----- Original Message ----- From: "Horace Heffner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 9:47 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Electron fugacity, deuteron fugacity, and applied fields
> > On Jul 30, 2007, at 4:26 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: > >> 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) > > OK, I see you are right about needing a term to distinguish and > define the proposed process. > The best I can come up with is "electron > deflation fusion catalysis", EDFC, or better just "deflation fusion". > > Electron screening has two other meanings, as far as I know. > > One type of screening is the effect of the distribution of charge in > the electron wave functions of orbital electrons. This distribution > of charge of a single orbital electron is over a large volume, > compared to nuclear distances, thus this screening is very tenuous, > and requires long tunneling distances of the hydrogen nucleus to > achieve fusion. > > Another kind of electron screening can occur when all (actually only > "most" because the wave function of a free electron is infinite in > size) of the wave function of one or two free electrons gets between > two hydrogen nuclei. This can only happen if the bulk of the wave > function is small, thus the de Broglie wavelength small, thus the > momentum and energy of the electron(s) high. This happens with great > frequency only in very hot dense environments. It might be possible > to engineer this kind of screening though. > > The third kind of screening, that to which I refer when talking about > electron fugacity, I think is not really screening at all. It is wave > function collapse - a term which has meaning I suppose only depending > on the quantum interpretation invoked. Regardless, I think this is a > very real phenomenon. Consider the electron capture reaction. An > electron with a wave function covering a volume thousands of times > that of a nucleus suddenly becomes part of the nucleus. Similarly, in > the photoelectric effect, a photon from across the universe, having a > wave function of very large size, collapses its energy onto one tiny > electron on one atom to eject it from its orbital. Similarly, an > electron on one side of a Josephson junction has a wave function that > extends to the other side of the junction with only a small (integral > of the volume) probability. Yet, when it tunnels across, it has a > newly centered (center of mass) wave function having only a small > probability of being where it was on the other side. These are > examples of wave function collapse, where a formerly voluminous wave > function can suddenly change both location and volume dramatically. Still, the less dramatic the change of location, the more probable the change isn't it? > This wave function collapse can happen and in fact happens when it is > energetically favorable. In deflation fusion the wave functions of > the electron and two hydrogen nuclei momentarily collapse into a > small volume, their centers of mass being co-located. At this point > weak and/or strong nuclear reactions may occur. I think this is very > different from a screening process. I think I can see the nuance, but I'll definitely have to brush up my quantum mechanics if I must delve deeper into your elucubrations (I have decided to promote the use of this very nice word in the English language ;-) > The key ingredient to making this > occur is stressing the electron wave function so as to make its > collapse with two nearby nuclei energetically favorable. Note that > such a collapse upon a single nucleus, followed by the likely zero > point field electron wave function expansion, is much more likely > but > would be an unnoticed event, an event without any "ash". Not sure what you mean, if you mean proton (or deuteron) + electron -> neutron (or dineutron) this has ashes obviously. >>> 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. > > > This is where the term "electron fugacity" instead of "potential" has > usefulness. I mean relative to the potential of any material having > a neutral charge balance, one positive for every negative charge. In > practical terms this means ground. What do you mean? If you're saying that an object at ground potential is necessarily neutral, or close to neutral, you couldn't be more wrong. > It is significant, however, that > ground electron fugacity varies a great deal, and thus ground > electron fugacity may in fact affect whether cold fusion experiments > work or not. I assume by "high potential" that a potential is > reached that guarantees a high electron fugacity. > > > >> >> 2/ Macroscopically speaking only the surface of a conductor can be >> charged, the inside is neutral. > > > The keyword is "conductor". As the conduction bands are filled with > charge, and become immobilized at the surface a conductor can stop > being a conductor at the surface. But this is not the case in a CF cathode, if its surface stopped conducting then the electrolysis would stop wouldn't it? Assuming you agree, then a CF cathode is definitely a conductor, so it is neutral inside, so its non-neutrality is restricted to the surface. Michel > In this case electrons can build up > in and fill conduction bands just beneath the surface. This actually > causes the orbitals to bulge out into space above the surface, and > with a enough potential the probability of electrons tunneling out > into space away from the metal becomes large. > > >> >> 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. > > Generally speaking yes, but with the minor yet significant > distinctions noted. > > >> >> Michel >> >> (*) concisely if possible (these days the length of your posts >> beats even Jones, pity for the French among us ;-) > > Sorry for the wordiness! I will soon have to get back to mundane > things, so I won't have time to be wordy. I have used this venture > into the fun world of ideas as an excuse to procrastinate. > > Horace Heffner > http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ > > >
