Eric, This was one of yours.
On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm including a brief synthesis of some of the thoughts that have been > discussed on this list concerning a possibly novel interaction between > gamma-producing fusion branches and solid state matter. This synthesis > elaborates on a thought experiment that at this time lacks the rigor of > something that would be turned into in a paper. My hope is that it can > nonetheless be further refined as one step towards a more rigorous > presentation, should that come about at some point. > > Although the discussion below focuses on PdD somewhat, hopefully it will be > clear that it applies equally to NiH(D). I see more promise in NiH and > simply feel a desire to try to pick up some longstanding questions that have > been raised in connection with PdD, which for most investigators is a system > that is more familiar and better understood. For the most part I have been > focused on NiH. > > Eric > > > > > > Since late 2011 there has been a discussion about a new way that the > gamma-producing fusion branches might interact with matter, first set out to > my knowledge in a post by Ron Maimon to the physics site > physics.stackexchange.com [1]. During 2012 and into 2013 that thread has > been picked up on Vortex-L and the idea extended and modified. The > foundation for the speculations here is not yet rigorous, so they are only a > thought experiment at this point. But, phenomenologically, they go a long > way to explain persistent and quirky details of the cold fusion experiments > that have been described in Ed Storms's book and review articles and by > others, elsewhere. For this reason I think the thought experiment merits a > restatement and consideration of some observations it might explain as well > as some new predictions. I'll try to do each of these things in turn. > > To recap, the original proposal was that in the context of a palladium > lattice the gamma-producing dd fusion branch interacts electromagnetically > with lattice site nuclei instead of producing a gamma photon. The result is > that you would get a prompt 4He that, when born, pushes off of a nearby > heavy palladium nucleus. The heart of the idea is that the energy is yielded > in a (near-) instantaneous electromagnetic transfer with the palladium > lattice site. The gamma, which takes a long time to be emitted, is > competetively suppressed and the energy is translated into kinetic energy of > the daughter 4He and the palladium lattice site. This happens because the > electromagnetic interaction is very fast compared to gamma photon emission. > The process is so fast in fact that it also competes favorably with the > other dd branches, which involve the production of energetic charged > particles and neutrons (a slower process). The discussion here has run with > Ron's idea and modified and extended it. The extension is to all > gamma-producing fusion branches, and not just d(d,ɣ)4He, and to > electromagnetic interaction not only with lattice site nuclei but also with > the ambient electronic structure of the metal lattice. The modification > involves how the chain reaction proceeds. Whereas Ron proposes that > energetic charged deuterons drive the reaction in a very specific way (see > [1] for the full discussion), the proposal here is that all electromagnetic > interactions, whether directly with the electronic structure or indirectly > through disruptions resulting from the motion of fast charged particles, > proceed to modify the charge density in the metal lattice such that > screening or possibly a mechanism similar to that of the Polywell reactor > [2] makes dd fusion and pd fusion orders of magnitude more likely. > > The motivation for the approach of this thought experiment is twofold. The > first reason this hypothetical mechanism is attractive is that it has a good > phenomenological fit to the cold fusion experimental observations. A second > reason is that to my knowledge it does not depart too far from conventional > physics. While it is true that a few assumptions must be reexamined, our > basic understanding of physical laws and interactions need not be set aside, > in connection, for example, with the strong interaction, the weak > interaction and Coulomb repulsion. > > Now for the observations and predictions. > > 1. In PdD electrolytic experiments, 4He seems to be produced at or close to > the surface of the cathode. > > The main reason for this belief is that the 4He, which is thought to be the > primary ash of PdD cold fusion, is found near the surface and less and less > as towards the bulk of the palladium cathode. Because 4He is not mobile in > palladium (except when there are fissures and cracks), it cannot migrate out > of the cathode in the same way that deuterium can. This means that any 4He > that is detected at or near the surface that is the result of a fusion > process will have been produced at or near the surface. The requirement for > surface or near-surface production of 4He in the PdD electrolytic system > does not seem to be a hard and fast one, but there are several lines of > evidence that point in that direction. > > If the mechanism proposed here holds, the reason for this would be > straightforward. Electrical current can be expected, through the mechanism > of this thought experiment, to bring alter the charge density of the lattice > site nuclei. The electron charge would then become more evenly distributed > throughout the lattice and into the interstitial areas, rather than being > concentrated around the lattice sites as it normally is. The cause for the > change in charge density is not yet clear -- in this case it could be > through interactions between migrating electrons with more tightly bound > electrons. But because current flows primarily through the skin of a > conductor and less and less towards the center, one would see less and less > of the effect with increasing depth into the cathode. > > 2. In PdD electrolytic experiments, it can take a while for an effect to be > seen. > 3. In PdD electrolytic experiments, there seems to be a relationship between > impurities and an effect. Excess heat may not be seen in a pure palladium > cathode, for example, whereas it may be seen increasingly effectively in a > cathode which has undergone prior electrolysis and has acquired impurities > through the process of electrolysis. > > It would seem that impurities play a role of some kind. One thought here is > that in order for the charge density to be altered, the energy within the > electronic structure must be allowed to increase. This process can be > expected to be defeated if electrons are mobile throughout the cathode. If > there are dielectric impurities that have the effect of isolating certain > portions of the cathode into their own insulated islands, the average energy > of the electronic structure within those islands can be expected to > increase. In a fresh cathode, there may be few impurities and insulated > islands of this type. After a long period of electrolysis, however, there > may be more and more insulated islands that can retain energy in this way, > facilitating the modification of the charge distribution and hence the > shielding mentioned above. > > 4. In cold fusion experiments, one often sees strange transients in the > current, in which the current increases for periods of time. > > This detail was noted by Abd sometime back [3]. One possible explanation > here would be that the process being proposed has two branches -- one is the > electrostatic dumping of the energy of a fusion directly into the electronic > structure, and the other the creation of kinetic energy as the 4He daughter > (in the case of PdD) pushes off of a lattice site. The former branch is > relevant here, as it seems to be equivalent to a spark discharge into the > electron cloud of around 24 MeV (or 5 MeV). If enough of these events > occurred, one supposes there would be an increase in current at the > macroscopic level and an apparent decrease in resistivity. > > 5. In cold fusion experiments, very little prompt radiation is seen. > > This is an observation that Ed has steadfastly defended and that I have only > reluctantly come around to after reading through some of the early papers. > Now that there is a mechanism that makes sense to me that does not purely > involve fast particles (such as the one proposed by Ron Maimon in [1]), I'm > more open-minded to cold fusion products being born without kinetic energy. > This backtracking on my part inverts the old saying that seeing is believing > -- here we have something like, "having a believable explanation is seeing." > > The lack of prompt radiation suggests that of the two different branches > proposed -- one in which the decaying [dd]* or [pd]* intermediate state > electrostatically dumps directly into the electronic structure, and the > other in which the resulting 4He or 3He pushes off of a lattice site -- it > would seem to be the first branch that is dominant. In that branch, one > expects 4He and 3He to be born almost motionless, and the momentum of the > reaction to be carried away primarily by the electronic structure. Here it > may be the local region of the electron cloud as a whole that receives the > momentum, or, alternatively, a single electron. In the former case there > would be almost no Bremsstrahlung. In the latter case, which would result > in a ~24 MeV or ~5 MeV electron, one would expect Bremsstrahlung. > > 6. Excess heat has been seen in zeolites impregnated with palladium. > > Because the zeolite matrix is an electrical insulator, the energy of the > electronic structure in the palladium particles embedded within it can be > allowed to increase over time, altering thereby through some > as-yet-discovered phenomenon the distribution of charge density. This is > similar to the possible role played by impurities mentioned above in > connection with (2) and (3). > > 7. In PdD electrolytic experiments, cracks seem to play an important role. > I'm going to guess that this is straightforward and is due to hydrons being > kept apart within the octahedral and tetrahedral sites in an fcc lattice > even further than when they are bound in molecular form. In order for > screening to play a role, one presumes that it would be better to have > vacancies and cracks, where the hydrogen is mobile. > > Now for some possibilities and predictions. > > 1. Dopants added to the substrate may have an effect on how easy or hard it > is to start or sustain a reaction. Because dopants often either add to or > take away electrons from the ambient electron cloud, one expects them to > have some kind of effect in all of this, although the exact result would not > be clear. > > 2. Modifications to the behavior of a system under a magnetic field can be > expected. The decay of the [dd]* or [pd]* intermediate state via > electrostatic transfer of energy either into the ambient electron cloud or > with a lattice site is essentially an electromagnetic phenomenon. One > expects, then, there to be some kind of effect when a magnetic field is > applied, although the precise nature of the effect is not clear. > > 3. Gamma-producing branches may not be required for cold fusion. Reactions > that yield fast charged particles can be also be expected to alter the > electron charge density within the lattice by way of the hypothetical > mechanism of this thought experiment. But it may be that gamma-producing > reactions are competitively favored for reasons not yet understood. Even if > this is the case, it would not be surprising if precursors within the > substrate that when fused do not decay to a gamma will still fuse, via the > same screening or Polywell mechanism that leads to the dd or pd fusion. In > that case the resulting kinetic energy of the particles would contribute to > the modification of the charge density, but you would also see the kind of > Bremsstrahlung expected from fast particles. > > 4. Sparks, natural alpha emitters and natural beta emitters (radioactive and > thermionic) can be expected to catalyze a cold fusion reaction. Fast alpha > and beta particles will presumably alter the electronic structure in the > manner required to get a chain reaction going and to sustain it. This > suggests that Rossi's temperature-activated catalyst is a thermionic > emitter, which emits beta particles when heated. One suspects there is a > similar function being played by Defkalion's spark plugs. Dave and Alan, > who have been modeling the thermodynamics of these systems, might want to > take into account a temperature activated catalyst of some kind. > > > > > [1] http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/13734/6713 > [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell > [3] http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg67322.html >
