On Jan 9, 2012, at 1:39 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:
Ref[1] points out that certain nanowires can carry enormous current
densities (~ 10^11[A/cm^2]) which vaporize macro-sized wires.
In metals, this equates to ballistic electron speeds of ~ 100 km/sec
- approximately the same as (0-Amp) random thermal electron velocity
- far greater than a diffusive electron current drift velocity ~ 1
mm/sec
- far less than relativistic speeds.
When the wire diameter approaches 1 nm, nearly ballistic electon
speeds
are possible over lengths of several microns.
In some nanowire and e-m field distributions, electrons attain
inductive
(not kinetic!) energies > 1 MeV. Collisions with protons or nuclei
can
overcome the potential barrier (0.78 MeV) allowing neutron formation.
Unless large (AC or DC) current flows are induced, conduction
electrons
will not acquire significant inductive energy - i.e., they will not
acquire large "effective mass" - a term commonly misunderstood as
relativistic mass.
Here "effective mass" is a not a scalar, but a vector quantity
measuring
electron coupling to the inductive energy of the total current.
It is large in direction of large current flow, while small normal
to it.
This my attempt at a semi-classical check on Widom-Larsen theory.
It looks quite reasonable to me, but I could be mistaken.
I would appreciate corrections or criticisms.
Thanks,
Lou Pagnucco
[1] "Stability of Metal Nanowires at Ultrahigh Current Densities"
http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0411058
You should keep in mind that in nanowires, even (laser induced)
thermal pulses move at 2x10^6 m/s, the conduction band electron speed.
I am sorry that I do not have the appropriate time to give to this
right now. This looks like a very worthwhile and interesting
discussion.
I do have some differences of opinion with WL theory, as noted on
pages 9 and 15 of this article:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/NiProtonRiddle.pdf
Following are some comments on the validity of WL theory:
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg38261.html
and the Larsen & Widom Patent:
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg42900.html
Too bad I have misspelled "Widom" as "Windom" consistently for a long
time!
The WL theory strikes me as out of touch with reality, i.e. with the
likelyhood of things like neutron activation. I have heard they
might be coming around to a theory more like mine, i.e. where
neutrons do not actually form pre-fusion. I haven't read anything of
theirs like that though.
The following article might also be of interest.
www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Alexandrovheavyelect.pdf
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
