On Feb 19, 2011, at 12:19 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sat, 19 Feb 2011 10:43:01 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
Interesting 24 year old paper
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.ms.
17.080187.000305
It has been known for some time that the "effective mass" of
electrons can
appear to have a value much greater than free or valence
electrons. This
can be a factor of 10,000:1 in some circumstances, perhaps higher.
Heavy
electrons can be associated with superconductivity and exotic
forms of
magnetism. The Heffner LENR theory incorporates this:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DeflationFusion2.pdf
It could be an open question whether or not such an electron can
"nucleate"
a large number of protons at moderate temperatures into a dense
form. There
are a number of terms used to describe such "clusters" including
"pycno" and
IRH (inverted Rydberg hydrogen).
I think the effects they are talking about are due to the fact that
the electron
"sea" in a metal, to some extent, acts as a rigid mass (this is one
step further
than a liquid, but conveys the concept better). IOW the repulsive
force between
the tightly packed electrons means that when you try to move one,
you actually
need to move several, so the one you are trying to move appears to
have a larger
mass.
If my understanding is correct, then I don't see how this would
make it more
effective in nucleating condensation of protons, because the
"extra" mass is not
collocated with the original electron, so it's not as though it's
actually a
heavy electron that can by analogy substitute for a negative muon.
Regards,
Robin van Spaandonk
http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
When I first read about virtual mass m* of electrons in
semiconductors, I found it surprising that heavy electrons could act
with this collective "virtual mass" m* even when performing cyclotron
motion in a magnetic field. The virtual mass precisely determines
the cyclotronic frequency. Like you, I don't expect this means a
large m* electron has the capacity to act as a muon catalyst
replacement, however. And, even if it did, there would be no reason
to expect the branching ratio anomalies we see, lack of typical
signature radiation, or heavy element LENR, to manifest. It thus
provides little explanation of CF phenomena. There should be little
difference in results from those observed during muon catalyzed fusion.
I do think collective electron activity, especially surface
activity, and collective electron quantum states, are important to
and related to achieving high electron fugacity, and thus important
to some experimental modes I suggested in my papers. However, I want
to be very clear that this kind of virtual (group) mass m* is not key
to describing the deflated state itself. My theory does rest on the
feasibility of extreme electron mass near the hydrogen nucleus,
specifically in the deflated state, but this has nothing to do with
the group virtual mass m*. This increased relativistic mass, of both
the involved electron and hydrogen nucleus, comes from the conversion
of field potential energy into kinetic energy at relativistic speeds
and high gammas. Some approximate physical values were provided and
referenced by my papers in tables located here:
http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DeflateP1.pdf
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FusionSpreadDualRel.pdf
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FusionUpQuark.pdf
Despite the extreme mass and kinetic energy changes between the
states, the total potential plus kinetic energy of the deflated state
remains that of the ground state or near ground state from which and
to which the electron jumps, and thus the deflated state is a quantum
degenerate state.
All that said, I do think it is possible the "rigidity" to location,
i.e. high apparent inertia, provided my a large m*, makes a heavy
electron a potential wavefunction collapse target for hydrogen
nuclei, and a simultaneous tunneling target for a pair of nuclei. The
high inertia I think expands the amount of difference in range,
momenta, and energy the two tunneling hydrogen nuclei can possess pre-
tunneling, and thus the probability of such dual tunneling. The
catalyzing electron would be in the newly fused nucleus, just as it
is in ordinary deflation fusion, and thus the high degree of initial
de-energization would occur. There would therefore be similarly be
expected, due to exactly the same rationale, the anomalous branching
ratios, providing mainly for He production in the D+D case, orders of
magnitude less probability of tritium production, and orders of
magnitude yet again less probability of 3He production. Also
provided for then, due to the presence of an electron in the fused
nucleus, is the explanation for gradual release of energy in the form
of low energy photons instead of one or two gammas.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
