Horace Heffner wrote:
snip
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.
Horave, the energy is the issue! A free neutron, as W-L propose, can
only be made by an electron adding to a proton. This takes energy. This
energy must be available at the time the neutron is formed, not later
when the neutron might react with a nucleus. Therefore, it must be
accumulated from the environment and added to the electron. I'm saying
that no mechanism exists, other than imagination, that can make this
happen. If it were to happen, many chemical effects would be produced by
the energetic electron long before a neutron was produced. Such effects
are NOT observed.
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.
What argument would you think would hold more water?
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.
I have no problem believing that the electron wave function must somehow
involve the nucleus so that when the nucleus finds that addition of an
electron results in a lower energy, the electron can be sucked in.
However, this process does not always occur when addition of an electron
would result in lower energy. Therefore, other factors must operate.
But, this is not the issue of this discussion.
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.
The fact that some of the H in H2O appears hidden from certain methods
of examination means nothing because there are many ways this can be
"explained" in purely chemical terms. In the real world, H2O acts like
H2O. The rest is only speculation and has nothing to do with the present
issue.
snip
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.
Frankly, I've given up caring what the ignorant think. True, they can
cause great harm when they get elected to public office. Nevertheless,
this discussion is not with the ignorant.
snip
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.
The attractive feature of the Mills model is the essential presence of a
catalyst. This explains why the process is rare and why it can be made
to occur under certain special conditions. How does you model address
these issues?
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.
Your proposed state needs to last long enough to enter into reactions in
excess of 10^12 events/sec if it intends to produce the observations.
This seems like a significant lifetime.
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.
Good.
Mills does not propose this is possible using his mechanism.
Well, we agree on something! 8^)
However, he does propose that a proton or a deuteron can enter the
nucleus. Such reactions are much more consistent with observation than
neutron addition. Can your mechanism do this?
snip
Ed
Horace
