On Jul 31, 2007, at 12:21 AM, Michel Jullian wrote:
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?
Not necessarily. An increase in distance can be offset by potential,
and also the volume of space available for the tunneling. The
tunneling probability to a given volume of space is the square root
of the amplitude for that space, i.e. the square root of the integral
of the amplitude for a given volume. For example, deuterons tunnel
long distances when diffusing in a Pd lattice, yet don't tunnel into
other deuteron's internal volumes (i.e. fuse), even though they may
be closer than the typical diffusion tunneling distance, because the
potential is adverse most everywhere about the target, and thus the
available volume is very small.
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 language is a fluid medium, up for grabs. 8^)
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.
I was about ready to write a new article on this aspect, but here
goes...
No I don't mean neutron creation, which is energetically not favored,
and which also takes a weak force. A weak force interaction is
improbable and thus requires a long exposure time. Tunneling, is a
two way possibility. If tunneling across a barrier has a given
probability p, then tunneling back has the converse probability p-1
for a given time interval delta t. All else being equal, the smaller
the "tunneled to" volume, the less time available in that small
volume state. Still, the time in that state is finite, and thus
interactions, like strong or weak force interactions, other
tunnelings, etc, are made possible from that state, and their
probabilities depend on the time delta t in that state. This is how
electron capture happens I think.
Some interpretations see the electron as a point particle and its
quantum waveform as just a probability distribution for its
whereabouts. More accepted interpretations see the quantum waveform
as merely a potentiality of particle existence in a given volume.
This interpretation strikes me as wrong at least to the extent
portions of the quantum waveform, any selected volumes of the
waveform that is, exert force as if there were partial charge located
in that volume, and the proportion of charge in that volume is the
square root of the amplitude for that volume. This accounts for
location of the nucleus at the "center of charge" and for electron
screening in H2 molecules.
What I am saying is that a momentary state exists periodically
between hydrogen nuclei and nearby electrons in which a single small
wave function exists for that state and the nucleus plus electron can
act as single particle. That particle is not a neutron, not a
hydrino, and not a protoneutron as in the Mitchell Jones theory
(though close!) discussed on sci.physics.fusion and here on vortex.
Call it a deflated hydrogen state. In fact, this momentarily bound
state may be an intermediate state prior to other fusion events, like
deflation fusion. Cold fusion engineering then really may consist of
increasing the probability and thus the duration of the deflated
state hydrogen, and thus the probability of deflation fusion.
The electron easily tunnels back and forth between an orbital state,
or partial orbital state, and a deflated state because it is
energetically possible. In normal circumstances the deflated state is
not observed because it is so brief (though with new laser technology
it may be observed because that state is neutral thus the hydrogen
nucleus would in effect momentarily disappear periodically.) There
is nothing that traps the electron in the nucleus in the deflated
state because the potential change due to charge location is offset
by the Heisenberg potential energy. However, this energy balance
changes if deflation fusion ensues, because there are then two
positive charges in the nucleus, and the electron must inflate its
way out using zero point energy.
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.
I realize that ground (earth) potential varies a great deal, both to
the positive and to the negative, due to weather and solar wind
effects. This is why I said below that "ground electron fugacity
varies a great deal". This may in fact account for the "Salt Lake
City effect" and why CF cells that work at high altitude low storm
frequency places don't work for Scott Little in Texas. 8^) However,
I would expect that *typically*, setting the cathode potential to -20
KeV or more would make for a high surface electron fugacity.
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.
No, I don't agree. The resistance of the cathode material drops as
loading occurs. This means in flowing current conditions there is a
distribution of potential throughout the cathode. (As an aside here,
I think I recall discussions here on vortex about increased potential
for fusion at quantum phase change boundaries, i.e. in cathode layers
where metal concentrations change, where alloys change.) However, in
the above statement the important fact I was trying to emphasize is
that, when net high negative surface charge exists, the *conduction
band* free electron fugacity is increased sub-surface, thus the
nuclear active zone must be sub-surface, not deep sub-surface, but
sub-surface, and the greater the surface charge the deeper. I don't
think there are electrons running about on the surface. The free
electrons are in conduction bands, which is a reduced energy state
and located between metal atoms.
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
