On Dec 6, 2008, at 1:24 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Fri, 5 Dec 2008 13:50:32
-0900:
Hi,
[snip]
As I understand "ordinary" QM, the electron spatial distribution in
an ordinary
Hydrogen atom is such that the electron spends much of it's time in
the
neighborhood of the nucleus anyway, and the chance that it will be
at any given
radius is a monotonic function.
Your model appears to deviate from this in that you suggest that
there are two
separate (but degenerate) states.
That is correct.
Note also, that while you speak of a collapsed state Hydrogen atom
possibly
tunneling into another nucleus, one can also view exactly the same
event from
the point of view of the other nucleus, (particularly when the
other nucleus is
also a Hydrogen isotope), and see it as tunneling into the
collapsed state atom.
(They start out separate and end up combined, so who is to say
which of the two
did the tunneling? In practice, it will probably be an even split,
assuming both
nuclei have the same mass and nominal charge, e.g. D + D).
In fact determining which of the two does the tunneling may
actually be an act
of choice of frame of reference.
This was discussed in my paper. In the lattice it is energetically
favorable for charged nuclei to tunnel into void lattice sites. This
happens anyway at astronomical rates (up to 10^12 hops per second per
diffusing H) if diffusion is occurring. Due to electrostatic
pressure, i.e. high fugacity, tunneling occurs from one site to an
adjacent empty (or apparently empty) low energy locus in an adjacent
site - exactly where a deflated state hydrogen would locate itself on
average. I think this fact indicates a significant probability for
tunneling into deflated state hydrogen sites resulting in fusion,
provided the lattice is sufficiently loaded and diffusion is
occurring concurrently as well.
This alternate point of view effectively describes a Hydrogen
isotope tunneling
into a nucleus where an electron is already present (i.e. your
collapsed state
atom), which is precisely what I said in my previous post.
In the previous post we were not talking about hydrogen in the
lattice. We were discussing CH. In the case of CH the tunneling
distance is very large so it is not so much like a lattice situation,
where the distance between adsorbed hydrogen and lattice atoms is
much smaller. However, that distance can be closed somewhat during
molecular collisions or during chemical reactions or electron
excitation. Similarly, orbital deformations can increase the
probability of the deflated state hydrogen. In any case the relevant
point here is, as was discussed in my article with regards to heavy
lattice atom LENR, the tunneling is always from the deflated state
hydrogen into the heavy nucleus. This is always because the heavy
nucleus has a very small wave function and always presents a Coulomb
barrier. Adding a single electron into a heavy nucleus like C does
little to remove the Coulomb barrier. It is always there - except to
the deflated state hydrogen, which is neutral. Fusing deflated state
hydrogen with heavy nuclei is made energetically favorable by
magnetic gradients alone, as there is no Coulomb force, and the only
force is a dipole force, i.e. force from a field gradient on a
dipole. The best way to create such forces is via polarized laser,
and polarized x-rays from a wiggler should be excellent for this
purpose because x-rays of short enough wavelength can penetrate a
metal lattice thereby initiate a volume effect.
[snip]
I would expect C12 + D -> N14, particularly since C14 normally
decays to N14,
hence I wouldn't expect the reverse process to occur.
Yes, but I still think there is reason to expect some can go to C14
in the electron catalyzed reaction. If C+p+e causes an electron
capture with observable probability,
This is different in that C12 + p -> N13 which normally decays to
C13 anyway.
This occurs by positron emission and the 2.22 MeV positron, or it's
annihilation signature should be readily observable in this
experiment. No such reactions were observed. If we accept the premise
that large amounts of C13 were created we are therefore forced to
assume it was via an electron capture reaction. That is why I say if
it happens to such an observable probability in the C+p+e reaction,
there is reason to expect a significant amount in the C+D+e reaction
as well.
IOW the reaction C12 + p + e -> C13 is energetically preferred
above C12 + p ->
N13. Even so, I would still expect C12 + p -> N13 to prevail
because it can
happen without a weak force transition. If the p is actually a well
shrunken
Hydrino however then the chance of C12 + p + e -> C13 should increase
dramatically due to the proximity of the electron. The same could
also be said
of a reaction involving your collapsed state Hydrogen.
Much more so in the case of of the deflated state hydrogen, because
its radius is much smaller than a hydrino. The electron is about
10^-16 m away on average when strong force fusion occurs between the
hydrogen nucleus and a heavy nucleus.
Whereas C + D -> N14 has the double advantage over C + D + e -> C14
that the
former is both energetically favoured and also no weak force
transition takes
place. This would IMO skew the chances so far in its favour that no
detectable
C14 production would take place.
This may be common sense but it is in direct conflict with the notion
that C13 is created at all without sufficient high energy
signatures. If the "C13" detected is actually just a CH then this
discussion is pretty much irrelevant, except for the fact a deflation
fusion type process can explain lower energy gamma creation without
actual fusion occurring, and the source of the low level gamma energy
is ultimately the zero point field.
despite all common sense to the
contrary, and despite the assumedly small week force reaction cross
section, then C+D+e may similarly result in an electron capture, as
may C13+p+e.
The reasons I made the suggestion to check for C14 are: (1) it is
cheap, (2) it is quantitatively very accurate to incredibly small
quantities, (3) it can be accomplished after the fact, and (4) the
probability of increased C14 ma be small but finding it could have
dramatic consequences.
Note also that there is always a tiny amount of "natural" C14
present anyway,
and this would probably dwarf any that might be produced via the
suggested
reaction pathway, or at the very least muddy the waters to the
extent that no
strong conclusion could be drawn.
Not true *if* visible quantities of C13 are being made, which has
been suggested as unlikely as it seems. I have merely suggested a
means to test this premise. The natural abundances of the relevant
isotopes are:
C12 98.89 %
C13 1.11 %
C14 0.0000000001 %
H1 99.985%
H2 0.015 %
It is notable that C13+p+e -> C14 at a 1% level would be readily
detected, as would C12+D+e -> C14 at a 0.015% level. Both reactions,
even if occurring at rates several orders of magnitude less than
might be expected should still be orders of magnitude above the
natural 10^-10 percent C14 level. If C14 *is* measured at the 10^-10
percent level then that seems to me to be a fairly strong indication
no LENR is occurring. If LENR is occurring, then the C14 signal
should be very strong. In any case, the test can be done cheaply and
after the fact and with tiny quantities. It is a huge possible up
side at nominal cost.
BTW, I ran across the following patent application that may be of
interest:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/EP1156492.html
This patent is obviously very much a fringe patent, and I am
tempted to consider
the thinness of the line between genius and lunacy. ;)
(IOW I would need to see it to believe it.)
Say, maybe that applies to everything we've discussed in regards to
this experiment. 8^) I'd like to see the C14 counts.
Regards,
Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
