On Jan 6, 2008, at 2:20 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
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.
.
On the above we certainly agree.
.
.
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 above then spotlights a major source of disagreement or at least
miscommunication. My viewpoint is that a particle pair represents an
infinite amount of potential energy, providing they can approach
close enough.
'
From the electric potential energy Pe for separating an electron and
proton we have:
'
Pe = k (-q)(q)(1/r) = -(2.88x10^-9 eV m) (1/r)
'
which we can rearrange to obtain r for a given potential energy,
'
r = (1.439965x10^-9 eV m) (1/Pe)
'
and we have for 0.78 MeV:
'
r = (1.44x10-9 eV m) (1/(0.78x10^6 eV))
'
r = 1.846x10-16 m
'
I'll explain below why a small nucleus size is not a problem here.
'
From my point of view the problem is thus not one of energy. There
is an infinite amount of energy available. The problems then are how
close can the particles get and under what conditions and for how
long? The main thing that prevents approach to zero distance is
uncertainty in the apparent size of the particles, their
Zitterbewegung, their de Broglie wavelength. This problem diminishes
with increased approach velocity because the de Broglie wavelengths
of the particles diminishes with increased velocity and thus
increased momentum or increased kinetic energy.
'
Since EC reactions clearly occur with some types of nuclei, it is
clear the fact the electron involved is an orbital electron is not
important. The wave function of orbital electron thus accommodates
its entry into a nucleus sized volume. The fact the electron is
orbital vs free kinetic does not impair its ability to interact with
the tiny nucleus.
'
In ordinary spherically symmetric orbitals electrons have a very low
probability of being found in the nucleus, or even in close
vicinity. However, when they *are* observed there their kinetic
energy and momentum is consistent with the loss of potential energy
gained falling into the Coulomb well to the observed radius. Orbital
mechanics itself depends on invariance in the sum of potential and
kinetic energies.
'
Of great interest and relevance to the issue of available energy is
the fact that all orbitals are not like the ordinary spherical ground
state orbital. Slight changes in environment or excitement, involving
energies merely at the chemical level, can change orbital structure
dramatically. Orbitals can be changed from a spherical cloud into a
lobed form, or other perturbed forms, which involve plunges deep
toward the nucleus with high probability, and relativistic electron
momenta. The probability of the electron being found within the
nucleus or very close to the nucleus can increase by orders of
magnitude, as does the probability of the electron having momentarily
enormous kinetic energies, in these special orbitals.
'
When an electron approaches sufficiently close to the nucleus,
additional binding energies come into play from magnetic binding.
This provides even more kinetic energy to the approaching nucleus. I
showed this in some detail in the following calculation:
'
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DeflateP1.pdf
'
Now, here is something you might find useful for your side of the
argument. Here I take the alternate view that the following is a
revelation of an exciting possibility. The kinetic energies involved
in relativistic orbitals provide an increase in the mass of the atom,
all with nominal energy input from the environment. From a normal
physics point of view, there is no antecedent for this energy. The
mere collapse of two opposed charges into a smaller volume can
provide an increase in mass. Amazing if true. It is further amazing
that zero point energy supplies kinetic energy and thus mass to
particles increasingly confined in volume, i.e. degenerate matter. See:
'
http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/NuclearZPEtapping.pdf
'
The pool of energy available for tapping is enormous. All we have to
do is learn how to engineer the situations to do it.
'
'
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?
'
The argument I stated above holds more water than an argument based
on energy. The main issue I think is one of time, not energy.
Neutron formation requires a weak reaction, and that happens only at
extremely close range, and thus it has a long half-life. It takes a
high electron probability density in the vicinity of the nucleus to
pull it off. Here's another issue I think is not commonly recognized
or considered, but which I think is valid. The size of the nucleus
is dependent on its de Broglie wavelength in the frame of
observation. However, the reference from that is important to the
nuclear reactions discussed is that of the electron, not the
laboratory. In the electron's reference frame, the nucleus is very
small, orders of magnitude smaller than in the lab frame, when the
electron is at near c velocity. This explains why a nucleus radius of
1.846x10-16 m can be no problem for the calculation made above, and
further why neutron formation is an unlikely event.
'
'
'
'
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.
'
If you are talking about electron screening issues typical in NMR and
some x-ray techniques then that is irrelevant. The disappearing at
I'm talking about only start to appear when observations are made in
the attosecond range.
'
'
The H doesn't disappear until things are sensed in the attosecond
range. This fact has everything to do with the issue of available
energy and the probability of a high kinetic energy state of the
electron. It also explains why CF is not a factor in hot fusion
branching rates, Coulomb barrier size, etc.
'
'
'
'
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?
'
My model addresses these issues (with regard to fusion, not neutron
formation) by making the point that multiple circumstances are
necessary to create a high fusion rate. It is necessary to have a
high tunneling rate to the site of the deflated state nucleus. This
is only accomplished when high loading (high fugacity orbital
stressing environment) and high a diffusion rate occur
simultaneously. Generally, as high loading is achieved, the
diffusion rate decreases. Typically only one or the other can be
maintained and or at least is typically deliberately maintained in CF
experiments, and it takes special materials to do it. It is
necessary to create deep plunging electrons, thus high loading and/or
other stressing means are necessary. I expect the necessary
conditions can be created at a gas metal surface provided loading is
achieved to a nominal depth and the kinetic energy of an impinging
nuclei is typically sufficient to perturb lattice orbitals
sufficiently over a multi-atom volume of lattice to create high
probability deflated states combined with the impact forced tunneling/
diffusion of nearby adsorbed nuclei.
'
'
'
'
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.
'
'
It is not just the length of exposure time per event, but also the
rate of events that is key. For example, if the deflated state lasts
only an attosecond, but is repeated often enough to have a
probability of 0.25, then interactions with the deflated state are
probable if nuclei are tunneling to the locus of the state.
Similarly, since the deflated state atom is a neutral and at least a
somewhat bound state, the probability of joint tunneling of the
electron and nucleus is high. Since together they are neutral, there
is no barrier height to the tunneling and the probability of long
distance tunneling, say to lattice nuclei, is somewhat enhanced. To
be clear, I am talking here about the probability of fusion events,
not neutron formation, which I think doesn't happen with any
significance.
'
'
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?
'
Yes. This was explained at length in:
'
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DeflationFusion.pdf
'
However, the proton or deuteron enters the nucleus *along with a
closely held electron*. This is a critical ingredient to the theory
because it explains why the branching ratios are dramatically
changed, why He4 plus photons is highly favored, and why neutrons and
high energy gammas do not result from the fusion event. It explains
why energy is released in small photon chunks, rather than in MeV
photons. I should also note in response that in the case of lattice
catalyzed hydrogen fusion I expect it is more common a hydrogen
nucleus tunnels to the location of a deflated state electron-deuteron
pair than vice versa.
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
