On Jul 24, 2009, at 3:22 PM, [email protected] wrote:
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Fri, 24 Jul 2009 01:43:40
-0800:
Hi Horace,
[snip]
It seems to me that such a tunneling event would be far more likely
if the hydrogen nucleus tunneled into the host nucleus bringing along
it's own electron as extra baggage. I think the prospects of that
would be greatly enhanced by a dense electron environment in the
lattice, but that is just another way of coming to similar
conclusions regarding the nature of an ideal lattice.
The potential problem I see with this is that if a proton were to
bring along
it's own electron, it would effectively be a neutral particle.
That is the *advantage* for a neutral particle. There is no Coulomb
barrier. There is no tunneling energy barrier, but rather an energy
gain. Beyond that, there are forces upon electrostatically neutral
magnetic dipoles. There is phonon stimulation, localized
kinetically driven fluctuations in electromagnetic fields, which
drives the tunneling of ordinary hydrogen nuclei between sites, and
such tunneling is across a longer distance, from site to site, than
the shorter distance required for site to neighboring atom
tunneling. I have suggested this is one reason that magnetic fields
from permanent magnets provide enhanced fusion rates in SPAWAR
experiments. In addition, there can be large *Coulomb* force
advantages to joint electron-hydrogen tunneling, depending on the
final positions of the tunneling hydrogen nucleus and paired
tunneling electron following the joint tunneling, the joint wave
function collapse. A very small initial neutral particle (such as
deflated state hydrogen) will result in a very small pair tunneled
into the heavy nucleus. Close interaction of charged particles means
large energies coming into play.
That leaves then
only the nuclear force as a "reason" for the tunneling.
False. There is a magnetic force due to spin coupling. There are
also highly localized EM fields due to phonons, as well as couplings
with conduction band electrons. There are magnetic forces due to
nuclear, local electron, and ambient magnetic gradients. This is one
reason I proposed the use of tuned wavelength polarized coherent x-
rays - to induce large magnetic gradients within the lattice,
creating a volume fusion effect. The focus of SPAWAR type
experiments should be on maximizing magnetic field gradients and not
magnetic field strength. Magnetic fields do provide the advantage of
predisposing spin alignment (i.e. the probability of favorable spin
alignment upon wave function collapse) to mutually favorable
orientations for energy gain from tunneling. However, it is magnetic
gradients that affect the tunneling energy, and thus affect the
tunneling probability exponentially, i.e. in the exponential term of
the tunneling probability function.
(I don't think tunneling
takes place unless a force acts on the tunneling particle, i.e.
unless there is
a difference in energy between the starting and ending sites).
I think only a difference between the starting and end *states* is
required, electromagnetically speaking. This is not the same as a
force on the initial state. The wave function merely has to provide
some probability of location of the particle (upon wave function
collapse) at an energetically neutral or favorable location.
Energetically neutral locations can be on opposite sides of a
forbidden zone. Prior to tunneling a particle with two (or more)
feasible but separated energetically neutral positions has a dual
existence, a degenerate existence, in both states. Tunneling, then,
is merely the actual collapse of the wave function into one of the
feasible state locations. Such a collapse, however, moves the center
of charge, i.e the apparent location of the particle, and results in
an entirely new wave function.
Simultaneous joint tunneling of even sightly bound paired particles
occurs with significant probability. For example, electron pairs in
semiconductors, bound with a tiny fraction of an electron volt,
tunnel *jointly* across Josephson junctions with about 50 percent
probability. If there is significant voltage across the junction,
they can even even hop back and forth multiple times across the
junction, radiating in EM form the energy drop from crossing
junction. This provides the junction an effective resistance, even
though it is made of superconducting material.
The problem with
the nuclear force is that it is very short range, and hence not
likely to have a
significant effect on particles at Angstrom distances.
Agreed, the nuclear force comes into play post-tunneling. The
hydrogen nucleus has to get there and stay there long enough for the
nuclear force exchanges to occur, be they weak or strong.
OTOH, the chances for a
proton to tunnel into a host atom under the influence of the
electric force,
where it possibly steals a host electron, and immediately enters a
shrunken
orbital state, could be considerable,
considering the energy gain involved.
The problem with this is that a comparatively small field gradient
can instantly ionize the hydrino. What do you propose the radius of
the typical fusing hydrino to be? Also, it seems to me the same
neutral charge argument you use several sentences above applies to
hydrinos as well as deflated state hydrogen. How can you expect to
have it both ways?
Having in this way formed a tiny, "long lived" neutral particle
(which is stable
as long as it remains in the host atom), it has a much better
chance of
eventually either tunneling into the nucleus of the host or fusing
with a second
"interloper".
It seems to me unlikely a comparatively large particle like a
hydrino, having an ionization energy on the order of a hundred volts,
can be long lived within close proximity to the nucleus of a heavy
atom. In a large field gradient the energy does not have to be
transferred by resonant contact. The field gradient alone does the
job. The binding energy is too small and the size too large. A much
smaller neural entity is needed if it has low binding energy. The
other issue is the electron interaction. Regardless the size of a
hydrino, the presence of its orbital electron fields within the
orbital structure of a large atom is going to disrupt the orbitals of
the large atom. This will create a force that will expel the
hydrino. Despite their small size, they should still tend to drift
around in the interstitial spaces. The small size should only affect
the mean time between orbital electron interactions, not eliminate
the interactions.
Throughout here, there appears to be mainly the issue of the
credibility of the hydrino state, a principally theoretical state.
You believe it exists so the things you propose are credible to you.
On the other hand, I think there is published (principally
experimental) evidence that a neutral state of hydrogen exists, a
state so small it is essentially invisible to neutrons. Further, the
experimental evidence exists that in water, this state exists about
25 percent of the time. This high frequency of observance I think
indicates it is a degenerate state. If one merely accepts the
feasible existence of this fairly newly discovered state (the single
miracle required for my deflated state model) then understanding cold
fusion, and explaining its various strange characteristics, follows
in a surprisingly comprehensive way.
Regarding stability, I'm not sure that it would be unstable if it
left the host
atom. Since quite a bit of energy was released when it formed, in
order to be
destroyed, that energy would have to come from somewhere, and it
could be on the
order of keV, so is not readily available in an ordinary room
temperature
environment. Perhaps this is enough to keep it trapped in the host
atom, or the
unavailability of keV energy may prolong it's life sufficiently to
allow it to
make short hops from one host atom to another.
The energy to break a hydrino down can come merely from the field
gradient near the nucleus. If the difference in potential across the
hydrino radius, at any point in its wandering, is larger than the
binding energy, then pop! It's ionized.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
