On Jan 4, 2008, at 12:43 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
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?
There is in fact much more than 0.78 MeV feasibly available from
electron-nucleus interaction, so energy is not the issue. The main
issue is time. Making a neutron requires a weak reaction and the
availability of a neutrino. Such a reaction would be highly
improbable to observe because it would have a huge half-life.
Further, the radius of the particle I computed would likely preclude
a neutrino-proton-electron reaction. Further I am not advocating for
neutron formation as being possible or even the creation of a more
than attosecond order "neutron like" deflated state as even being
likely. What I have said is there is a *possibility* of a "neutron
like entity" being created, and "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." Such an entity
represents a major energy deficit to a fusion reaction though, as I
explained in my theory, and would be unlikely to be detected at all
by nuclear physicists or anyone looking for nuclear reaction
signatures. My main point though was not that such things exist, but
rather that your argument for their non-existence does not hold
water. Other arguments may.
Do you know of any experimental observations, other than EC, that
would support this idea? That is the issue of this discussion.
Sorry that I did not make clear earlier my reasons for mentioning EC.
I did not intend to imply EC was relevant at all to making an actual
neutron from a proton. EC clearly demonstrates (a) the ability of an
orbital electron to enter into and stay in the nucleus, (2) the
energy level of the electron must be appropriate to its proximity to
the nucleus and thus on the order of MeV, a relativistic energy, and
(3) the de Broglie wavelength of the electron is not an issue in
preventing it from entering the nucleus. I think that further
provides evidence that, since nuclear transit events at light speed
should occur with very short durations, they must necessarily occur
with great frequency in order to make EC feasible and observable.
Another way to state that common sense notion is that (4) the wave
function must provide for a high probability of observing the orbital
electron in the nucleus.
The additional experimental evidence required is:
"A Water Molecule's Chemical Formula is Really Not H2O”,Physics News
Update, Number 648 #1, July 31, 2003 by Phil Schewe, James Riordon,
and Ben Stein,
http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2003/split/648-1.html
This I think confirms the notion that a very brief nuclear bound
state exists between the electron and proton even in water. Water
examined on an attosecond scale is not H2O but actually H1.5O,
despite the fact it reacts in all chemical reactions as H2O. Some of
the hydrogen is thus frequently, but very briefly hidden. A brief
electron-proton bound state is a very sensible explanation as to how
the protons can disappear to an incident neutron beam. I do not
think this is evidence of formation of a neutron. On the contrary, I
think it is evidence of a fairly high probability non-radiating
degenerate state for the orbital electron. I don't know of any way
to detect such a state except by means similar to those used in the
above experiment. However, I think CF provides further evidence to
the existence of such a state. More to the point of this thread, it
provides some evidence that a *neutron-like* entity with half life
more than a few attoseconds might be formed by orbital electrons in
the right circumstances.
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.
Well, yes, you and I can see that. However, there are still probably
thousands of technical people who would make the argument. It would
not be valid even though the makers of the argument would assume it
were because their experience and training tell them it is impossible.
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?
There are some general relations. I have not followed Mills for some
years, but I discussed some of my concerns here:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/PhotonMills.pdf
His mechanism does not appear related except in the most general
terms. He is suggesting a comparatively large stable state entity
with comparatively low binding energy, and which requires a very
specific energy release as part of its process of forming. He has
nto considered magenic components of the binding energy AFAIK. I am
suggesting an attosecond order duration degenerate form of existence
for the deflated state. I also here suggested there may be some
*possibility* that a longer lived (similar to the Dufour hydrex, but
more like I spelled out in the provided computations) like state
might be created in the right circumstances, possibly due to a photon
emission from the deflated state.
If so, would you expect to observe the same behavior as he reports?
I don't see that anything I suggested would create special long lived
chemicals like Mills reports, or even special molecular spectra.
However, special molecules might be very useful in creating a high
probability deflated state in handy places and thus catalyzing
fusion. I think there is huge difference in concepts there though. I
don't know what effects might be observed in plasma mode, but I would
not expect it to be long lasting because the orbital deformations
would be brief. Gas-metal collisions would be a very different thing
though, assuming the metal surface can adsorb hydrogen at least a few
molecules in depth.
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?
No.
Mills does not propose this is possible using his mechanism.
Well, we agree on something! 8^)
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?
No, only that, when no explanation fits, any explanation may be worth
considering in its entirety before fully discarding it.
What criteria would you propose to avoid wasting time on every
imaginative model?
Not reading any at all will meet that objective. I must confess it is
the method I've lately had to employ. I guess it is a decision we
each have to make for ourselves.
Horace
