Mark, I have been looking at the standard derivations for Compton scattering, but cannot find any that directly account for the influence of dressed electrons' large effective mass. They assume a vacuum, bare electron mass, and an effective momentum corresponding to the bare mass.
Your speculation on the RF-generator's role is intriguing. I could add that it might be starting "random lasing" - e.g., Google "random lasing" + nanoparticles. Possibly, Hagelstein's reference to Karabut's "glow discharge experiments" (pp.2-3 of http://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.4377.pdf) indicates lasing. He also states - "It seems as if the vibrational energy is being communicated somehow to produce inphase electronic or nuclear excitation at X-ray energies" - so there may be a remote chance acoustic lasing is also occuring. (See: An Ultrasonic analog for a laser -- http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0509/0509215.pdf) All just guesses, though. -- Lou Pagnucco MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: > [NOTE: I changed the Subject line, but this msg was sparked by Lou > Pagnucco's posting Thursday, July 05, 2012 11:06 AM] > > > Well, from a qualitative reading of the paper referred to in Lou's > posting, > it would appear that the scattering cross section > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomson_cross_section > > can be 'altered substantially' by a 'rather weak, low frequency field'. > > > (the 'low-frequency field' in this work is from a laser, so I wouldn't > exactly call that low-frequency; unless they are referring to the > repetition > rate and not the frequency of the laser light itself) > > > > Don't know if this effect on the scattering cross section applies to LENR, > however, I think it supports the argument that > > *cross sections can be modified by very simple and low-power means*. > > > > When one reads this paper and Hagelstein's latest, I have to wonder if the > RF generator is serving a similar purpose; namely, to modify the 'normal' > cross-sections and/or branching ratios! > > > > And, perhaps that is why the resistive heater needed to be maintained at > some level... i.e., after LENR ignition started, and the heater power was > reduced to a much lower level, it wasn't the heat from the heater that was > important, but the low frequency pulsing of an E-or-B field which served > to > alter branching ratios... remember that PWM was being used to set power > level to the heater. There was also much discussion on this forum right > after Rossi's first demo as to whether his setup was using a return path > thru the reactor so the Ni powder was being affected by a pulsing E-field. > > > > -Mark > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 11:06 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Vo]:general approximation of the viability of gamma > quenching > > > > Eric, > > > > It appears that the photon-stopping power of electrons which are "dressed" > > in electromagnetic fields may be much greater than that of bare electrons > > - i.e., "dressed" electrons that are exchanging large numbers of virtual > photons with nearby nuclei and other electrons in magnetic and coulomb > interactions. See: > > > > "[1]On Compton scattering of energetic photons by light atoms in the > presence of a low-frequency electromagnetic field" > > > > > <http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/item/escidoc:919561:1/component/escidoc:91 > 9560/COMPT777.pdf> > http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/item/escidoc:919561:1/component/escidoc:919 > 560/COMPT777.pdf > > > > The gist of the paper is stated on page 3: > > "...that spectra of both emitted electrons and scattered photons can be > remarkably modified by the interaction with a weak low-frequency laser > field." > > > > Perhaps even greater effects occur in intense e-m fields generated in > carbon > and metal nanostructures. > > > > However, since gammas would not even be generated in some proposed LENR > theories (e.g., neutron capture), this may be moot. > > > > I have some more data, but not enough time to post it right now. > > > > -- Lou Pagnucco > > > > > >
