Horace Heffner wrote:
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.
We can debate all day about what the arrangement of electrons looks like
and how they might in theory behave. Nevertheless, if electrons can in
fact gain the required 0.78 MeV from their surroundings to make a
neutron, why is this process not detected? Do you know of any
experimental observations, other than EC, that would support this idea?
That is the issue of this discussion.
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^)
No, this argument does not apply to cold fusion. Hundreds of examples of
the claimed behavior have been reported. The only problem has been the
difficulty in making the effects happen whenever we wish. Even this is
no longer the case in the right hands.
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.
I understand your proposed mechanism. The question I'm asking is there
any evidence that such a mechanism actually occurs outside of its
proposed application to CF? The mechanism of Mills is somewhat similar
to the basic idea of a collapsed atom. Would you consider his mechanism
related to yours? If so, would you expect to observe the same behavior
as he reports?
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.
Are you proposing that your collapse mechanism can actually result in
formation of a neutron? Mills does not propose this is possible using
his mechanism.
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.
Are you suggesting that no acceptable criteria can be used to reject an
idea? What criteria would you propose to avoid wasting time on every
imaginative model?
Ed
Horace
