Fair questions, Jaro, Yes, there is a 782 Kev barrier to overcome.
Maybe I misunderstand the objection, but why is "0.1 ev" relevant? Google "superfocusing nanoantenna plasmon" - aren't the electrons in fields of nanostructure hotspots vastly more energetic than that? Your starting baseline and the "7,000,000 times" figure may be incorrect. A possible energy focusing mechanism (for the magnetic field case) is the "Darwin interaction" term in the Darwin Lagrangian (or Hamiltonian). See, for example, equation(29) on p.8 of - "'Hidden' Momentum of a Steady Current Distribution in a System at 'Rest'" http://puhep1.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/current.pdf This momentum is inconsequential in normal currents with very slow elecrron drift velocities, but potentially huge in quasi-ballistic beams/currents. Storms equates an electron's energy with its kinetic (m(v^2)/2) energy. This figure is also in the Darwin Lagrangian, but so are a huge number of "cross terms" of "generalized momentum" due to inter-electron couplings. Say we have 10,000,000 electrons all moving roughly in parallel and at the same speed. Let's attach subscripts to those electrons so that their velocity vectors are designated v1, v2, v3, ..., v10000000. Lets say the electron with velocity v1 is in a collision. Then the energy it can deliver includes the usually kinetic energy proportional to the v1*v1 term (dot product), but also includes the 9,999,999 weighted cross-terms, v1*v2, v1*v3, v1*v4, ..., v1*v10000000. While in diffusive currents these terms sum up destructively, in coherent currents, they add up constructively and can be huge. So, maybe, an electron in a coherent beam can breach potential barriers much higher than we normally think. It may also be worth computing how an electron's magnetic field energy can dwarf its kinetic energy in nanostructures. For example, see (and plug in some nano-sized numbers into formulas at:) "How Much of Magnetic Energy Is Kinetic Energy?" http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/kinetic.pdf -- Lou Pagnucco Jaro Jaro wrote: > Just to add to my earlier thought. > > Ed calculates that the energy of formation for a neutron is 0.76MeV. This > energy must be concentrated from a "sea" of energy less than 0.1 eV. > > What mechanism will accumulate energy over 7,000,000 times its > concentration, and concentrate it on one location to enable the formation > of > a single Neutron. Now consider this mechanism operating billions of times > to enable the reaction rates proposed by W&L to take place. Even Ahern's > explanation by collective oscillations of nanomagnetism seems inadequate > for > this task. > > I'm with Ed on this one. Seems his explanation is more probable compared > to > W&L's ULMN miracles. > > Did I understand this correctly? Where did I go wrong on this? Lou, > please > explain if you have one. I am willing to be wrong on this. I have no Pet > Theory to back or to discredit. > > > Jojo > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jojo Jaro" <jth...@hotmail.com> > To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2012 2:09 PM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms' new Theory/Model > > >> If I understand you correctly, what you are proposing is similar to >> Ahern's collective oscillons explanation; that random movements tend to >> conglomerate together to "concentrate" energy that would organize >> electrons contrary to the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. >> >> That idea is intriguing if I understood it correctly. Can you propose >> an >> experimental setup to verify or falsify that idea? I'm all ears and >> willing to set up such an experiment. >> >> But, even if that were true, how does it provide enough energy on one >> location enough to create a neutron? And an Ultra-low Momemtum neutron >> at >> that. >> >> So, I guess you're a free "neutron" person :-) >> >> >> Jojo >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: <pagnu...@htdconnect.com> >> To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >> Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2012 12:59 PM >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms' new Theory/Model >> >> >>> On p.10 of "An explanation of low energy nuclear reactions", Storms >>> tries to rebut Widom-Larsen theory of electron capture: >>> >>> "On the other hand, neutrons have been proposed to form[56-61] by >>> fusion of an electron with a proton or deuteron, which requires about >>> 0.76 MeV to be present at the time and place of the reaction. Because >>> this explanation of LENR has gotten wide attention, it needs to be >>> fully understood. The idea is flawed because it assumes enough energy >>> to form a neutron can be concentrated in a chemical environment at >>> one >>> location. Energy is a real and basic quantity that is not observed to >>> accumulate spontaneously beyond well-understood limits.1 If such >>> large >>> energy were to concentrate in an electron or the target nucleus, it >>> would have to be harvested from an environment in which the average >>> energy is much less than 0.1 eV. Consequently, packets of energy >>> would >>> have to spontaneously seek out and add to individual electrons in >>> which the accumulating energy must be stored. How is this storage >>> accomplished? The electron is a fundamental particle that cannot >>> store >>> energy. If it could, its rest mass would not be constant..." >>> >>> Whether W-L theory is correct or not, I believe Storms is wrong here. >>> >>> The coupling of one electron via electric or magnetic fields to others >>> in >>> a coherent electron beam (i.e., its photon "dressing") can enormously >>> increase its effective mass and its impact energy in collisions. >>> >>> If a single electron in a tightly coupled coherent beam of 10,000,000 >>> electrons impacts another particle, I believe that electron will indeed >>> concentrate some energy from the other 9,999,999 electrons. This >>> coupling is evident in the "Darwin interaction" term in the Darwin >>> Lagrangian. (e.g., see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_Lagrangian) >>> For a general discussion on how the collective magnetic field stores >>> energy that individual electrons can tap, see: >>> "Thoughts on the magnetic vector potential" - Mark D. Semon, et al >>> American Journal of Physics, vol.64(11), Nov.1996 pp.1361-9 >>> http://www.uccs.edu/~jmarsh2/links/AJP-64-11-1361.pdf >>> >>> Surface plasmons provide good examples of coherent charge currents. >>> The electric field can also provide analogous coupling. >>> >>> A mechanical analog >>> >>> - One uncoupled freight train car traveling 50 km/h cannot climb a 10m >>> hill >>> - but the lead car coupled to 100 others moving at 50 km/h can easily >>> >>> I believe that collisions involving many coherently moving charges >>> cannot >>> be reduced to high energy collisions involving single charged >>> particles. >>> >>> I do like Storms's approach. >>> I wonder whether the surface cracks serve as notch antennas which can >>> focus incident fields many thousands of times. >>> >>> -- Lou Pagnucco >>> >>> Jaro Jaro wrote: >>>> Hey Gang, I tried posting Ed Storm's new paper as an attachment to >>>> this >>>> forum as per Ed's request but it did not post properly. >>>> >>>> Hopefully, Jed has it posted on his site already. Jed, is it up on >>>> your >>>> site? >>>> >>>> What do you guys think of Ed Storm's new model of LENR. Ed seems to >>>> have >>>> pinned downt the exact conditions for the creation of a Nuclear Active >>>> Environment (NAE). I am not smart enough to fully undrestand his new >>>> model or its ramifications. I'm hoping the smart folks here could >>>> break >>>> it down and discuss it. >>>> >>>> >>>> Jojo >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > >
