On Aug 1, 2007, at 5:25 AM, R.C.Macaulay wrote:
Comment.. please expand on the "magnetic" influence on the freee
electron.
Here are some old speculations that may be a bit related to the
subject, Rydberg orbitals and electron capture.
Speculations on Orbital Stressing Mechanisms
Horace Heffner - November, 1997
One reason bound electron capture (E.C.) rates are small is the fact
that the probability that electrons occupy the nucleus is small.
This is due primarily to the quantized mechanics of the atom. After
all, if it weren't for the mechanics the electrons would simply fall
into the nucleus and all matter would collapse. Typically the net
translational force between the nucleus and the electron cloud is
zero. The nucleus occupies a neutral position in the electron cloud,
called the center of charge of the cloud. This center of charge can
be displaced, however. This displacement can be accomplished by
applying an electric field, for example. In that case the nucleus
and center of charge find a new equilibrium point, where the force of
external electric field is balanced with the force from the center of
charge.
If a sufficient force can be exerted on the nucleus relative to the
electron cloud, the center of charge can also be made to displace
from the nucleus. In this case an electric field is generated by the
atom. Such a displacement can be generated by gravitational or
inertial forces. Electrostatic fields can be generated by use of
centrifuges using this principle, for example.
The main thought here is that when the center of charge is displaced,
the nucleus should then occupy a volume of the electron probability
distribution, psi^2, that is much larger than the neutral zone. If
this is the case, then the probability of electron capture should be
measurably higher.
Here are the basic practical methods of displacing the nucleus on a
continual basis in order to affect the rate of electron capture:
(a) Apply a strong electrostatic force
(b) Use centrifugal force by placing sample in a centrifuge or
rotating it
(c) Rattle the sample with ultrasonics
(d) Rattle the sample with electrostatics
(e) Rattle the sample with electromagnetics
(f) A hybrid of the above
Note that (a) may be a clue as to why the Barker experiment,
increasing decay rates of radio isotopes by placing them on the edge
of a charged empty sphere, may work.
Of further interest may be the fact that at the interface, the layer
at the surface of an electrode in an electrolysis cell, enormous
electrostatic field gradients occur, even though the total voltage
differential is small. However, there are means for greatly
increasing the voltage differential and field gradient, so maybe
these should be explored further with the aim of creating electron
capture and energy production or transmutation effects.
As suggested by Frank Stenger, a suitable microwave wave guide
arrangement could provide a rotation rate of 2400 MHz, or
144,000,000,000 rpm. However, without some way to spin up to that
angular velocity, it is unlikely the nuclei could ever catch up.
There is also the problem of heat genereated.
One possibility to explore is making the whole electron lattice
vibrate in synch, though the amplitude would be small and the
frequency very fast. The sample might be suspended in a vacuum
between fibers.
Other possible problems are radiation, and resistance heating, due to
the electrons sloshing back and forth.
It does seem that the electron capture rate should go up measurably
though, even if the sample is only shaken acoustically, or placed in
a strong gradient. The combination of the two is even better. So, if
that can work, it seems like spinning at 144,000,000,000 rpm, if it
is possible, should work well.
However, since the nuclei are 1000 times heavier, assuming the idea
can work at all, the electron cages are, for the most part, going to
move around the nuclei as a single lattice unit. Thus the amount of
mass involved in motion is small, which is good for creating higher
speed action. The hard part, it seems, is keeping the lattice
electron motion uniform throughout the sample, thus avoiding heat loss.
To achieve (f) above, a hybrid approach, one method may be to get the
nucleus to slide around inside the cloud like a piece of ice inside a
basketball, thus generating centrifugal force to displace the nucleus
relative to the cloud. Here's a design:
o--------o----------------------
HV AC | --- |
| | | ------
\/\/\/ | | |
T1 ====== | -----| Sample |---
/\/\/\ | | | | |
| | | | ------ |
| --|----- | |
| | | |
| | | |
o---------|------o-------------- |
| |
------------------------------
Note that T1 may be air core or replaced with other circuitry which
can maintain the horizontal and vertical plates 90 degrees out of
phase. The main objective is to create a rotating electrostatic
field (that possibly initially increases in frequency) that drags the
nuclei along around in circles inside their atoms. One interesting
fact of this approach is that there appears to be no resonant
frequency involved, except secondarily. If the nucleus did not slide
around the cloud uniformly, due to heat effects for example, then the
rotational energy could be diverted into the nucleus rattling around
bouncing off the walls, an effect which would initially have its own
resonant frequency, depending on the atom, and eventually result in
heat. Placing the atom in a strong magnetic field would at least
tend to divert such rattling around into a plane perpendicular to the
magnetic field, and provide a chance for the nucleus to come back
into synch. Combining these thoughts, such a device might best
operate at the resonant frequency for the atom, with a strong
magnetic field coming out of the page in the drawing above.
Some things are bothersome about the fact E.C. does not occur where
conservation of energy (C of E) forbids it, and even some cases where
it does not. What are the mechanics of this conservation? If an e
and p are within range of operation of the weak force, then what
mechanism prevents the reaction? It seems the reaction might take
place within the boundaries of the time in which borrowed energy is
available from the uncertainty principle, but that would be an
extremely short period of time - and there is the problem of that
escaping neutrino. If any sizeable delay of the electron inside the
nucleus can be made to exist, especialy in hydrogen, then a possible
mechanism for permitting the nulceus to tunnel through a coulomb
barrier into another nucleus then also exists.
More significantly, it seems to me that if some portion of a stable
nucleus can undergo an E.C., which then makes the nucleus unstable
with respect to the two portions, the E.C. capturing portion, and the
remaining portion, then fission can be produced by that electron
capture. If E.C. can result in fission, then there is an open
question as to whether the energy of the fission might be used to
negate the impossibility of the reaction due to C of E.
It seems unfortunate that the heavy isotopes subject to E.C.,
regardless of other decay pathways involved, with few exceptions,
have very short half lives, and thus are not a problem for
remediation. (Some exceptions are 149Eu 150Eu 152Eu, 157Tb, 158Tb,
163Ho, 173Lu, 174Lu, 193Pt, 194Hg, 204Tl, 202Pb, 205Pb, 207Bi and
208Bi.) This makes me wonder if possibly some alpha decays, or
other decay modes, are actually precipitated by an unseen initial
E.C.. The E.C. could be readily missed if any of the fission
products resulted in short half life beta decays? It seems strange
that the other long half life heavy nuclei, within the above isotope
range between 149Eu and 205Pb, have no E.C. pathway.
By the orbital stressing hypothesis, decay times should decrease with
increased heat. However, heat would be a very ineffective way to
accomplish this, and results would be difficult to measure. The
reason for this is that an average kinetic energy of only 1 eV =
11,600 Deg. K. Further, atoms in a high state of thermal excitement
would not have their nuclei exposed to maximum electron density for
the full cycle either. For this reason it is more desirable to use an
electrostatic method vs a thermal method, preferably in a steady
state condition, to achieve higher electron concentrations in the
nucleus. It seems to me the trick is to create strong electrostatic
conditions without creating heat. I suggested one means to think
about for achieving this may be to oscillate an entire electron
matrix together simultaneously in phase. Another method is simply to
attempt to maximize an electrostatic field gradient. Here is my
prescription for achieving enhanced decay rates using a static field
gradient:
(1) Use an electrolytic cell with the reactant dissolved in the
electrolyte
(2) Pump the electrolyte through the cell slowly and use primarily
diffusion of the cell to carry the reactant the final small distance
to the
electrode insulator surface and to carry away byproducts from that
surface.
(3) Use electrodes covered with the highest dielectric strength
material
available.
(4) For best energy utilization use a DC cell with small or no current.
The electrodes are fully insulated, so there is no current with the
exception of leakage.
(5) Use the thinnest possible coating that provides a reliable
uniformity
of breakdown potential in the environment
(6) Operate the cell at the highest voltage that does not break down
the
electrode surface insulation.
(7) The distance between electrodes has no effect on the gradient
achieved
at the insulator surface, but still should be minimized in order to
archive
maximum effect per cell volume
(8) When the above is achieved the volume of material that can be
processed per unit time is then just a linear function of area, so
electrode area per cell volume should be maximized.
(9) When the above is achieved, additional stimulation from heat,
etc., to
the extent it does not affect any of the above adversely, can only
add to
the effect. However, the benefits should be minimal in comparison to
the
field gradient method.
The application of the basic practical methods of displacing the
nucleus, and combinations of them, apply to a wide range of perported
energy creating devices, and in particlular, to the Mills hydrino
creating devices.
There should not be much tolerance, other than due to calculation
accuracy, on the 27.21 eV hydrino formation energy calculated by
Mills and Kneizys. Such a formation is quantized, true? Unlike
bonds, which deform and have a range of quantized energies, hydrino
formation should be limited to strictly the orbital energy values,
i.e. the series of values corresponding to the various quantum states
1/n. Also, given that there are many 1/n states, there should be
many more formation energies besides 27.21 eV.
An interesting method to give rise to a wider range of energies of
formation, even if only one quantum state, n fixed, is available for
hydrino formation, is the application of a very strong magnetic field
to the hydrino forming environment. This would deform the hydrino
orbital and, if sufficient magnetic flux is available, deform the
hydrino electron orbital into a Rydberg style orbital, extending
parts out where orbitals become fuzzy, lose their quantized values,
and where orbital hops result in randomized and continuous photon
energy distributions. If emission distribution changes then so does
the energy absorbtion distribution. It may even be possible to
detect a hydrino in a sufficiently strong magnetic field, assuming
hydrinos exist, of course, which would provide a good confirmation of
this idea, as well as of the hydrino theory. More importantly, it may
help provide a far more robust hyrino creation method, by greatly
broadening the hydrino formation energy tolerance.
Some possible candidate reactions for hydrino formation listed by
Mills (Mills and Kneizys, Fusion Technology, Vol 20, pp 65-81,1991)
and Strojny (vortex post of 11/12/97, which included prior reference)
are:
K + K++ ---> K+ + K+ + 27.28 eV
Ti+++ + e- ----> Ti++ + 27.491 eV
Rb++ + e- ----> Rb+ + 27.28 eV
Li + Pd+++ ----> Li+ + Pd++ + 27.54 eV
Note that if the range of energies for hydrino formation can be
extended sufficiently, other prospects emerge:
Al+++ + e- ----> Al++ + 28.45 eV
Ar++ + e- ----> Ar+ + 27.63 eV
He+ + e- ----> He + 24.59 eV
C++ + e- ----> C+ + 24.38 eV
Mo++ + e- ----> Mo+ + 27.13 eV
In++ + e- ----> In+ + 28.03 eV
Te++ + e- ----> Te+ + 27.96 eV
Note that the distortion of the standard electron orbital of the
catalyst electron into a Rydberg orbital may be sufficient to
catalyse hydrino formation. No distortion of the hydrino orbital is
required, though it is clear some distortion of even a hydrino
orbital must occur in a sufficiently strong magnetic field. The
combination of distortions may be sufficient to bridge the energy gap
for hydrino formation catalysis, especially in the case of Ar.
Ok, so all we need do is evacuate and then charge up a cell with Ar
and H, place in strong B, and start an electrical discharge,
preferably using Mo, Ti, or Al electrodes. Mo is better for heat
characteristics. It is speculated that this will generate lots of
hydrinos.
One issue is the best way to manage hydrinos so they don't get away,
and so they combine to make energy. One way may be to enclose the
discharge tube in a large water tank. Those hydrinos that leak
through discharge tube walls then get absorbed in the H2O. The H in
the H2O should act as a moderator, thus permitting a hydrino buildup
in the region of the discharge tube.
I don't fully understand Mill's theory, but the ideas and
speculations here may still be of interest. Unlike as portrayed in
the Bohr and Mills standard theories, Rydberg orbitals are not simple
orbitals, but very complex geometrical shapes involving multiple
circumnavigations of the nucleus per orbital, at least as seen in
some two dimensional projections of the Rydberg orbital. It makes
some sense that such orbitals might be viewed as folded into an
overtone harmonic of a Bohr orbital and it may be that (another wild
conjecture) the creation of a Rydberg style orbital might be used as
a preliminary step in the creation of a hydrino. which itself coul
dbe view as a folded harmonic of a Bohr orbital.
Of further interest, and relevent to achieving method (f) above, the
hybrid approach, is the fact that electrons in Rydberg orbitals, in
additon to being driven out into non-quantized fringe areas, thus
producing fuzzy spectra, are also driven in deep close to the
nucleus. Thus, the near nucleus electron density is increased in a
strong mgnetic field. A combination of strong magnetic field
combined with the increase of near nucleus density provided in
Rydberg orbitals may provide significant changes in E.C. rates and
other electro-nuclear interactions (e.g see my Partial Orbital
Hypothesis posted on vortex earlier) - all with no energy
expenditure, only the cost of establishing the static fields. The
use of a strong magnetic field combined with a material sample
adjacent to a strong dielectric electrostatically stressed to the
maximum, has the advantage of eliminating all ongoing input energy,
thus greatly simplifying calorimetry and reducing signal/noise
ratio. Of course, the big question remains - does it work?
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
