On Jan 3, 2008, at 12:17 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
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.
I am not familiar with the WL theory, nor do I see the relevance of
subthermal (and I assume free) electrons, except maybe that Jones
referred to subthermal neutrons. My remarks here are directed only
at your comment: "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."
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.
This is simply not true. Orbitals as well as conduction bands can be
highly modified by their environment. Magnetic fields, electrostatic
fields, and molecular structure, and ionization states can all create
deep plunging orbitals where the probability of electron locating in
the nucleus is orders of magnitude increased. Rydberg orbitals, for
example, involving excited state electrons, contain electrons that
exhibit non-wavelike behavior when remote to the nucleus, and then
plunge deep toward the nucleus. Rydberg oritals can be induced or
enhanced by powerfull magnetic fields as well as EM stimulation.
Similar orbitals can be formed through electrostatic stimulation.
With regard to nucleus plunging orbitals, there are huge numbers of
such configurations even in unstressed molecules. For example see:
http://tinyurl.com/2thgs7
and be sure to note: "Warning! If you aren't happy with describing
electron arrangements in s and p notation, and with the shapes of s
and p orbitals, you really should read about orbitals." and click on
the word "orbitals" in that text, which is shown in green.
In the environment of a fully loaded lattice, electrons ionically
bound to the adsorbed nuclei exist in partial orbital state, have a
dual existence as conduction band electrons and orbital electrons,
because there is insufficient space for orbital formation. Further,
the thermal environment stresses and perturbs the orbitals, providing
even more opportunities for deep plunging excursions for electrons.
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?
Oddly, the same argument applies to cold fusion itself. 8^)
I went to much effort explaining exactly that in:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DeflationFusion.pdf
Apparently my effort was unsuccessful. The quick answer to the
question is that the deflated state, though very common (i.e. has a
high frequency of existence in some environments, including in
ordinary water) is a degenerate state, i.e. a state that can be
hopped into and out of from a normal orbital state because such hops
are energy neutral. It is *not* a state that taps energy by
itself. It is only through interaction with another nucleus that
the deflated state provides useable energy, primarily by the other
nucleus tunneling to the approximate locus of the deflated state.
Further, the deflated state, though highly energetic, exists for such
brief periods that it can't even be detected without attosecond
sensitive experiments. Further, this state exists with such brevity
that is has no significant effect on hot fusion with regard to
overcoming the Coulomb barrier kinetically. What is required to tap
energy is the high density, high orbital stressing, high tunneling
environment of a lattice. (BTW, the orbital stressing may also be
provided by medium energy gas-solid collisions, provided the surface
is sufficiently loaded.) Even most CF experiments do not provide a
high tunneling rate *combined* with high loading. As high loading is
achieved the tunneling rate declines because adsorption declines. It
takes engineering to achieve both I think, and special materials
management to achieve practical results.
Beyond all this, there may be a chance for a longer bound entity. I
just don't know, but the calculations I provided in this thread
earlier seem to support the possibility. It is not necessary to my
theory though. It might help explain some theories or observations
of others though, so I mentioned it here with regards to neutron like
entities.
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.
Yes and many theories or even observations, right or wrong, are
rejected immediately upon reading the first few sentences because
they violate established beliefs.
Horace
