> I would expect that *typically*, setting the cathode potential to -20 > KeV or more would make for a high surface electron fugacity.
I suspect some heresy here (could I be seeing heretics everywhere tonight?), let me try you before we go further. Whether your cathode is at ground potential or 20 kV below, or even 20MV below for that matter, if it's surrounded by an anode 5V above its potential then it will have exactly the same surface charge, do you agree with this assertion? Michel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Horace Heffner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 8:22 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Electron fugacity, deuteron fugacity, and applied fields > 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/ > > >
