On Aug 28, 2007, at 3:00 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
--- Horace Heffner wrote:
The idea of a low energy bound hydrex, faux neutron,
hydrino... acting like a neutron and drifting through
the cloud of electrons about the uranium atom is
simply not credible. The binding energy is too small.
It's like trying to hold down a roof in a tornado with
an ordinary rubber band.
Without agreeing or disagreeing with that description
(Dufour would disagree)-
And, again, I think that is probably why his theory is not accepted
by experts.
there is a certain amount of
logic there, for sure - and it is basically why I
created an alternative premise: that being that the
bound electron (2.095 eV) simply removes an acid
proton from chemical "participation" for a short time
frame - about one second.
Participation in what? What acid? I though we were talking metal
lattice and adsorbed hydrogen?
I think that bound particle is the resonance proposed by Spence.
Dufour states: "A quantum electrodynamics calculation was performed
on the proton/electron system [6,7], pointing to the possibility of
the existence of a resonance (life time of a few seconds, dimensions
of a few fm and an endothermic energy of formation of a few eV). This
resonance has been proposed to explain some hypothetical nuclear
reactions [8,9]."
"6. J.R. Spence, J.P. Vary, Phys. Lett. B 254 (1991) 1.
7. J.R. Spence, J.P. Vary, Phys. Lett. B 271 (1991) 27.
8. F.J. Mayer, J.R. Reitz, Fusion Technology 20 (1991) 367.
9. R. Antanasijevic, I. Lakicevic, Z. Marie, D. Zevic, A. Zaric, J.P.
Vigier, Phys.
Lett. A 180 (1993) 25."
I certainly don't deny the possible existence of such a state (though
Heisenberg probably makes the probability of it lasting as a real
particle for 1 second slim). In fact, if such a state exists, it
would act in similar ways to the deflated hydrogen state and could in
fact catalyze D-D fusion in a lattice by the deflation fusion
scenario. In fact, I stated; "A momentary state exists periodically
for 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 small intermediate state particle. (This state may be
viewed alternatively under some interpretations as a coexisting
state, a partial existence potentiality, or a state which manifests
on observation with some finite probability. ) Call this small wave
function state a deflated hydrogen state." However, the role of such
a state is not to move through an electron cloud to a nucleus to
create the fusion. Quite the opposite. It provides a target volume
for tunneling which is energetically favorable for deuterium which is
otherwise prone to tunnel to that volume, i.e. the wave form of which
substantially overlaps that volume. That *is* deflation fusion by
definition. However, the actual physical bound existence of such a
particle is unnecessary to the deflation fusion concept. It is
merely the probability of the state that is important. In may in
fact be that an actual long term (e.g. 1 second) hydrex particle can
exist (though it seems improbable to me) but has a low probability of
creation or low probability of sustaining that existence for long,
and that 3 body fusion is more likely to result from direct 3 body
wave form collapse - but that occurs due to a relatively high
probability of the deflated hydrogen state be it manifested as "real"
or not vs a "potentiality amplitude" prior to the actual fusion. The
probability of a uranium nucleus tunneling to a hydrex is small.
There is one interesting possibility, however. Even the very
slightly bound superconductor electron pairs tend to tunnel together
simultaneously with about 50% probability. The less weakly bound
hydrex may tend to tunnel as a single bound unit, and if so the
probability of that neutral unit tunneling to the locus of a uranium
nucleus would be vastly greater than for a proton doing the same.
Also, the uranium nucleus has a large volume compared to a deuteron.
Such a transient charge-removal can have secondary
effects which are greater than the energy of the
electron which started the chain of events.
Theoretically, if the "neutralized" acid proton moves
a sufficient distance away from its formerly-mated
sulfate
Uh.. what sulfate ion? If you are talking solution then the sulfate
ion is bounded by one or two layers of polarized H2O, as is the H3O+
hydronium ion. They don't tend to get close to each other because
the radially polarized water prevents it.
negative ion - then - and without the
necessity of penetrating any atom's electron cloud, on
decay (disengagement from the electron) the free
proton can have a potential of up to the Bohr atom
energy (13.6 eV) ...
Beta decay is over a thousand times larger. A 13.6 eV electron or
proton will not register in CR-39. However, as Robin pointed out,
assuming creating that bound state gave off energy, then an E field
pulling apart the particles will result in excess heat (assuming it
happens often enough). There is also the possibility of zero point
energy breaking the bond via electron wave form inflation, which is
the Atomic Expansion Hypothesis (AEH), and which applies to the
deflation fusion scenario also. It seems to me a long term hydrex is
denied for the same reason a long term hydrino should be denied - it
violates Heisenberg. The electron can not stay small for long.
However, it can repeatedly change state or have a dual state
potentiality - including a deflated hydrogen potentiality. The
problem with a faux-beta scheme it seems to me is the fact the
electron can hop in and out of the deflated state without radiation -
so there is no change of energy involved there, no radiation, at
least without the involvement of a third particle.
even if in actuality that never
happens ... IOW there could be a useful gain w/o a
preceding nuclear reaction.
This local energy "deficit" adds up and in time would
force a QM probability shift, and accelerate real but
delayed beta-decay within that same locus. Without a
candidate for accelerated beta-decay being present
(potassium, lead, etc) the chain of QM events cannot
continue.
At least that is QM rationalization, and the
approximate way in which the "faux-beta-decay"
postulate is shaping up, for now.
Jones
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
