Thanks Horace for the explanations, it seems to me "higher electron density = higher probability of electron screening" is what they boil down to, which makes sense, let me know if I am excessively oversimplifying (BTW I still think that "electron screening" adequately describes the generic concept of getting one or several electrons in between deuterons or protons to screen their mutual repulsion and get them into fusing distance, if you don't like it please propose a better generic expression and I'll adopt it)
> My initial aim was more at explanation, but if the principle applies > then the engineering becomes comparatively simple. Make the cell, > especially the cathode, extremely negative. A few comments on this: 1/ You mean extremely negatively charged I imagine, an extremely negative electric potential being meaningless if you don't say relative to what. 2/ Macroscopically speaking only the surface of a conductor can be charged, the inside is neutral. 3/ There is a limit to the charge you can accumulate at the surface of a metal (by imposing an electric field, no other way is there?), beyond which the electric field pulls the electrons out of the metal. Kindly let me know (*) if you agree with the 3 points above. Michel (*) concisely if possible (these days the length of your posts beats even Jones, pity for the French among us ;-) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Horace Heffner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2007 7:51 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Electron fugacity, deuteron fugacity, and applied fields > > On Jul 29, 2007, at 1:43 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: > >> Hi Horace, >> >> I finally found the time to read your summary, which you copy- >> pasted below. >> >> Electron catalyzed fusion per se is an old concept from the early >> days of CF, a.k.a. electron screening effect isn't it? > > No. The concept of electron screening is that orbital electron > waveforms permit two nuclei to get close enough together that one > nucleus can, with useful probability (half-life) tunnel to the > other. This is still very much an ongoing theory championed by the > Chubbs I think. This kind of fusion might be expected to have > ordinary branching ratios. Explaining the lack of such branching > ratios is a significant part of Chubbs' objective and problem, as it > is for all CF theory in general. > > Electron catalysis as discussed relating to the electron fugacity > concept is a 3 body fusion concept, a concept involving simultaneous > 2 body tunneling, though possibly involving a short wavelength > electron at some point. A changing of branching ratios is a natural > consequence and effectively a demand of the theory. Simultaneous 2 > body tunneling is not an uncommon concept, and in fact occurs with > approximately 50 percent probability in Josephson junctions. > > >> >> The example you give is limpid: if an electron e- and two deuterons >> D+ are initially at rest wrt each other, far from other particles, >> with the e- half way between the two D+, both D+ will be attracted >> to the e- more than they will be repelled by each other and may >> eventually miss the e-, hit each other and fuse. > > You refer here to the early example I used involving purely kinetic > catalysis with short wavelength particles, or at least short > wavelength electrons. It is useful because it demonstrates the > energetics involved and the possible importance of short wavelength > electrons in hot fusion. The idea of "miss the e-, hit each other > and fuse" does not seem to me to be exactly applicable. The electron > waveform represents a cloud of charge, and has a center of charge. It > certainly acts in that manner when in orbital form. The fusing > kinetic deuterons merely approach each other close enough that the > tunneling half-life is very small. It might be more appropriate to > think of the electron as a ghostly charge cloud through which the > hadrons pass and then meld. The key to this kind of hot fusion > catalysis is the electron having sufficient relative velocity that > that its de Broglie wavelength is small enough to perform the > catalysis. I think this kind of catalysis is important, or will be > important, in pinch devices. It seems to me to be important in some > astronomical cases. > > The more recent development in my thinking is a very different > concept from the hot fusion electron catalysis concept. This newer > kind of catalysis is a three body wave function collapse. The basis > of this idea is that a wave function collapse becomes more probable > as it becomes more energetically favorable. It is certainly true > that wave function collapse, tunneling, does not occur when it is > energetically not favorable. The key in condensed matter fusion > engineering is creating and increasing the (probability weighted) > proportion of volumes of overlapped wave functions where it is > feasible. Fairly high (observable) fusion probability density is > clearly marginally achieved in the D-Pd system in some > circumstances. Achieving high D loading is clearly critical to > this, but is apparently not sufficiently obtained to make fusion > devices practical. A key fact still seems to be that high D loading > places lattice hadron wave functions under a "pressure" in that these > wave functions of like charge in high fugacity situations occupy less > volume. If any two hadrons become bound by the strong force, this > then diminishes the electromagnetic field strength (pressure) in the > lattice, and reduces D fugacity. Similarly, if two hadrons plus an > electron become bound, this also diminishes the electromagnetic field > strength (pressure) in the lattice, and reduces D fugacity. It is an > energetically favorable event. Now, by increasing electron fugacity, > and still leaving D fugacity high, the two hadron plus electron > binding becomes energetically even more favorable. This strategy > then, increasing electron fugacity, is clearly a potential means to > increase the probability of three body fusion in a fully loaded > lattice. It remains to be seen if it is possible to push the > probability density into a practically useful range. Only experiment > can determine this. > > >> This certainly occurs, I don't think anyone denies this, but the >> question is, at what rate, if it's e.g. once per century it's no >> use of course. Many CF researchers believe it occurs more often in >> the conditions of CF experiments, and your more recent developments >> aim at increasing the rate further, right? > > My initial aim was more at explanation, but if the principle applies > then the engineering becomes comparatively simple. Make the cell, > especially the cathode, extremely negative. > > Horace Heffner > http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ > > >
