Jones, On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 3:29 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > Bob Higgins wrote: > >> A long CV doesn't make contradictory claims OK. >> > Maybe not, but the combined reputation and many long CVs of the dozens of > co-authors, overcomes many objections ... such as measurement error, and > can at least explain why the claims are not contradictory to known physics > in the first place. There is an impressive list of co-authors and it is a > mistake to gloss over the sum of their experience. > If they have an explanation of why it is not a contradiction, why haven't they published a better theory or explain how an H(0) has simultaneously tremendous Coulomb potential energy but is lower total energy than H2? > > If you have a reasonable explanation for the contradiction of the notion >> of "Coulombic explosion" and the H(0) having a lower Hamiltonian than H2, I >> want to hear it. >> > > OK, no problem. There is no contradiction at all here, and in fact, the > opposite correlation appears to be operative. > > The Hamiltonians of H(O) when considered as individual particles in not > important to the outcome, since the ability of a combined system of many > particles as a stationary target benefits from lower energy of particles - > at least in the context of a chirped laser pulse operating on system where > the lowest net energy at the target stage, not the highest, presents the > opportunity for an annihilation event. > > The Hamiltonian for a large system of discrete UDH particles is a function > of their combined coordinates and momenta, and for a target you want it to > be minimized. In fact, the animation on Wiki's entry for "Coulomb > explosion" can be read to explain exactly why lower Hamiltonian for the > quantum dot (as a a target) prior to irradiation allow more coupling - not > less. > > Holmlid shows an energy diagram for the coupled systems (molecules, Figure 1, page 4 in his latest paper). In this chart, H2 is shown with an energy minimum at 74 pm, and H(1)=RM with an energy minimum at 150 pm. The energy minimum for the H(1)=RM is higher than that for H2, which is as it should be. RM is a metastable state and in the presence of an energy disturbance, the RM will spontaneously re-assemble into the lower energy state of H2. In this same chart, Holmlid is showing a hypothetical H(0) with a 2.3 pm bond distance having a lower minimum energy than H2. This means that with an energy disturbance, the H2 would spontaneously reassemble into H(0). Barrett (*Structure and Bonding*) states that the H2 form is the lowest energy and that any form of hydrogen molecules with a greater number of hydrogen atoms is less stable than H2. So, how can an individual particle, imbued with such tremendous Coulomb potential energy, have an energy minimum lower than that of H2? As far as we know, it can't exist. Holmlid has provided nothing to show how this can be so. Holmlid talks about the H(0) as a particle with tremendous Coulomb potential energy in its molecular binding due to its 2.3 pm bond length. Getting it into such a high potential molecular binding energy state would require tremendous pressures like that inside the core of Jupiter. This is not something that can come from catalysis. Catalysis is only going to exchange a tiny amount of energy (endothermic or exothermic) like the difference between ortho- and para-hydrogen. When you talk about multiple particles, the distance between the separate particles cannot be 2.3 pm or they would not be able to *be* separate particles. The multiple particles will have at minimum the total energy of the individual particles + whatever kinetic energies they have in sum. So, if the individual particles have more energy than H2, then the sum of the collection of particles would have more energy than the sum of H2 molecules. If the collection of particles were in some form of condensate, the minimum energy they would have is still the sum of the individual energies plus whatever is their collective kinetic energy - still more than H2.
