Regarding electron-degenerate matter In a quantum mechanical description, free particles limited to a finite volume may only take a discrete set of energies, called quantum states. The Pauli Exclusion Principle prevents identical fermions from occupying the same quantum state. At lowest total energy (when the thermal energy of the particles is negligible), all the lowest energy quantum states are filled. This state is referred to as full degeneracy. The pressure (called degeneracy pressure or Fermi-pressure) remains finite even near absolute zero temperature. Adding particles or reducing the volume forces the particles into higher-energy quantum states. This requires a compression force, and is made manifest as a resisting pressure. The key feature is that this degenerate pressure does not depend on the temperature and only on the density of the fermions.
If you can pump enough electrons into finite volume, or compress that volume, the energy levels of the excess charges will be increased. Can you get the energy of the electron-degenerate matter (aka heavy electrons) high enough by pumping or compression to meet or exceed the level required for reverse beta decay is the engineering question. Here, you’re going into the hot fusion area by doing plasma compression. Come to think of it, they do this kind of stuff in the Polywell hot fusion reactor. They don’t get much reverse beta decay in that system. Cheers: Axil On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 11:14 AM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: > I would like to review information about experiments that confirm the > heavy-electrons. Do you know of a reference that is available on the web > to which I may be directed? Please locate one that demonstrates a heavy > electron with an energy of at least 100 keV to be within the ballpark of > the 780 keV required. Also, I need information about heavy electrons that > are not moving in free space. > > Dave > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alain Sepeda <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Mon, Jun 11, 2012 8:05 am > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms' new Theory/Model > > About animosity it was with ed storms against the WL theory. > > however I don't see the advantage of this theory on others. > The usage of quantum coherence to justify bypassing the coulomb barrier, > is not different from similar assumption in WL, kim-zubarev, TSC/OSC, > Brillouin, and basically from old preparata and Einstein general vision... > at least the heavy electrons, the SPP, coherent protons, are well-known > animals. > > the critic about multiplication ratio from .1ev to 760kEv is not so > justified, because anyway heavy-electrons exists in other systems... > and the coherence needed to ensure the proposed screening is not less > shocking than protons coherence needed by WL. Proton coherence is even > observed independently. > the whole story of WL is harder to accept than the details, especially the > macroscopically isotropic gamma shielding, but all is hard to swallow in > that domain. > Brillouin bypass the gamma shielding with a theory (4H beta decay)that is > not so different from WL, just changing the final scenario. > Kim Zubarev is different, but of the same vein, initiated by Preparatta... > > I even think that some ideas could be mixed. > Cracks, Q-wave could create and activate nano-antennas, causing SPP, on > BEC of protons/electrons, activating WL inverse beta , then following > H->D->T->4H->4He, and few classic neutrons absorption, creating crack and > q-wave... > > > by teh way, I realized that Preparata wiki page > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuliano_Preparata > does not talk about his work on cold fusion theory > > http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2012/01/17/prescient-1994-insights-from-fleischmann-pons-and-preparata-on-lenr-theory/ > and his initial intuition... > > 2012/6/11 Jojo Jaro <[email protected]> > >> ** >> No animosity against W&L. Like I said, I don't have a pet theory to >> promote or debunk. I consider all theories as possible explanations. >> >> It's just that, Ed's new model appears to be superior to W&L's convoluted >> steps. Ed's straightforward protium fusion is more consistent with >> observed results. >> >> Axil's theory appears to be even better. >> >> >> Jojo >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Alain Sepeda <[email protected]> >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Sent:* Monday, June 11, 2012 5:04 PM >> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms' new Theory/Model >> >> heavy electrons are observed already in, very different situation at >> surface of solids. >> are they totally different from the one WL assume ? >> maybe they are of lower energy, but is it so far from the needed energy >> for WL to happens. >> >> >> >> about electrons, is it rational to interpret electrons as individual. >> I thought that is was a property inside space (a field), and that >> electrons as particle are just a propagation mode in void. >> in solid, with interaction with other and with other field it might be >> (and is ) very different. >> >> think also for protons. note that interpreting hydrogen as atomic is not >> so evident, because inside a metal the electron might be shared with the >> metal, and the proton swimming separately inside, maybe interfering (as a >> similar but distinct field) with colleagues. >> >> the atomic interpretation of hydrogen seems to consider hydrogen is an >> independent solid/liquid in the crack, while it may be a complex plasma >> inside crystal. >> >> by the way quantum coherence assumptionof WL, is the same used for the >> shielding theory. >> >> Both theories assume some quantum interference, and not to interpret >> particle or atoms as marbles. >> >> I don't understand the animosity against WL, yet I understand that it is >> only one in many possibilities that share the following ideas : >> - imply high surface NAE >> - imply local instabilities >> - imply quantum coherence to overcame high energy barrier >> >> >> 2012/6/11 Jojo Jaro <[email protected]> >> >>> Yes, Lou's freight train analogy is nice, unfortunately, it is not a >>> very accurate analogy. >>> >>> In the train example, we expect the energy of the 100 cars behind the >>> lead car to impart all its energy to the lead car. This only becomes true >>> when the lead car can "absorb", "Store" and "concentrate" energy - in this >>> case all the kinetic energy of the 100 cars behind it in an elastic >>> collision. As Ed correctly pointed out, the electron is a fundamental >>> particle that CAN NOT "store" energy from it's neighbors. If a mechanism >>> can be found that can do this and concentrate 7,000,000 times the energy >>> into one electron, and do it at a rate consistent with the energy release >>> rate obversed, then find a mechanism that can create ULMN at the correct >>> rates, then W&L might become a viable explanation. >>> >>> One of the major objections to W&L is that the 'reaction rates" are all >>> inconsistent. It's one thing to imagine a plausible mechanism, it's >>> another thing for that mechansim to occur at rates sufficient to explain >>> the phenomenom. It's all a question of probability and rates. >>> >>> This argument applies to all other neutron creation ideas brought up in >>> this thread - ie. cosmic rays, stray gammas, nanoantennas etc. While these >>> mechanisms are probable, it just is not occuring at the correct rates to >>> explain the phenomenom. >>> >>> BTW: the 0.1eV is the surrounding energy. Ed's point is that 0.76MeV >>> must be harvested from a chemical sea of energy whose average is less than >>> 0.1 eV. Hence a concentration of over 7,000,000 times. Ed does bring up a >>> very good point. Whatever mechanism we propose, it must be consistent with >>> known mechanisms known to operate in a known chemical environment. Lou's >>> explanation appears to be inconsistent with what we generally know about >>> the behavior in such chemical environment. >>> >>> But as always; I am all ears to any corrections to my understanding, and >>> I am willing to be wrong. >>> >>> >>> Jojo >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harry Veeder" <[email protected]> >>> To: <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 1:51 AM >>> >>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms' new Theory/Model >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 12:59 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>> >>>> Nice analogy. >>>> >>> >>> >> >
