On Jul 25, 2009, at 4:32 PM, [email protected] wrote:
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.
It can be both. In very cold environments it can be (has been proven
to be) almost purely tunneling. It can also be purely tunneling in
cases where barriers, forbidden zones, exist in the lattice. I spent
a lot of time describing the need for and methods to increase
tunneling probabilities in my papers on this.
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?
The keyword there is *joint*. That really should have said "joint
"electron-hydrogen-nucleus tunneling". The idea here is that the
pair of particles comprising deflated hydrogen, even though they have
a weak total binding energy, because they are in close proximity, and
are in fact somewhat energetically bound, can tunnel together
*simultaneously* into the nucleus of an adjacent atom without
breaking that binding energy and without changing proximity. As with
magnetic dipoles, there can be significant Coulombic forces between
electrostatic dipoles. The magnitude of these forces depends on the
proximity of the dipoles, and the duration of the forces depend on
the inertia of the dipoles. The target atom for the tunneling can
have orbital electrons, and these sometimes occupy the nucleus. The
presence of such nuclear electrons provides dipole electrostatic
forces within the nucleus following the deflated hydrogen arrival. It
is also feasible for two electrons with opposed spin to hitch a ride
on the tunneling hydrogen nucleus, or for multiple deflated state
hydrogens to target the same nucleus at the same time, again
resulting in momentary dipole Coulomb forces.
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).
I don't know either. It seems to me reasonable to assume
approximately the speed of light. I think tunneling is a string
based phenomenon, and they move at the speed of light.
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.
I'm not totally sure this is true in all cases. Heavy nuclei have
components with spin. Given the probably very small size of deflated
state hydrogen, possibly 10^-16 m based on the calculation I gave, it
likely interacts initially with components of the nucleus.
I think it is true that the process tends to make nuclei which are
multiple bound alpha particles, or to produce transmutations in
increments of one or more alpha particles - just speculation, because
alphas ae so tightly bound and I think they are a component of the
nuclear structure of large atoms.
Actually, examination of the products of transmutation reactions
should reveal
whether or not nuclei with a magnetic moment were involved initially.
Well, you get the beginning and end states, but not much info on
intermediate states if none are found in the leavings.
(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 ;)
I think it's all just a matter of probabilities. The wave function
of a particle provides probability amplitudes for various outcomes
upon wave function collapse, i.e. upon observation of the particle.
Any particle has a finite (but incredibly small) probability of being
found on the other side of the universe once observed, until its wave
function collapses upon observation and it is located at a specific
point. This is true regardless the energy involved. Energy
differences merely shift the probability amplitudes around, making
some locations more likely and others less so.
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.
Yes.
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).
My knowledge of QM is scant to none. However, given no adjacent atom,
the some of the potential and kinetic energy of the deflated state is
identical to the other state, call it the inflated state, with the
exception of energy borrowed from the vacuum in the deflated state.
The deflated and inflated states are degenerate states and hydrogen
thus has similar probabilities of being in either state. When some
other nucleus is nearby, then the energy balance for the deflated
state tips toward tunneling to the nearby nucleus, because the
probability of locating there increases due to the magnet dipole
attraction, and since the total probability is 1, the probability of
location in the prior states drops. Beyond that, tunneling can occur
between equal energy states. See comments below regarding the
Josephson Junction.
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? Yes - a brain-keyboard interface
problem.
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).
An actual DC current can (on average) flow across a Josephson
Junction (JJ). Such a junction will work with a perfect insulator, or
a vacuum gap because the insulator merely provides a tunneling
barrier. In fact a supercurrent, i.e. superconducting current with no
power source, comprised of paired electrons, flows across a JJ with
*zero* potential drop because the coherence exceeds the width of the
forbidden zone. If you apply a voltage across a JJ then the AC
Josephson Effect occurs, as predicted by Nobel Laureate Brian
Josephson (well known and appreciated cold fusion research
advocate.) The extra energy applied to the electrons by the gap
voltage drop is radiated away. The electrons do this by hopping back
and forth across the gap, though the current is maintained on average
as DC. Even a millionth of a volt gap results in radiation at 0.5
GHz. [The above info from the book "Superconductors, Conquering
Technology's New Frontier", Simon and Smith, Plenum Press, 1988, p
52, ff.] It is interesting that the hop forward is energetically
favorable, but once the electron(s) arrive, the local potential on
the far side of the gap momentarily rises because of the added charge
there, and hopping back can become favorable.
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.
Wouldn't most hydrinos be in the N/2 state?
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.
Well, based on this article, the frequency of existence must be
astronomical, because the probability of the state is about 1/4, even
though it only lasts for femtosecond time intervals.
“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
[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).
Wel, muons hang around nuclei because they have an electron's charge,
but a large mass, giving a small orbital radius. They replace orbital
electrons by kicking them out by having a smaller radius and thus
shielding the electrons from the nuclear charge, freeing them. The
presence of a lot of charge in a volume creates Coulomb pressure.
There should be a displacement force on the hydrino. The hydrino
can't act like the muon because its total charge is zero. It can't
set up an orbital nor can it screen outer electrons.
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. :)
Yes, I was leading up to actually saying that, or at least a similar
statement about personal bias, but got distracted supporting one
sentence with the next. I'm easily distracted these days 8^)
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).
OK I stand corrected. You have a higher estimate of the likelyhood of
the existence of hydrinos. I have a higher estimate of the likelyhood
of the existence of a very small neutral state of hydrogen. We're
not all that much different in position I guess. The one thing I
feel is most likely, is the result that electron catalysis is
occurring to produce a nucleus with the catalytic electron present at
a very close radius, close enough to account for the change in
branching ratio.
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 one?
“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
Do you have any info on that? I think I've seen an article with
similar "disappearing nuclei" results from looking at surfaces. I
didn't record the name of the article though, unfortunately.
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".)
Actually it provides a lot of engineering clues, such as:
1. Maximize ambient magnetic gradients instead of magnetic fields.
2. Use coherent polarized x-rays to inject large magnetic gradients
into the volume of the lattice. Align the polarization direction to
optimize fusion with lattice elements or interstitial elements as
desired.
3. Maximize tunneling by imposing insulating barriers within the
lattice and imposing large voltage gradients across them.
4. Maximize tunneling rate by use of large current densities within
the lattice. It is better to drive the lattice with high current
pulses than steady DC, so as to maximize the current density obtained
within the heating constraints.
5. Attempt using isotopes decaying by electron capture in the lattice
so as to increase the probability of an electron in the target nuclei
as well as the probability of a receiving site for the catalytic
electron.
6. Maximize the combined hydrogen fugacity and diffusion rate because
neither is especially useful without the other.
7. Maximize orbital stress to increase the probability of the
deflated hydrogen state.
8. Maximize electron fugacity in order to increase the electron
quantum states, i.e. aggregate electron energies.
9. Gas load very high temperature loading lattices and then reduce
temperature somewhat to increase orbital stress while maintaining a
large energy phonon distribution. Drive tunneling then via use of a
high current density in the lattice.
10. Use lattices with small interstitial spaces so that when the
loaded lattice is cooled the likely means to hop is via tunnneling.
More on all this is found here:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DeflationFusionExp.pdf
http://www.mtaonline.net/%7Ehheffner/DeflationFusion2.pdf
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.
Yes. And ... my bias is showing again.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
