Sorry for the delay in responding. Time seems to be in short supply
of late.
On Jan 2, 2008, at 8:00 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:
Jones, the Widom-Larsen theory is not only inconsistent with normal
physics but it is also inconsistent with what has been observed in
cold fusion.
It makes the following unsupported assumptions:
1. Energy can be transferred to an electron from a low energy
environment causing the mass of the electron to increase. This
requires energy to go uphill and this process has never before been
observed in normal physics.
I think electrons can gain energies (with some finite probability of
a very high energy state that is) from environmental (i.e. chemical)
conditions. Orbital electrons can gain energy from the environment
through orbital modifying mechanisms. Electrons gain mass from
increased velocity, i.e. m = m0*gamma. Relativistic orbitals do
exist, where gamma is significant. Not all orbitals, even proton
orbitals, are spherically symmetric near the nucleus, as we typically
visualize them, with probability density being smaller the closer to
the nucleus. In some molecules, or even lone hydrogen atoms, orbital
states can exist in which the electron plunges deep toward, and
periodically (or with some probability), even into the nucleus. It
is only by virtue of the fact orbital electrons can and do enter the
nucleus that electron capture occurs. Further, the electron capture
rate for heavy nuclei has been demonstrated to be affected by the
chemical (electron orbital) environment. Chemically assisted nuclear
reactions are a proven reality. See:
Ohtsuki et al., “Enhanced Electron-Capture Decay Rate of 7Be
Encapsulated in
C60 Cages”, Physical Review Letters, 10, September 2004
Ohtsuki et al.,“Radioactive Decay Speedup at T=5 K: Electron-Capture
Decay
Rate of 7Be Encapsulated in C60”,Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 252501 (2007)
2. This electron can react with a proton to make a neutron.
The electron gains mass only by acquiring kinetic energy. As far as
I know, the electron is not believed to contain internal energy
states that would allow it to store energy as mass. The rare
occasion when energetic electrons are found to react, the rate is
very low.
The reaction rate of electrons with hadrons is low because they are
weak reactions, and typically require the interaction of a neutrino,
or manufacture of a neutrino pair from the vacuum. Creation of a
state that can spawn electron capture thus requires a condition in
which that state can exist for long periods (long from a nuclear
perspective). It may well be possible an island of feasibility
exists in which the de Broglie wavelength of the electron is small
enough to avoid field overlap, and the energy of magnetic binding
plus Coulomb binding are sufficient to overcome the centrifugal
force. For the proton see:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DeflateP1.pdf
For the deuteron see:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FusionSpreadDualRel.pdf
This provides some interesting possibilities. (1) If electron
radiation can occur from this state then the electron becomes
energetically trapped, plus the energy so radiated is free energy and
beyond chemical energy. (2) If electron radiation can not occur from
this state, then the state is quasi-stable. (3) If the state is
quasi-stable, then the entity can act like a neutron (or di-neutron
in the case of deuterium) for purposes of overcoming the Coulomb
barrier because the binding energy can even exceed the energy of fusion.
The problem is determining the mechanism by which an electron can
enter into (i.e. tunnel into) this very small state. While this is a
problem, it is not a serious problem in that electron capture
presents exactly the same problem. If it is assumed the electron
actually is comprised of one or more highly flexible and expandable
strings, then it is not so difficult to imagine how such tunneling
mechanisms, or even ordinary ones, might exist.
What is most interesting is the fact the EM fields of the nucleus
plus electron are capable of creating enormously energetic states,
states so energetic that their relativistic masses exceed the rest
masses of the particles themselves. This, however, is due to the
fact particles are point like, or at least string like, but with wave-
like characteristics. If charged particles can be arbitrarily small,
then they can carry an arbitrarily large amount of energy when
opposed charge particles interact. Coulomb binding energy goes to
infinity as the particle separation distance becomes small. The
vacuum's bank of energy appears to be extremely large, though not
infinite because it is constrained by the Planck scale. Obtaining
some is apparently just a matter of learning how to make transactions
at the bank's window.
3. This neutron reacts with elements in the environment causing
isotopic shift without producing radioactive products.
Many of the required isotopes are radioactive with a half life that
is easy to detect. They are not observed.
I certainly agree that this is a major flaw in the W-L theory.
However, it is not a flaw with the theory I present here:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DeflationFusionExp.pdf
On the contrary, I show that reaction with the very small deflated
state hydrogen can account for the mysterious fusion branching ratio
by initially eliminating all the normal D + D -> He fusion energy.
The resulting heat energy which eventually evolves is merely the
vacuum bank paying it back in small photon withdrawals from a small
radiating electron left in the fused nucleus.
BTW, is there any W-L theory document available on the web?
4. The isotopic distribution agrees with the distribution reported
by Miley.
The claimed agreement is poor at best.
Yes, there are thus probably very few genuine neutrons produced in
the process. Some other species is required to explain the events.
These are the facts. Of course, it is possible to ignore the facts
or be unaware of the conflict with observation. Nevertheless, I
find it strange that a theory containing so many flaws in logic and
conflict with observation would be considered. Apparently, this
shows the desperation theoreticians have been reduced to.
I think the facts are indeed inexplicable with existing conventional
theory.
I have no complaint about discussing theories based on imagination.
However, they should at least be logical and consistent with all
observation, not just those that support the idea. It is even
possible that more than one mechanism is operating and more than
one nuclear path is followed. Nevertheless, I suggest it is a waste
of time making arbitrary assumptions unless these have strong
support. Otherwise, this is just a game of whose imagination and
salesmanship is better.
All true, except that even a half baked proto-theory, if
approximately on the right track, might provide enough of a starting
point on which to build a realistic theory. Consider the Bohr model
of the atom for example. Bohr was not right, but he provided a good
starting point for Schrödinger, etc.
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
