Jones-- I agree with your reconsideration of Pahlavani's letter. A little tutorial on the Nature of Woods-Saxon potential is warranted:
>From Wikipedia-- The Woods–Saxon potential is a mean field potential for the nucleons (protons and neutrons) inside the atomic nucleus, which is used to approximately describe the forces applied on each nucleon, in the shell model for the structure of the nucleus. The form of the potential, as a function of the distance r from the center of nucleus, is: where V0 (having dimension of energy) represents the potential well depth, a is a length representing the "surface thickness" of the nucleus, and is the nuclear radius where r0 = 1.25 fm and A is the mass number. Typical values for the parameters are: V0 ≈ 50 MeV, a ≈ 0.5 fm. For large atomic number A this potential is similar to a potential well. It has the following desired properties a.. It is monotonically increasing with distance, i.e. attracting. b.. For large A, it is approximately flat in the center. c.. Nucleons near the surface of the nucleus (i.e. having r ≈ R within a distance of order a) experience a large force towards the center. d.. It rapidly approaches zero as r goes to infinity (r − R >> a), reflecting the short-distance nature of the strong nuclear force. When using the Schrödinger equation to find the energy levels of nucleons subjected to the Woods–Saxon potential, it cannot be solved analytically, and must be treated numerically. Bob Cook ----- Original Message ----- From: Jones Beene To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2014 8:46 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:1995- CETI 1kW reacto claim . fraud or not? From: Blaze Spinnaker Ø Ø Perhaps Patterson realized he didn't have anything which is why he blustered instead of accepting a deal that would only lead to disappointment. Sadly, this will be the way that history and mainstream physics will remember CETI unless the excess energy from beads can be duplicated and understood, once again. This scenario was already a focus of Robert Park in “ Voodoo Science” yet the reaction was claimed to have been duplicated by others besides Miley before EarthTech put a nail in the coffin. Given hindsight – it is certainly possible that the original active beads contained a trace of a necessary reactant which escaped detection. The only reason I am bring this up again is Woods–Saxon potential and the recent paper by two Iranians … commented on last week … which at first resembled a spoof, but there could be more to it on second appraisal. The idea of reversible fusion <-> fission, with no radioactive residue, has always been “out there” as a possibility for LENR as a gateway reaction for zero point regauging, but with no physical evidence. There are a couple of tantalizing connections which have come up in recent days, that were not mentioned earlier. Curiously, there is a bit of history surrounding 208Pb (Lead-208). It was once known as Thorium-D since it is in the end of the Thorium decay chain, which was the original source of most of natural lead. One can opine that the 208 isotope is special in many ways. Plus, lead is ubiquitous in manufacturing, and could have been a trace contaminant for both Patterson but especially for Thermacore, as it is a dry lubricant. Wiki does have an entry on element 110. Darmstadtium was first created in 1994 at the Institute for Heavy Ion Research in Darmstadt, Germany … The team bombarded a lead-208 target with accelerated nuclei of nickel-62 … This was a high energy bombardment, which cannot be deemed “cold” except in relative terms. Yet Ni-62 seems an odd choice, as it is the most stable nucleus in the periodic table. Plus, the new element 110 has a significant but short half-life. We can imagine that the two reactants were carefully chosen at Darmstadt. The idea that a sequential, reversible reaction of (nickel + lead) proceeding as fusion< -> fission, could supply excess energy and not be depleted … well… that is still beyond bizarre, but it would make a good Sci-Fi plot… M. R. Pahlavani and S. A. Alavi, Mod. Phys. Lett. A DOI: 10.1142/S0217732314502149 Effects of level density parameter on the superheavy production in cold fusion M. R. Pahlavani · Department of Nuclear Physics, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar 47415-416, Iran S. A. Alavi · Corresponding author · Department of Nuclear Physics, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar 47415-416, Iran Received: 10 July 2014 Revised: 29 October 2014 Accepted: 29 October 2014 Published: 18 December 2014 By using semiclassical method and considering Woods–Saxon and Coulomb potentials, the level density parameter a was calculated for three superheavy nuclei 270110, 278112 and 290116. Obtained results showed that the value of level density parameter of these nuclei is near to the simple relation a≈A/10. In framework of the dinuclear system model, the effects of level density parameter on the probability of the formation of a compound nucleus, the ratio of neutron emission width and fission width, and evaporation residue cross-section of three cold fusion reactions 62Ni+208Pb, 70Zn+208Pb and 82Se+208Pb, leading to superheavy elements were investigated. The findings indicate that the level density parameter play a significant role in calculations of heavy-ion fusion–fission reactions. The obtained results in the case of a = A/12 have larger values in comparison with calculated level density parameter with Woods–Saxon potential (aWS) and a = A/10. The theoretical results of the evaporation residue cross-section are very sensitive to the choice of level density parameter. The calculated values with aWS are in good agreement with experimental values. Keywords: Semiclassical method; superheavy nuclei; Woods–Saxon potential; level density PACS: 24.10.Pa, 25.70.Jj, 24.10.-i, 24.60.-k
