At 04:33 PM 5/28/2010, [email protected] wrote:
In such nanoscale surface environments, neutrons are created
collectively in a weak interaction process directly from electrons
(e-) and the nuclei of hydrogen, i.e., protons (p+) and/or
deuterium, deuterons (d+), as follows [2]:
Teh range of the weak force is 1/256 that of the strong
force (fermi meters) . It does not extend beyond the surface of a
proton or neutron. How then do we believe that weak interactions
are taking place at atomic dimensions (nano meters) are taking place?
Indeed, isn't this the problem of cold fusion itself? Generally, the
problem reduces to finding a mechanism which allows the weak force to
take over by screening the strong force or bringing nuclei within
range that tunneling, for example, can take place. But simple
screening, isolated from collective effects, clearly isn't the
solution, because that would probably not change the branching ratio;
muon-catalyzed fusion doesn't, if I'm correct. So then the search is
on for other reactions besides simple screened d-d fusion, reactions
that will not produce excited He-4 in one step.
So theories on the table for CF researchers at this point are principally:
(1) theories that assume some kind of collective effect on branching
ratio and energy transfer, to avoid the lack of serious neutron or
gamma radiation, but that still consider the primary reaction to be d+d.
(2) theories that posit that the reaction is of a cluster, perhaps as
a Bose-Einstein condensate or similar quantum effect.
(3) theories that involve the formation of neutrons or dineutrons
from special conditions in the lattice (generally considered to be on
the surface because of evidence regarding where the He-4 generally
ends up and the relative abundances of the options.
In the latter category is W-L theory. Absent evidence that this is
the specific mechanism, which can't be simply more posulated
mysteries, the theory hasn't helped us more than proposed one
possible conceptual framework to guide research. Trying to create
theories which solely have a political effect, because somehow a
postulated new, previously unknown mechanism slips down the throat
more easily, isn't a real gain. Predictive power is a real gain. If
W-L theory makes new predictions, not merely "explaining" what's been
observed, it becomes a much stronger candidate.
Any theory that involves new mechanisms, such as W-L neutron
formation, is just pushing off the mystery to a new area.
On the other hand, dismissing W-L theory because we imagine it
predicts stuff that isn't seen can't be considered conclusive. That
would be the same error that was made by the particle physics
community in 1989. The unfulfilled prediction may be a result of
ignorance about the conditions and the consequences of those
conditions. Doing the math, for example, to predict fusion from the
formatino of Takahashi's tetrahedral symmetric condensate, isn't
something that is likely to be done by someone who is skeptical, and
perhaps a bit freaked out by the original reports. At that time, few
if any thought of BEC fusion as a possibility, and, discussing TSC
theory, I encounter these same knee-jerk objections. BECs? Those only
form close to absolute zero, this is at room temperature. The Be-8
formed would fission into helium nuclei at 23.8 MeV each, and
energetic alphas at that level would have observable effects that
aren't seen. And so on. But we have very little idea of what a very
rare BEC, perhaps formed under physical extremes according to
velocity distributions, and even, possibly, formed with higher rate
at higher temperatures, as long as the confining lattice remained intact.
This isn't being said to propose TSC theory as being obviously
better! But it doesn't involve, as far as I've seen, new physics. It
does appear to posit an unlikely physical chemical state, the
confinement or formation of a cluster of two deuterium molecules in a
particular arrangement on or near the surface of the lattice.
Intuitively, this seems very unlikely, because D2 is generally not
present in the lattice, it dissociates. But, intuitively, we'd have
thought that even if this happened, we wouldn't see it fuse, but what
Takahashi did was to contradict that with actual calculations from
quantum field theory. It thus becomes a reasoble theory to explore.
(Freaked out? Well, if CF is real, that might drastically impact
funding for hot fusion research, and there go the jobs of, probably,
hundreds of particle physicists, and the support of a number of
research institutions. The mew jobs created would mostly be in other
fields. This is a real problem, and it's why the Dod called LENR
research potentially disruptive.)
As to W-L theory, it's a much more extended speculation, to me, than
other theories. In order to make predictions from the theory match
observed phenomena, not just one but a number of unknown effects must
be postulated. The general approach, formation of neutrons, isn't a
huge leap, but for this formation to explain experimental
observations, rather than the well-known effects of neutron
activation analysis, more leaps must be made. In this thread, for
example, to start with deuterium and end up with helium, multiple
reactions must be imagined. For this to occur without seeing the
intermediate products in *higher* abundance than the final product,
helium -- or other transmuted elements -- some of these reactions
must proceed with 100% cross section -- or close to that, while the
conditions still set the initial reaction at a very low rate. (Or
else we'd see worse than meltdowns, we'd see vaporization of the
apparatus and probably much near it!)
And then to explain the lack of the characteristic gamma radiation
from expected intermediaries or products, another miraculous effect
must be postulated, the highly efficient absorptino of gamma
radiation by the heavy electron soup that supposedly fosters the
neutron creation in the first place. It's clever, perhaps, but,
absent any demonstration of this effect, it's hand-waving, and, as
was pointed out by a scientist to me, would, all by itself, earn
Widom and Larsen a Nobel prize. Let's say that before swallowing
"discoveries" like that, we should be very careful!
I have never claimed that the particle physicists in 1989 shouldn't
have been skeptical. I think, in fact, that Pons and Fleischmann
should ger a Nobel prize, though I'd assume that the Nobel committee
would want to see wider acceptance first. That's coming. But
skepticism should never have become rejection without sttrong
evidence, and that evidence, needless to say, was missing. Both the
1989 and 2004 review recognized that there was a problem, an anomaly,
that was unsolved. In 1989 the majority simply postulated
"experimental error," which was possibly a rational assumption when
it comes to allocating billions of dollars in research funding, but
an assumption like that is far from being "scientific." It's rooted
in economic and political theory. Both reviews, accordingly,
supported -- gave lip service to, at least, and in 2004 it appears to
have been a genuine consensus -- further research to resolve the
issue. And then the DoE completely failed to implement or support the
recommendations of its own review panels, and that both reports came
up with a similar *official* conclusion (no major federal program)
was taken as confirmation that the field was still considered bogus,
pseudoscience. That view was, by 2004, only supported by a minority
of panel members, even a small minority.
We should not make the same mistakes. I find W-L theory highly
implausible. That is not evidence against it! But, on the other hand,
theories are not like experimental results. The latter should never
be casually disregarded, and I'd be in favor of actual prosecutions
for fraud in presenting the results of research. (Not for error, a
different animal entirely.) Testimony is presumed, both in common law
and in rules of procedure in U.S. courts, true unless controverted.
It is also a basic principle in scientific process, and we reject
testimony at great risk to the truth, which may be, sometimes, very
different from what we expect.
I am, at this point, far more interested in better experimental
design, exploring and confirming what is already known, and nailing
it down, as much as possible to either reproducible experiments, or,
if it turns out that the process is chaotic at macro scale, series of
identical experiments where the results can then be statistically
analyzed. My own work is aimed at the latter, the creation of a
common experimental design, intended to be cheap for a number of
reasons, that can then produce a body of data showing statistically
valid results. If I'm lucky, I'll show that energetic neutrons can be
reliably produced at very low levels from electrolysis. But more
importantly, there will be a standard experiment, and researchers can
make single variations from it, having a baseline experiment to work with.
But there are other possible outcomes, for example, an experiment
that is only successful X% of the time. That wuld still be positive
as long as X is high enough, well into statistical significance. Or I
may find nothing, which will then help establish the necessary
parameters for success, because I'll then, with help, try to figure
out what went wrong and fix it. Why does SPAWAR get results, of such
clarity, and I didn't?
This is the road that Earthtech did not go down, though, to be sure,
I don't blame them, because they assumed that the probable chemical
damage that they saw was "chemical damage," but was also "SPAWAR
tracks," an easy possible error. And they did not have the benefit of
the neutron findings, i.e., back-side tracks especially, so they
probably didn't even look on the back side, or, quite possible as
well, they were doing something that was poisoning the effect. What
was it? I certainly don't know. I am still grateful to Earthtech for
publishing their results in as much detail as they did, and I'd have
wished for even more detail....
One thing that is missing from almost all reports on Galileo or
Galileo-type experiments: cell voltage. It's critical to understand
what's going on. If I'm correct, these experiments are not actually
co-deposition, the protocol starts out with too low a voltage to
evolve deuterium, which requires 1.4 volts. So they plate the
cathode, and *then* they raise the current (and thus the voltage) to
evolve deuterium and load this cathode with it. It's more like a
traditional P-F cell than I thought, it's simply a complex cathode
fabricated by electroplating, with, probably, a fractal surface.
Please, someone correct me if I'm wrong about this!
