In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Sat, 25 Jul 2009 05:48:13 -0800: Hi, [snip] >> 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.
You are correct. I had ignored magnetic interactions. >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 suspect that this is more likely to be simple transport, i.e. movement rather than 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, electron-proton 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. Agreed. The theory has a lot going for it, provided that the life-time of the particle is long enough, or the creation of the deflated state frequent enough. This also raises the question of "tunneling time", and whether there is a potential problem with the time required for tunneling exceeding the lifetime of the deflated state. (I don't even know if tunneling really is instantaneous or not). > > >> 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. If this is the mechanism, then fusion with nuclei that have a magnetic moment should be more likely than with nuclei that have none. That is something that can be experimentally determined. Actually, examination of the products of transmutation reactions should reveal whether or not nuclei with a magnetic moment were involved initially. > > >> (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. ...but since we are talking about physical relocation (tunneling), what is the difference between "sites" and "states"? IOW the initial state is at one site, and the final state at another. If there is an energy difference between the initial and final states, then it also exists between the two sites, and hence there is a force of some kind acting over the separation distance between them, that is linked to that energy difference. (Though I must admit that I'm arguing with myself here to some extent when one takes into consideration my previous comments with regard to the range of the nuclear force ;) > 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. From my scant knowledge of QM, I gather that the wave function is usually derived from the Hamiltonian, which is energy based. IOW if there is no energy difference between initial and final states, then the amplitude of the wave function is zero (though that energy difference may be momentary). >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, Did you mean superconductors? >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. According to wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephson_effect) a Josephson junction is a pair of superconductors separated by an insulating layer. Therefore, one might classically expect such a junction to have a very high resistance. That it in practice has a lower resistance is due to tunneling. (Though in this specific case, I have often wondered whether electrons actually cross the barrier, or simply pass their energy and momentum to other electrons on the other side of the barrier, by means of their EM fields - much as AC current is "passed" by a capacitor). > > >> 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? In my version of the theory the radius goes as the square of the principal quantum number, starting with the "ground state" and going down. for n=1/2, it is 1/4 of the Bohr radius. etc. That means that the smallest that one might exist is Bohr radius x (1/137)^2 ~= 2.8 fm. However, if we are dependent on K shell electrons of host atoms to supply the secondary frequency, then we are "stuck" with a smallest value for n of 1/92 giving a smallest radius of 6.3 fm. Nevertheless, your argument is valid, where my version is concerned. In Mills' version however the radius only goes linearly with the principal quantum number, but has the advantage that the virtual central charge on the proton goes up, which means that in the very smallest Hydrinos, the electron is bound to the proton by a central charge of 137 which exceeds that of any natural element, ensuring that there is no gradient internal to another atom capable of ripping it apart. In short Mills' Hydrinos are probably much more stable than mine (if either or them really exist) :) Of course for something as "trivial" as DD fusion to occur in a reasonable amount of time, under my scheme, an n value of about 1/6 would suffice, which equates to n=1/36 in Mills' scheme. (This depends on one's definition of "reasonable"). >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? The difference as I see it is partly in the lifetime of the particle, and partly in the fact that sub-quantum atoms would exist inside host atoms, where they are already closer to the nucleus, and "hang around" in the neighborhood longer. Though if your deflated state Hydrogen is created frequently enough, it may not make much difference. [snip] >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. It could just as easily create a force that hangs on to the Hydrino. (Muonic atoms/molecules don't seem to mind too much). >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. The binding energy of the Hydrino electron to it's own proton is so high that it is unlikely to be upset by other electrons. (This is 13.6 eV / n^2). For n=1/6 it would be 489 eV. > >Throughout here, there appears to be mainly the issue of the >credibility of the hydrino state, a principally theoretical state. I think that's a problem we both have. :) >You believe it exists so the things you propose are credible to you. I don't believe in anything (I do think there is some chance that it is correct, as it would appear to explain a number of CF results). I want to see it determined experimentally. >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. My memory on the matter is a bit vague, but I think the study you refer to was later retracted. >This high frequency of observance I think >indicates it is a degenerate state. Perhaps. (BTW, a Hydrogen atom is also a "neutral 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. Yes, it would be nice. :) (Though I fear it might not easily be "engineerable".) BTW there may be a couple of other mechanisms available for the stabilization of sub-quantum Hydrogen, but to my mind they are even less likely. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
