Horace Heffner wrote:
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)
The Larsen-Widom mechanism requires the electrons gain mass without
gaining velocity. If the energy is supplied by velocity, the resulting
neutrons will not be subthermal. Besides the electron has to be on a
collision course toward a proton, which is not possible if it gets its
energy from being in an orbit.
Electron capture only involves a complex nucleus. It happens when the
gain of an electron results in a lower energy for the entire system.
When a proton gains an electron, energy is increased, not reduced.
Therefore, this is not the same as the EC process.
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.
If such reactions are possible, why have they not been detected when
people have studied electron behavior in the past? I think it is
unlikely such reactions only occur in an electrolytic cell and then are
revealed only by producing transmutation. If such reactions are
possible, there are better ways to prove their reality, which surely
would have been used in the many noncold-fusion studies.
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?
The papers are all available on arXiv:cond-mat.
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.
True, but the idea has to be at least in the ball park. At the time of
your example, many other ideas were way out of the ball park and were
never heard of again.
Regards,
Ed
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
