit...@gmail.com wrote: The proton-proton chain reaction is initiated with a strong interaction between two protons, that binds to form a diproton, the diproton then decays via weak interaction (a W boson) into a deuteron + electron + electron neutrino and 0.42 MeV of energy. Wikipedia has a very good description of this processes: The proton-proton chain does seem promising at first, especially when one takes into account some of the difficulties with the kind of activation that would occur if there were a lot of neutron-moderated reactions. But the proton-proton chain has its own difficulties. See [1], below, for an earlier discussion. Briefly, the diproton lasts for a vanishingly small amount of time before it breaks up. Only a very small fraction of diprotons go on to form deuterium; in the sun, this process is a limiting one that prevents it from rapidly burning through its fuel. In known cases, the rate of deuterium formation is small because the weak force requires that a very high energy barrier be surpassed before a proton will convert to a neutron. Widom and Larsen have other ideas on this particular point, and it is part of what makes their writings difficult for physicist types (of which I am not one) to get a handle on. See also the comments to this physics.SE question for more details [2]. I believe Ed Storms proposes an alternate form of weak-force moderated nuclear reaction, along the lines of a slow p-e-p reaction, and I would assume that similar difficulties must be addressed in this instance as well. Assuming the weak interaction really does provide a limiting barrier, any fusion-like reaction is presumably going to have to occur either through the action of deuterium or higher, on one hand, or through proton capture within a larger nucleus, on the other, unless a non-fusion reaction along the lines of what Jones or Mills describes is going on. Obviously there is also the matter of the Coulomb barrier, but I think we've gotten used to ignoring it for the sake of convenience. ;) Eric [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg67691.html [2] http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23640/what-interactions-would-take-place-between-a-free-proton-and-a-dipolariton
Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
I wrote: But the proton-proton chain has its own difficulties. Here I have in mind only the beginning of the proton-proton chain, where you have p+p - 2p and then 2p - d + e+ + v. The rest of the proton-proton chain is easier to wrap one's head around in the context of LENR. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
in metals with a high hydrogen
solubility*. in *International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear
Science , ICCF-13*. 2007. Sochi, Russia: Tsiolkovsky Moscow Technical
University. p. 248.
On Jan 23, 2013, at 2:07 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:
Excellent find Lou!! Much appreciate it!
The abstract for just one section of the book sounds extremely interesting
and encouraging:
Our decadal basic research confirmed: Chemonuclear fusion of light nuclei
in the metallic Li-liquids hold the common mechanism with pycnonuclear
reactions in the metallic-hydrogen liquids in stars e.g. white-dwarf
supernova progenitors. Both reactions are incorporated with the ionic
reactions forming compressed united atoms and induce enormous rate
enhancement caused by the thermodynamic activity of the liquids. For the
chemonuclear fusion of hydrogen clusters in the Li permeated metal hydrogen
systems, the rate enhancement of 2x10e44 is expected via coherent collapse
of hydrogen-hydrogen bonds. Chemonuclear fusion releases a power over one
million times as dense as the solar interior power density in the metal
hydrogen systems, e.g a 1-mole NiH system is capable of some kW output. The
fusion is followed by the successive reactions mostly with Li metal.
Some key phrases:
- forming compressed united atoms [me: perhaps support for hydrinos?]
- induce enormous rate enhancement
- rate enhancement of 2x10e44 is expected
- Chemonuclear fusion releases a power over one million times as dense as
the solar interior
- 1-mole NiH system is capable of some kW output
Can't wait to read the whole book!
-Mark Iverson
-Original Message-
From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com
[mailto:pagnu...@htdconnect.compagnu...@htdconnect.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 11:41 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
Courtesy of http://lenrnews.eu --
The Svedberg Laboratory of Uppsala U. in Sweden recently published -
THE NATURE OF THE CHEMONUCLEAR TRANSITION - Hidetsugu Ikegami
http://www.tsl.uu.se/digitalAssets/142/142245_tsl-note-2012-61.pdf
- in which the author proposes that in some environments s-orbital electron
dynamics greatly enhance certain fission and fusion reactions.
{{ EXTRACT: The Nature of the Chemonuclear Transition
In any nuclear transition undergoing gently compared to atomic
transitions, e.g. nuclear collisions, in its turn, nuclear fusion or
fusion reactions going on more slowly than the gyration speed of
electrons ZvB in the 1s-orbital of reactant atoms, the electrons adjust
their electronic states continuously and smoothly to the nuclear
transitions or reactions. Here Z and vB denote the atomic number of
reactant atoms/nuclei colliding with light ions and Bohr speed
respectively. Thereby united nuclear and atomic transitions are likely
to take place. In fact such united transitions have been observed in
the united atom formation in the high energy heavy ion collision
experiments through detecting the characteristic X-rays of united atoms
in which pairs of colliding nuclei coexist at the center of common
1s-electron orbitals [1].}}
-- Lou Pagnucco
--
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com
[Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
Courtesy of http://lenrnews.eu --
The Svedberg Laboratory of Uppsala U. in Sweden recently published -
THE NATURE OF THE CHEMONUCLEAR TRANSITION - Hidetsugu Ikegami
http://www.tsl.uu.se/digitalAssets/142/142245_tsl-note-2012-61.pdf
- in which the author proposes that in some environments s-orbital
electron dynamics greatly enhance certain fission and fusion reactions.
{{ EXTRACT: The Nature of the Chemonuclear Transition
In any nuclear transition undergoing gently compared to atomic
transitions, e.g. nuclear collisions, in its turn, nuclear fusion or
fusion reactions going on more slowly than the gyration speed of
electrons ZvB in the 1s-orbital of reactant atoms, the electrons adjust
their electronic states continuously and smoothly to the nuclear
transitions or reactions. Here Z and vB denote the atomic number of
reactant atoms/nuclei colliding with light ions and Bohr speed
respectively. Thereby united nuclear and atomic transitions are likely
to take place. In fact such united transitions have been observed in
the united atom formation in the high energy heavy ion collision
experiments through detecting the characteristic X-rays of united atoms
in which pairs of colliding nuclei coexist at the center of common
1s-electron orbitals [1].}}
-- Lou Pagnucco
RE: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
Excellent find Lou!! Much appreciate it!
The abstract for just one section of the book sounds extremely interesting
and encouraging:
Our decadal basic research confirmed: Chemonuclear fusion of light nuclei
in the metallic Li-liquids hold the common mechanism with pycnonuclear
reactions in the metallic-hydrogen liquids in stars e.g. white-dwarf
supernova progenitors. Both reactions are incorporated with the ionic
reactions forming compressed united atoms and induce enormous rate
enhancement caused by the thermodynamic activity of the liquids. For the
chemonuclear fusion of hydrogen clusters in the Li permeated metal hydrogen
systems, the rate enhancement of 2x10e44 is expected via coherent collapse
of hydrogen-hydrogen bonds. Chemonuclear fusion releases a power over one
million times as dense as the solar interior power density in the metal
hydrogen systems, e.g a 1-mole NiH system is capable of some kW output. The
fusion is followed by the successive reactions mostly with Li metal.
Some key phrases:
- forming compressed united atoms [me: perhaps support for hydrinos?]
- induce enormous rate enhancement
- rate enhancement of 2x10e44 is expected
- Chemonuclear fusion releases a power over one million times as dense as
the solar interior
- 1-mole NiH system is capable of some kW output
Can't wait to read the whole book!
-Mark Iverson
-Original Message-
From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com [mailto:pagnu...@htdconnect.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 11:41 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
Courtesy of http://lenrnews.eu --
The Svedberg Laboratory of Uppsala U. in Sweden recently published -
THE NATURE OF THE CHEMONUCLEAR TRANSITION - Hidetsugu Ikegami
http://www.tsl.uu.se/digitalAssets/142/142245_tsl-note-2012-61.pdf
- in which the author proposes that in some environments s-orbital electron
dynamics greatly enhance certain fission and fusion reactions.
{{ EXTRACT: The Nature of the Chemonuclear Transition
In any nuclear transition undergoing gently compared to atomic
transitions, e.g. nuclear collisions, in its turn, nuclear fusion or
fusion reactions going on more slowly than the gyration speed of
electrons ZvB in the 1s-orbital of reactant atoms, the electrons adjust
their electronic states continuously and smoothly to the nuclear
transitions or reactions. Here Z and vB denote the atomic number of
reactant atoms/nuclei colliding with light ions and Bohr speed
respectively. Thereby united nuclear and atomic transitions are likely
to take place. In fact such united transitions have been observed in
the united atom formation in the high energy heavy ion collision
experiments through detecting the characteristic X-rays of united atoms
in which pairs of colliding nuclei coexist at the center of common
1s-electron orbitals [1].}}
-- Lou Pagnucco
Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
confirmed: Chemonuclear fusion of light
nuclei
in the metallic Li-liquids hold the common mechanism with pycnonuclear
reactions in the metallic-hydrogen liquids in stars e.g. white-dwarf
supernova progenitors. Both reactions are incorporated with the ionic
reactions forming compressed united atoms and induce enormous rate
enhancement caused by the thermodynamic activity of the liquids. For
the
chemonuclear fusion of hydrogen clusters in the Li permeated metal
hydrogen
systems, the rate enhancement of 2x10e44 is expected via coherent
collapse
of hydrogen-hydrogen bonds. Chemonuclear fusion releases a power
over one
million times as dense as the solar interior power density in the
metal
hydrogen systems, e.g a 1-mole NiH system is capable of some kW
output. The
fusion is followed by the successive reactions mostly with Li metal.
Some key phrases:
- forming compressed united atoms [me: perhaps support for
hydrinos?]
- induce enormous rate enhancement
- rate enhancement of 2x10e44 is expected
- Chemonuclear fusion releases a power over one million times as
dense as
the solar interior
- 1-mole NiH system is capable of some kW output
Can't wait to read the whole book!
-Mark Iverson
-Original Message-
From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com [mailto:pagnu...@htdconnect.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 11:41 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
Courtesy of http://lenrnews.eu --
The Svedberg Laboratory of Uppsala U. in Sweden recently published -
THE NATURE OF THE CHEMONUCLEAR TRANSITION - Hidetsugu Ikegami
http://www.tsl.uu.se/digitalAssets/142/142245_tsl-note-2012-61.pdf
- in which the author proposes that in some environments s-orbital
electron
dynamics greatly enhance certain fission and fusion reactions.
{{ EXTRACT: The Nature of the Chemonuclear Transition
In any nuclear transition undergoing gently compared to atomic
transitions, e.g. nuclear collisions, in its turn, nuclear fusion or
fusion reactions going on more slowly than the gyration speed of
electrons ZvB in the 1s-orbital of reactant atoms, the electrons
adjust
their electronic states continuously and smoothly to the nuclear
transitions or reactions. Here Z and vB denote the atomic number of
reactant atoms/nuclei colliding with light ions and Bohr speed
respectively. Thereby united nuclear and atomic transitions are
likely
to take place. In fact such united transitions have been observed in
the united atom formation in the high energy heavy ion collision
experiments through detecting the characteristic X-rays of united
atoms
in which pairs of colliding nuclei coexist at the center of common
1s-electron orbitals [1].}}
-- Lou Pagnucco
Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
Thanks for the input, Ed I am agnostic on the underlying physics, but am interested in whether this approach make any type of fusion viable. If you have the time, or interest, in some of this author's patent applications, here are a few: Method of and apparatus for generating recoilless nonthermal nuclear fusion http://www.google.com/patents/US20090052603 Method Of Controlling Temperature Of Nonthermal Nuclear Fusion Fuel In Nonthermal Nuclear Fusion http://www.google.com/patents/US20080107224 Chemonuclear Fusion Reaction Generating Method and Chemonuclear Fusion Energy Generating Apparatus http://www.google.com/patents/US20080112528 -- Lou Pagnucco Edmund Storms wrote: This paper and many others like it describe how HOT fusion is enhanced when it occurs in a chemical lattice. This study has no relationship to cold fusion because the same nuclear products are not formed. While the lattice enhances the hot fusion rate, it does so only at very low energy where the rate is already very small. Here are some other studies. Ed 1.Dignan, T.G., et al., A search for neutrons from fusion in a highly deuterated cooled palladium thin film. J. Fusion Energy, 1990. 9(4): p. 469. 2.Durocher, J.J.G., et al., A search for evidence of cold fusion in the direct implantation of palladium and indium with deuterium. Can. J. Phys., 1989. 67: p. 624. [...]
RE: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
Thanks Ed, but throughout the papers it refers to temperatures of 773K (500C), and 460C. are not the temps for 'hot' fusion in the 10s of thousands of degs and higher??? Can U explain please. There is also this statement which seems to indicate that a specific temperature will optimize the reaction rate: However, the enhancement of chemonuclear reactions depends supersensitively on the temperature of Li-alloy liquid as seen in Eq.(7). -Mark From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 1:23 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions This paper and many others like it describe how HOT fusion is enhanced when it occurs in a chemical lattice. This study has no relationship to cold fusion because the same nuclear products are not formed. While the lattice enhances the hot fusion rate, it does so only at very low energy where the rate is already very small. Here are some other studies. Ed 1. Dignan, T.G., et al., A search for neutrons from fusion in a highly deuterated cooled palladium thin film. J. Fusion Energy, 1990. 9(4): p. 469. 2. Durocher, J.J.G., et al., A search for evidence of cold fusion in the direct implantation of palladium and indium with deuterium. Can. J. Phys., 1989. 67: p. 624. 3. Gu, A.G., et al., Experimental study on cold fusion using deuterium gas and deuterium ion beam with palladium. J. Fusion Energy, 1990. 9(3): p. 329. 4. Gu, A.G., et al., Preliminary experimental study on cold fusion using deuterium gas and deuterium plasma in the presence of palladium. Fusion Technol., 1989. 16: p. 248. 5. Kosyakhkov, A.A., et al., Neutron yield in the deuterium ion implantation into titanium. Fiz. Tverd. Tela, 1990. 32: p. 3672 (in Russian). 6. Kosyakhkov, A.A., et al., Mass-spectrometric study of the products of nuclear reactions occurring by ion-plasma saturation of titanium with deuterium. Dokl. Akad. Nauk. [Tekh. Fiz.), 1990. 312(1): p. 96 (in Russian). 7. Liu, R., et al., Measurement of neutron energy spectra from the gas discharge facility. Yuanzi Yu Fenzi Wuli Xuebao, 1994. 11(2): p. 115 (in Chinese). 8. Myers, S.M., et al., Superstoichiometry, accelerated diffusion, and nuclear reactions in deuterium-implanted palladium. Phys. Rev. B, 1991. 43: p. 9503. 9. Prelas, M., et al., Cold fusion experiments using Maxwellian plasmas and sub-atmospheric deuterium gas. J. Fusion Energy, 1990. 9(3): p. 309. 10. Takahashi, A. Results of experimental studies of excess heat vs nuclear products correlation and conceivable reaction model. in The Seventh International Conference on Cold Fusion. 1998. Vancouver, Canada: ENECO, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT. p. 378-382. 11. Wang, T., et al. Anomalous phenomena in E18 KeV hydrogen ion beam implantation experiments on Pd and Ti. in Sixth International Conference on Cold Fusion, Progress in New Hydrogen Energy. 1996. Lake Toya, Hokkaido, Japan: New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan. p. 401. 12. McKee, J.S.C., et al. Neutron emission from low-energy deuteron injection of deuteron-implanted metal foils (Pd, Ti, and In). in Anomalous Nuclear Effects in Deuterium/Solid Systems, AIP Conference Proceedings 228. 1990. Brigham Young Univ., Provo, UT: American Institute of Physics, New York. p. 275. 13. Isobe, Y., et al. Search for coherent deuteron fusion by beam and electrolysis experiments. in 8th International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2000. Lerici (La Spezia), Italy: Italian Physical Society, Bologna, Italy. p. 17-22. 14. Isobe, Y., et al., Search for multibody nuclear reactions in metal deuteride induced with ion beam and electrolysis methods. Jpn. J. Appl. Phys., 2002. 41(3): p. 1546-1556. 15. Zelenskii, V.F., et al., Experiments on cold nuclear fusion in Pd and Ti saturated with deuterium by ion implantation. Vopr. At. Nauki Tekh. Ser.: Fiz. Radiats. Povr. Radiats. Materialoved., 1990. 52(1): p. 65 (in Russian). 16. Martynov, M.I., A.I. Mel'dianov, and A.M. Chepovskii, Experiments on the detection of nuclear reaction products in deuterated metals. Vopr. At. Nauki Tekh. Ser.: Termoyader Sintez, 1991(2): p. 77 (in Russian). 17. Matsunaka, M., et al. Studies of coherent deuteron fusion and related nuclear reactions in solid. in The 9th International Conference on Cold Fusion, Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. 2002. Tsinghua Univ., Beijing, China: Tsinghua Univ., Beijing, China. p. 237-240. 18. Savvatimova, I.B., G. Savvatimov, and A.A. Kornilova. Gamma emission evaluation in tungsten irradiated by low energy deuterium ions. in 8th International Workshop on Anomalies in Hydrogen/Deuterium Loaded Metals. 2007. Catania, Sicily, Italy: The International Society for Condensed Matter Science. p. 258. 19. Lipson, A.G., A.S. Roussetski, and G
Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
On Jan 23, 2013, at 2:56 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: Thanks Ed, but throughout the papers it refers to temperatures of 773K (500C), and 460C… are not the temps for ‘hot’ fusion in the 10s of thousands of degs and higher??? Can U explain please… Mark, the studies are done by bombarding a solid or liquid Li with D+ having several keV of energy. This is equal to many thousands of degrees and this kinetic energy fuels the hot fusion reaction. There is also this statement which seems to indicate that a specific temperature will optimize the reaction rate: “However, the enhancement of chemonuclear reactions depends supersensitively on the temperature of Li-alloy liquid as seen in Eq. (7)… The temperature of the chemical environment changes the availability of electrons, which help hide the Coulomb barrier in a solid. The theory of this is gradually being worked out, but it has no relationship to cold fusion. Cold fusion does not require the initial keV and produces He not neutrons. Ed -Mark From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 1:23 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions This paper and many others like it describe how HOT fusion is enhanced when it occurs in a chemical lattice. This study has no relationship to cold fusion because the same nuclear products are not formed. While the lattice enhances the hot fusion rate, it does so only at very low energy where the rate is already very small. Here are some other studies. Ed 1. Dignan, T.G., et al., A search for neutrons from fusion in a highly deuterated cooled palladium thin film. J. Fusion Energy, 1990. 9(4): p. 469. 2. Durocher, J.J.G., et al., A search for evidence of cold fusion in the direct implantation of palladium and indium with deuterium. Can. J. Phys., 1989. 67: p. 624. 3. Gu, A.G., et al., Experimental study on cold fusion using deuterium gas and deuterium ion beam with palladium. J. Fusion Energy, 1990. 9(3): p. 329. 4. Gu, A.G., et al., Preliminary experimental study on cold fusion using deuterium gas and deuterium plasma in the presence of palladium. Fusion Technol., 1989. 16: p. 248. 5. Kosyakhkov, A.A., et al., Neutron yield in the deuterium ion implantation into titanium. Fiz. Tverd. Tela, 1990. 32: p. 3672 (in Russian). 6. Kosyakhkov, A.A., et al., Mass-spectrometric study of the products of nuclear reactions occurring by ion-plasma saturation of titanium with deuterium. Dokl. Akad. Nauk. [Tekh. Fiz.), 1990. 312(1): p. 96 (in Russian). 7. Liu, R., et al., Measurement of neutron energy spectra from the gas discharge facility. Yuanzi Yu Fenzi Wuli Xuebao, 1994. 11(2): p. 115 (in Chinese). 8. Myers, S.M., et al., Superstoichiometry, accelerated diffusion, and nuclear reactions in deuterium-implanted palladium. Phys. Rev. B, 1991. 43: p. 9503. 9. Prelas, M., et al., Cold fusion experiments using Maxwellian plasmas and sub-atmospheric deuterium gas. J. Fusion Energy, 1990. 9(3): p. 309. 10. Takahashi, A. Results of experimental studies of excess heat vs nuclear products correlation and conceivable reaction model. in The Seventh International Conference on Cold Fusion. 1998. Vancouver, Canada: ENECO, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT. p. 378-382. 11. Wang, T., et al. Anomalous phenomena in E18 KeV hydrogen ion beam implantation experiments on Pd and Ti. in Sixth International Conference on Cold Fusion, Progress in New Hydrogen Energy. 1996. Lake Toya, Hokkaido, Japan: New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan. p. 401. 12. McKee, J.S.C., et al. Neutron emission from low-energy deuteron injection of deuteron-implanted metal foils (Pd, Ti, and In). in Anomalous Nuclear Effects in Deuterium/Solid Systems, AIP Conference Proceedings 228. 1990. Brigham Young Univ., Provo, UT: American Institute of Physics, New York. p. 275. 13. Isobe, Y., et al. Search for coherent deuteron fusion by beam and electrolysis experiments. in 8th International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2000. Lerici (La Spezia), Italy: Italian Physical Society, Bologna, Italy. p. 17-22. 14. Isobe, Y., et al., Search for multibody nuclear reactions in metal deuteride induced with ion beam and electrolysis methods. Jpn. J. Appl. Phys., 2002. 41(3): p. 1546-1556. 15. Zelenskii, V.F., et al., Experiments on cold nuclear fusion in Pd and Ti saturated with deuterium by ion implantation. Vopr. At. Nauki Tekh. Ser.: Fiz. Radiats. Povr. Radiats. Materialoved., 1990. 52(1): p. 65 (in Russian). 16. Martynov, M.I., A.I. Mel'dianov, and A.M. Chepovskii, Experiments on the detection of nuclear reaction products in deuterated metals. Vopr. At. Nauki Tekh. Ser.: Termoyader Sintez, 1991(2): p. 77 (in Russian). 17
RE: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
Thanks for the explanations! From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 2:10 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions On Jan 23, 2013, at 2:56 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: Thanks Ed, but throughout the papers it refers to temperatures of 773K (500C), and 460C. are not the temps for 'hot' fusion in the 10s of thousands of degs and higher??? Can U explain please. Mark, the studies are done by bombarding a solid or liquid Li with D+ having several keV of energy. This is equal to many thousands of degrees and this kinetic energy fuels the hot fusion reaction. There is also this statement which seems to indicate that a specific temperature will optimize the reaction rate: However, the enhancement of chemonuclear reactions depends supersensitively on the temperature of Li-alloy liquid as seen in Eq.(7). The temperature of the chemical environment changes the availability of electrons, which help hide the Coulomb barrier in a solid. The theory of this is gradually being worked out, but it has no relationship to cold fusion. Cold fusion does not require the initial keV and produces He not neutrons. Ed -Mark From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 1:23 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions This paper and many others like it describe how HOT fusion is enhanced when it occurs in a chemical lattice. This study has no relationship to cold fusion because the same nuclear products are not formed. While the lattice enhances the hot fusion rate, it does so only at very low energy where the rate is already very small. Here are some other studies. Ed 1. Dignan, T.G., et al., A search for neutrons from fusion in a highly deuterated cooled palladium thin film. J. Fusion Energy, 1990. 9(4): p. 469. 2. Durocher, J.J.G., et al., A search for evidence of cold fusion in the direct implantation of palladium and indium with deuterium. Can. J. Phys., 1989. 67: p. 624. 3. Gu, A.G., et al., Experimental study on cold fusion using deuterium gas and deuterium ion beam with palladium. J. Fusion Energy, 1990. 9(3): p. 329. 4. Gu, A.G., et al., Preliminary experimental study on cold fusion using deuterium gas and deuterium plasma in the presence of palladium. Fusion Technol., 1989. 16: p. 248. 5. Kosyakhkov, A.A., et al., Neutron yield in the deuterium ion implantation into titanium. Fiz. Tverd. Tela, 1990. 32: p. 3672 (in Russian). 6. Kosyakhkov, A.A., et al., Mass-spectrometric study of the products of nuclear reactions occurring by ion-plasma saturation of titanium with deuterium. Dokl. Akad. Nauk. [Tekh. Fiz.), 1990. 312(1): p. 96 (in Russian). 7. Liu, R., et al., Measurement of neutron energy spectra from the gas discharge facility. Yuanzi Yu Fenzi Wuli Xuebao, 1994. 11(2): p. 115 (in Chinese). 8. Myers, S.M., et al., Superstoichiometry, accelerated diffusion, and nuclear reactions in deuterium-implanted palladium. Phys. Rev. B, 1991. 43: p. 9503. 9. Prelas, M., et al., Cold fusion experiments using Maxwellian plasmas and sub-atmospheric deuterium gas. J. Fusion Energy, 1990. 9(3): p. 309. 10. Takahashi, A. Results of experimental studies of excess heat vs nuclear products correlation and conceivable reaction model. in The Seventh International Conference on Cold Fusion. 1998. Vancouver, Canada: ENECO, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT. p. 378-382. 11. Wang, T., et al. Anomalous phenomena in E18 KeV hydrogen ion beam implantation experiments on Pd and Ti. in Sixth International Conference on Cold Fusion, Progress in New Hydrogen Energy. 1996. Lake Toya, Hokkaido, Japan: New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan. p. 401. 12. McKee, J.S.C., et al. Neutron emission from low-energy deuteron injection of deuteron-implanted metal foils (Pd, Ti, and In). in Anomalous Nuclear Effects in Deuterium/Solid Systems, AIP Conference Proceedings 228. 1990. Brigham Young Univ., Provo, UT: American Institute of Physics, New York. p. 275. 13. Isobe, Y., et al. Search for coherent deuteron fusion by beam and electrolysis experiments. in 8th International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2000. Lerici (La Spezia), Italy: Italian Physical Society, Bologna, Italy. p. 17-22. 14. Isobe, Y., et al., Search for multibody nuclear reactions in metal deuteride induced with ion beam and electrolysis methods. Jpn. J. Appl. Phys., 2002. 41(3): p. 1546-1556. 15. Zelenskii, V.F., et al., Experiments on cold nuclear fusion in Pd and Ti saturated with deuterium by ion implantation. Vopr. At. Nauki Tekh. Ser.: Fiz. Radiats. Povr. Radiats. Materialoved., 1990. 52(1): p. 65 (in Russian). 16. Martynov, M.I., A.I. Mel'dianov, and A.M. Chepovskii
Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
Well Lou, I doubt this can be practical. Most of the energy in the D+ beam will result in heat with a little energy from fusion added. Meanwhile, an apparatus is required to supply a very intense D+ beam.I suspect that once the D+ concentration gets too high in the target, the enhanced effect of electrons will drop off, thereby creating an upper limit that will be too small to be useful. The engineering problems will determine how practical this will be, not the physics. Ed On Jan 23, 2013, at 2:55 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Thanks for the input, Ed I am agnostic on the underlying physics, but am interested in whether this approach make any type of fusion viable. If you have the time, or interest, in some of this author's patent applications, here are a few: Method of and apparatus for generating recoilless nonthermal nuclear fusion http://www.google.com/patents/US20090052603 Method Of Controlling Temperature Of Nonthermal Nuclear Fusion Fuel In Nonthermal Nuclear Fusion http://www.google.com/patents/US20080107224 Chemonuclear Fusion Reaction Generating Method and Chemonuclear Fusion Energy Generating Apparatus http://www.google.com/patents/US20080112528 -- Lou Pagnucco Edmund Storms wrote: This paper and many others like it describe how HOT fusion is enhanced when it occurs in a chemical lattice. This study has no relationship to cold fusion because the same nuclear products are not formed. While the lattice enhances the hot fusion rate, it does so only at very low energy where the rate is already very small. Here are some other studies. Ed 1.Dignan, T.G., et al., A search for neutrons from fusion in a highly deuterated cooled palladium thin film. J. Fusion Energy, 1990. 9(4): p. 469. 2.Durocher, J.J.G., et al., A search for evidence of cold fusion in the direct implantation of palladium and indium with deuterium. Can. J. Phys., 1989. 67: p. 624. [...]
Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
Hi Ed, and fellow vortexians, I've been thinking about the issue of proton fusion in metals, that is can H in metals be so condensed to start the proton-proton chain reaction within a metal lattice. The proton-proton chain reaction is initiated with a strong interaction between two protons, that binds to form a diproton, the diproton then decays via weak interaction (a W boson) into a deuteron + electron + electron neutrino and 0.42 MeV of energy. Wikipedia has a very good description of this processes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton%E2%80%93proton_chain_reaction Dr. Storm, you have suggested that lattice dislocations may be ideal locations to form long linear chains of protons that have nuclear potential. That is an intriguing idea, A screened 1D trapped string of protons presents some interesting physics. For one thing, it might be modeled with the Kronig-Penney model of the periodic potential, kind of what S Chubbs was hinting at. Maybe the KP periodic potential model for a chain of protons does supply enough energy for the proton-proton chain to initiate. A screened proton-proton chain in a 1D lattice dislocation. Chuck --- On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Well Lou, I doubt this can be practical. Most of the energy in the D+ beam will result in heat with a little energy from fusion added. Meanwhile, an apparatus is required to supply a very intense D+ beam.I suspect that once the D+ concentration gets too high in the target, the enhanced effect of electrons will drop off, thereby creating an upper limit that will be too small to be useful. The engineering problems will determine how practical this will be, not the physics. Ed On Jan 23, 2013, at 2:55 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Thanks for the input, Ed I am agnostic on the underlying physics, but am interested in whether this approach make any type of fusion viable. If you have the time, or interest, in some of this author's patent applications, here are a few: Method of and apparatus for generating recoilless nonthermal nuclear fusion http://www.google.com/patents/**US20090052603http://www.google.com/patents/US20090052603 Method Of Controlling Temperature Of Nonthermal Nuclear Fusion Fuel In Nonthermal Nuclear Fusion http://www.google.com/patents/**US20080107224http://www.google.com/patents/US20080107224 Chemonuclear Fusion Reaction Generating Method and Chemonuclear Fusion Energy Generating Apparatus http://www.google.com/patents/**US20080112528http://www.google.com/patents/US20080112528 -- Lou Pagnucco Edmund Storms wrote: This paper and many others like it describe how HOT fusion is enhanced when it occurs in a chemical lattice. This study has no relationship to cold fusion because the same nuclear products are not formed. While the lattice enhances the hot fusion rate, it does so only at very low energy where the rate is already very small. Here are some other studies. Ed 1.Dignan, T.G., et al., A search for neutrons from fusion in a highly deuterated cooled palladium thin film. J. Fusion Energy, 1990. 9(4): p. 469. 2.Durocher, J.J.G., et al., A search for evidence of cold fusion in the direct implantation of palladium and indium with deuterium. Can. J. Phys., 1989. 67: p. 624. [...]
Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
The description of the Shukla-Eliasson (SE) force is just been released and is a major breakthrough in understanding electron screening behavior within heavy concentrations of degenerate electrons. http://nanopatentsandinnovations.blogspot.com/2012/03/new-physical-attraction-between-ions-in.html The SE paper http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=sfrm=1source=webcd=6sqi=2ved=0CD8QFjAFurl=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1209.0914ei=OSBQUO6SJKnF0AH5uoG4CAusg=AFQjCNHGAqMvSJxjgufVpRf7kYFcJtBBIwsig2=8fhHq-SEQvQCAJKvWP4j2A On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 1:04 AM, Chuck Sites cbsit...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Ed, and fellow vortexians, I've been thinking about the issue of proton fusion in metals, that is can H in metals be so condensed to start the proton-proton chain reaction within a metal lattice. The proton-proton chain reaction is initiated with a strong interaction between two protons, that binds to form a diproton, the diproton then decays via weak interaction (a W boson) into a deuteron + electron + electron neutrino and 0.42 MeV of energy. Wikipedia has a very good description of this processes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton%E2%80%93proton_chain_reaction Dr. Storm, you have suggested that lattice dislocations may be ideal locations to form long linear chains of protons that have nuclear potential. That is an intriguing idea, A screened 1D trapped string of protons presents some interesting physics. For one thing, it might be modeled with the Kronig-Penney model of the periodic potential, kind of what S Chubbs was hinting at. Maybe the KP periodic potential model for a chain of protons does supply enough energy for the proton-proton chain to initiate. A screened proton-proton chain in a 1D lattice dislocation. Chuck --- On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Well Lou, I doubt this can be practical. Most of the energy in the D+ beam will result in heat with a little energy from fusion added. Meanwhile, an apparatus is required to supply a very intense D+ beam.I suspect that once the D+ concentration gets too high in the target, the enhanced effect of electrons will drop off, thereby creating an upper limit that will be too small to be useful. The engineering problems will determine how practical this will be, not the physics. Ed On Jan 23, 2013, at 2:55 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Thanks for the input, Ed I am agnostic on the underlying physics, but am interested in whether this approach make any type of fusion viable. If you have the time, or interest, in some of this author's patent applications, here are a few: Method of and apparatus for generating recoilless nonthermal nuclear fusion http://www.google.com/patents/**US20090052603http://www.google.com/patents/US20090052603 Method Of Controlling Temperature Of Nonthermal Nuclear Fusion Fuel In Nonthermal Nuclear Fusion http://www.google.com/patents/**US20080107224http://www.google.com/patents/US20080107224 Chemonuclear Fusion Reaction Generating Method and Chemonuclear Fusion Energy Generating Apparatus http://www.google.com/patents/**US20080112528http://www.google.com/patents/US20080112528 -- Lou Pagnucco Edmund Storms wrote: This paper and many others like it describe how HOT fusion is enhanced when it occurs in a chemical lattice. This study has no relationship to cold fusion because the same nuclear products are not formed. While the lattice enhances the hot fusion rate, it does so only at very low energy where the rate is already very small. Here are some other studies. Ed 1.Dignan, T.G., et al., A search for neutrons from fusion in a highly deuterated cooled palladium thin film. J. Fusion Energy, 1990. 9(4): p. 469. 2.Durocher, J.J.G., et al., A search for evidence of cold fusion in the direct implantation of palladium and indium with deuterium. Can. J. Phys., 1989. 67: p. 624. [...]
Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
By the way, Anderson localization will concentrate degenerate electrons near cracks in a metal lattice. This will catalyze the formation of proton crystals within the cracks as seen by Miley in his experimentation. Ed Storm said this about Miley’s experimentation in “Edmund Storms / Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science 9 (2012) 1–22:” A source of screening electrons has been suggested to exist between two materials having different work functions, the so-called swimming electron theory [85–87]. These electrons are proposed to reduce the Coulomb barrier and explain the transmutation observations reported by Miley [88,89]. Unfortunately, this theory ignores how the required number of protons can enter the available nuclei in the sample without producing radioactive isotopes, which are seldom detected. Miley et al. [90] try to avoid this problem by creating another problem. Their mechanism involves formation of a super-nucleus of 306X126 from a large cluster of H and D. This structure then experiences various fission reactions. The cluster is proposed to form as local islands of ultra dense hydrogen [91] using Rydberg-like process [92]. Why so many deuterons would spontaneously form a cluster in a lattice in apparent violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics has not been explained. The SE effect may be the explanation. Cheers:Axil On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 1:43 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The description of the Shukla-Eliasson (SE) force is just been released and is a major breakthrough in understanding electron screening behavior within heavy concentrations of degenerate electrons. http://nanopatentsandinnovations.blogspot.com/2012/03/new-physical-attraction-between-ions-in.html The SE paper http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=sfrm=1source=webcd=6sqi=2ved=0CD8QFjAFurl=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1209.0914ei=OSBQUO6SJKnF0AH5uoG4CAusg=AFQjCNHGAqMvSJxjgufVpRf7kYFcJtBBIwsig2=8fhHq-SEQvQCAJKvWP4j2A On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 1:04 AM, Chuck Sites cbsit...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Ed, and fellow vortexians, I've been thinking about the issue of proton fusion in metals, that is can H in metals be so condensed to start the proton-proton chain reaction within a metal lattice. The proton-proton chain reaction is initiated with a strong interaction between two protons, that binds to form a diproton, the diproton then decays via weak interaction (a W boson) into a deuteron + electron + electron neutrino and 0.42 MeV of energy. Wikipedia has a very good description of this processes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton%E2%80%93proton_chain_reaction Dr. Storm, you have suggested that lattice dislocations may be ideal locations to form long linear chains of protons that have nuclear potential. That is an intriguing idea, A screened 1D trapped string of protons presents some interesting physics. For one thing, it might be modeled with the Kronig-Penney model of the periodic potential, kind of what S Chubbs was hinting at. Maybe the KP periodic potential model for a chain of protons does supply enough energy for the proton-proton chain to initiate. A screened proton-proton chain in a 1D lattice dislocation. Chuck --- On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Well Lou, I doubt this can be practical. Most of the energy in the D+ beam will result in heat with a little energy from fusion added. Meanwhile, an apparatus is required to supply a very intense D+ beam.I suspect that once the D+ concentration gets too high in the target, the enhanced effect of electrons will drop off, thereby creating an upper limit that will be too small to be useful. The engineering problems will determine how practical this will be, not the physics. Ed On Jan 23, 2013, at 2:55 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Thanks for the input, Ed I am agnostic on the underlying physics, but am interested in whether this approach make any type of fusion viable. If you have the time, or interest, in some of this author's patent applications, here are a few: Method of and apparatus for generating recoilless nonthermal nuclear fusion http://www.google.com/patents/**US20090052603http://www.google.com/patents/US20090052603 Method Of Controlling Temperature Of Nonthermal Nuclear Fusion Fuel In Nonthermal Nuclear Fusion http://www.google.com/patents/**US20080107224http://www.google.com/patents/US20080107224 Chemonuclear Fusion Reaction Generating Method and Chemonuclear Fusion Energy Generating Apparatus http://www.google.com/patents/**US20080112528http://www.google.com/patents/US20080112528 -- Lou Pagnucco Edmund Storms wrote: This paper and many others like it describe how HOT fusion is enhanced when it occurs in a chemical lattice. This study has no relationship to cold fusion because the same nuclear products are not formed. While the lattice enhances the hot fusion rate, it does so
