And we cook a metaphor stew ...
>>The wavefunctions of the electron and nucleus of a hydrino share the same >>center of charge. However, the wavefunction of the electron is spread all >>over the place, not just located at the center of charge. >> >>The energy of the electron *as a point particle* depends on how close it is >>located to the nucleus. The closer a point electron is to a point nucleus, >>the less potential energy the system has. If an electron "falls into the >>nucleus" it gains kinetic energy equal to the potential energy lost by the >>fall. > >In theory yes, but you also need to conserve angular momentum, and as the >radius shrinks the velocity has to go up. Before the electron can enter >the nucleus, if I'm not mistaken, the velocity would have to exceed the >speed of light (unless angular momentum is passed to the nucleus?). In the case of electron catalysed fusion, this is not true. It would help if you would read the example I gave. In the case of dual hydrino fusion, the angular momentum will cancel if the spins are opposed before the tunneling. I should note that the tunneling to a central location between the two hydrino nuclei may require a high energy electron passing between them providing a tunneling location, a kind of tunneling nucleation. The spin of the catalytic electron would not be cancelled, but the catalytic electron would be a free electron and not hang around long anyway. > > >>If a point sized electron could magically be transported to the >>location of a point charge nucleus without gaining the corresponding >>kinetic energy, it would take an infinite amount of energy to separate >>them. I would call such a system highly *de-energized*. > >I suspect that the key word here is "magically". ;) >Perhaps you could explain why you believe that it would not gain kinetic >energy? I already did this. If you would like me to repost it I will do so. > >> >>As I showed in regards to a specific case of electron catalyzed fusion, the >>electron gains no kinetic energy at all, yet ends up in the nucleus at the >>conclusion of the fusion. > >Sorry, I didn't read all of that post, partly because it was longish, and >partly because I'm not all that taken with QM anyway. The post I did on electron catalysed fusion was not based on QM. It is pretty easy to follow, but also has the drawback that it is merely illustative and only a clue as to what might be described via quantum mechanics. >Personally, I tend to take Einstein's view that wave function collapse is >simply a mathematical statement of the fact that our knowledge of the >situation has changed as a consequence of our having taken a measurement. >Nevertheless that interpretation is one of the things on which my >professor failed me many years ago. > >> >>In the case of hydrino fusion, the electrons have a center of charge >>located at the nucleus center. If the hydrino electron(s) join in the >>wavefunction collapse, > >I doubt Mills would be too happy talking about wave functions in regard to >his hydrinos. :) This is one of those times experiment might outweigh theory, even Mills' theory, which stikes me as having a number of flaws. Just because his theory *might* have pointed the way to a possible unknown atomic structure does not mean his theory is right in all respects. >[snip] >>Electrons in compressed orbitals, i.e. with compressed wavefunctions, can >>essentially reinflate their orbitals to an equilibrium with the ZPE sea, >>according to Puthoff. > >This isn't true for hydrinos, because as hydrinos shrink, the specifics of >their orbits change, e.g. the De Broglie wavelength, and velocity etc. >change, which I think means that if you were to plug the new numbers into >Hal's equations, you would find that the new orbits are also stable. IOW >there is no force that would tend to make them expand (once in such a new >orbit). All you are really saying here is that the equilibrium point may not be at the Bohr ground state. The final energy deficit thus is then even less than 13 eV. This is just fine and dandy and still consistent with the proposed catalysed fusion. > >> Unless the electron(s) are captured by the new >>nucleus (not feasible in a stable way for either 2H or 4He) they should be >>free to tap energy from the ZPF and expand to a stable orbital. > >Perhaps, but wouldn't you also expect the Heisenberg bank to lay a claim >for borrowed energy at the door of the newly created nucleus, which just >happens to be brimming over with energy derived from all that excess mass? As I noted earlier, some of the excess mass will be radiated away due to the presence of one or more unbound (by the weak force) electrons in the nucleus. Some of the excess mass may be required to inflate the free electron orbitals. The rest has to be borrowed from the ZPF. >IOW the net result is going to be that any electron inflation energy >simply detracts from the fusion energy of the nuclei whether or not that >goes through the ZPE as an intermediary. Yes indeed. That is in fact my main point. I am attemtping to explain whay the fusion energy is not observed in the form of typical signature radiation, why the branching ratios are changed. >I have also wondered, if it may not go further, and end up with the >electron(s) being ejected with all of the fusion energy, in the form of >kinetic energy. If so, this would make for a nice clean reaction, however >no one doing CF seems to have observed the fast electrons. Exactly! No super-energetic electons, no gammas, no fast neutrons or protons. The energy is released gradually, i.e. in many small steps, thus probably mostly as comaparatively low energy photons. > >> >>In the case of dual electron catalyzed D + D fusion, we have: >> >>D+ + D+ + e- + e- --> He4 --> He4++ + e- + e- >> >>The middle step, upon wavefunction collapse to a point, is a neutral He4 >>particle. > >Yes, but with a very short life. In fact it might look rather like a >cluster of 4 neutrons from the outside (which seems to be what you meant >in your previous post, when you referred to neutral He4). I suspect that >it would be a toss up whether or not the electrons were actually captured >resulting in real neutrons, or ejected. The creation of "real" neutrons depends on the distribution (extent) of the inital wavefunction and how long it survives. My thinking on this realy hasn't gone that far. The important thing is that the small wavefunction and low electorn kinetic energy, and thus the de-energizing of the nucleus, creates a strong bond between the electrons and the nucleus, and thus it is neutral. THe sum of the charges is zero, and the wavefuntion is small, thus the He4 in this state is free to migrate into a heavy nucleus like Pd. >However a cluster of 4 neutrons is energetically far less favourable than >a He4 nucleus (28.83 MeV), so I suspect that the latter is going to be >favoured by an extremely wide margin. > >> >>It might be asked exactly why in D + D fusion it could be expected that the >>hydrino electrons collapse along with the tunneling nuclei. One answer is >>that it is energetically expected. In superconductors, tunneling of >>electrons across Josephson junctions is done by pairs more often than >>singly. When the hydrino nuclei wavefunctions collapse, their individual >>centers of charge move. >>It is thus necessary for the centers of charge of >>the electrons to move similarly, else the tunneling would be energetically >>denied. > >Not really, because the nuclei tunnel under influence of the nuclear force, > while the interaction with the electrons is "only" electrostatic. I don't think I've made it clear what I am suggesting for the hydrino tunneling scenario. The idea is that both hydrinos tunnel to a central point between the nuclei. Their wavefuntions both extend to that central point so the tunneling is feasible, but the storng force does not extend the full distance between the nuclei, which is twice the distance each individual nucleus is capable of tunneling with useful probablity. Tunneling probability drops off very fast with distance, so two nuclei tunneling to the same central location is far more likely than one nucleus tunneling the full (double) distance. >Granted this may make a difference at the limit of the nuclear force >range, but as the distance gets less the electrons become less and less >relevant. I don't know how the strong force might actually be computed into this. I don't think it plays no part in the Schroedinger equation as is though. > >>Since the two electrons tunnel simultaneously, their total center >>of charge does not change at all, just like the total center of charge of >>the nuclei do not move either. The electrons thus exhibit equal but >>opposite momentum exchanges just like cooper pairs, and thus should tend >>tunnel together. > >Actually, it's only necessary that the total momentum of the system as a >whole be conserved, the momentum of the electrons isn't necessarily tied >only to other electrons, and that of the nuclei not necessarily only to >one another. > >>The tunneling collapse of the electrons wavefunctions >>returns potential energy to the ZPF, but that is the very place it >>long-term borrowed it in the first place. > >Can one "long-term borrow" energy from the ZPE? The universe is here isn't it? Atoms don't radiate and don't collapse. >Surely according to HUP, >only for a period inversely related to the amount of energy? That depends on the assumptions. The HUP itself might even be used to permanently borrow energy. I can repost some old thinking along those lines if you would like, if I can find it. Stange you would bring up the Heisenberg when hydrinos themselves are denied by the HUP - their wavelengths are way too compact for the energy they carry. > >> >>This of course is all highly speculative, and may even involve mixed >>metaphors. It certainly is *not* a conventional way to look at these >>things. On the other hand it may provide a useful starting point for >>analysis under various interpretations in that it makes a bit of common >>sense regarding some things which otherwise make no sense at all. > >What do you consider makes no sense at all? The fact that there is plenty of evidence for heavy nucleus LENR at low potetials, extending all the way back to Bockris et al CF experiments at TAMU in 1989-90. There is an abundance of evidence for "beyond chemical" energy coming from cells without accompanying nulcear signature radiation. There is evidence of helium and tritium formation. This all boils down to nuclear reactions having unexplained branching ratios. None of this makes any sense at all by ordinarily publishable and patentable standards. Regards, Horace Heffner
