Quantum mechanics lives in the realm of the wave. The electron will exert it influence on the positive charge nucleus in bits and pieces.
Take a look at this to give your imagination a brake: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas%E2%80%93Fermi_screening The Thomas-Fermi formula is a more general potential than the Coulomb's law<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law> . For the nonlinear Thomas-Fermi formula, solving these simultaneously can be difficult, and usually there is no analytical solution. However, the linearized formula has a simple solution: R= (Q/r)((e)exp(-kr)) With *k*=0 (no screening), this becomes the familiar Coulomb's law<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law> . The infuence of about 2000 electrons near the site of fusion will lower the coulomb barrier. On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 3:01 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: > That is an interesting complication Axil. There is no doubt that the > electrons can act as a screen of the electric field to an extent. Once, I > tried to get a handle upon the magnitude of this effect from a simple > mental model point of view and a few things seemed to show up. The COE > and COM like to make it difficult to visualize. I placed an electron > between two protons and realized that as long as the electron was in the > middle, there was no Coulomb barrier to counter since the negative charge > exerted a slightly larger pull than the opposite positive charge repelled > as the combination gets smaller. > > This model leads to an interesting idea. If the electron could be > judiciously placed precisely between the protons, there would be no net > force acting upon it. If we then allow the protons to slowly come > together, there would be no net energy imparted upon the electron as the > system shrinks. Each proton would actually be drawn towards the other one > and a small amount of energy would be imparted upon each. This is due to > the fact that the electron charge is closer to the proton charge than is > the other positive repelling charge. > > This process could be continued until something gives. A net amount of > energy is given to the protons as they head towards each other. The > electron is merely kept in the center without expending any energy. > Now, if the electron squirts out of the line at right angles to the axis > between the protons, then it must be given energy equal to the amount of > Coulomb energy that it helped overcome as the protons came towards each > other. This would be expected if the electron were to escape the > vicinity. The protons would then possess the same amount of energy that > they would have obtained had they not had the electron to help. > > If an electron could be coaxed into this behavior and remain between the > proton pair until the group merges, then fusion would be common. Since > this is not true, one must assume that the electron diverts at some point. > Perhaps a gamma ray comes along to set it free, but more likely, quantum > mechanics intervenes and the electron begins some form of orbital motion > around one or both protons. Unless the orbit that it settles within allows > for the release of extremely high energy, then the protons are not close > enough to fuse. I suspect that a process of this general nature might > lower the net Coulomb barrier to a degree, but I have no idea how much. > > I began to think of a multiple electron case, but grew weary as my mind > wasted away. > > Dave > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Axil Axil <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Fri, Jan 25, 2013 2:21 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions > > *For one, it is not possible for an alpha with that total energy to be > released.* > I would like to introduce a complicating factor: electron screening.. > Both the cross section of alpha decay and nuclear fusion can be > significantly reduced by electron screening. > In fact I believe that the helium 4 seen in cold fusion experiments are > many times derived from enhanced alpha emissions from high Z elements > rather than fusion of hydrogen. > In the presence of an electron cloud, the consideration of the coulomb > barrier potential must be replaced by the Tomas Fermi potential to account > for electron screening. > Furthermore In astrophysics, cross sections of low energy fusion events > can increase by a factor of one million based on the extent of electron > screening around the fusion site. In fact, it is impossible to > experimentally produce correct stellar fusion reaction cross sections > because both theory and experiment is not able to explain astrophysical > fusion based observations due to the electron screening problem. > Astrophysics uses the Trojan horse approximation to get around this > electron screening conundrum. > > Cheers: Axil > > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 1:17 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Sometimes the emails do get crossed up with the number of responses. In >> this particular case I think that my input helped to clarify the problem to >> many others who may be following this discussion. My choice of observation >> locations proves that there are two bodies or body equivalents that must >> exit the reaction. Now it is plain for all to see that it is not possible >> for an alpha particle to be the only result since I have demonstrated that >> the conservation of momentum would be violated it this were to happen. >> >> Before my mental example, it was just a statement that was difficult to >> defend. Now we can more readily understand the type of reaction that must >> take place in this form of fusion. For one, it is not possible for an >> alpha with that total energy to be released. If we could get a measure of >> the energy of the alphas that actually are emitted, then that information >> can be directly used to calculate the transferred momentum and energy which >> is received by the matrix. Now, I have shown that some reactionary force >> is required through which the energy and momentum is transferred to the >> system. This is an important observation in my opinion. >> >> It is good that the members of vortex-l can discuss issues of this >> nature since much is not known about the reactions that take place. >> Sometimes a small spark of incite at the correct moment will lead to added >> knowledge. Perhaps others now will realize that what I have written here >> is educational. The next time, they might use my ideal observation >> location or something of a similar nature to understand other physics >> problems. Had I written a paper, it is likely that I would have overlooked >> this particular tidbit of knowledge and left out a major issue that should >> have been considered. >> >> So, I suggest that we continue to engage in similar discussions within >> vortex and enlarge our knowledge base since no one person is required to be >> the holder of all that is important. Knowledge is always advancing as >> more minds are engaged. >> >> I vote for open discussion within vortex. And, my post was not a waste >> of anybodies time. Proof of this assertion will be from this point forth >> since most of those engaged in the current discussion will now understand >> the issue of energy and momentum requirements. >> >> Dave >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Edmund Storms <[email protected]> >> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >> Cc: Edmund Storms <[email protected]> >> Sent: Fri, Jan 25, 2013 12:12 pm >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions >> >> The problem with such exchanges is that the messages to different people >> cross so that I have to explain the same thing several times, which is a >> waste of time. That is why I write papers so that everyone can study the >> same explanation. >> >> >> On Jan 25, 2013, at 9:51 AM, David Roberson wrote: >> >> Ed, I am confused by your statement that cold fusion is a 2-body to 1 >> body reaction. I see two reaction components unless I am missing >> something. One is the alpha particle and the other appears in the form of >> mass released as energy into the surrounding structure. >> >> >> The energy release must result from emission of something. Normally in >> hot fusion, the release results from emission of a strong gamma when He4 >> forms. This gamma is not present when He4 forms during cold fusion. Why >> not? The mechanism of energy transfer is obviously not conventional, yet it >> must be consistent with the law of conservation of momentum. I try to >> solve this problem in my theory. Most people ignore the issue. >> >> Ed >> >> >> Every observer must see that the laws of physics apply to what he sees. >> My favorite point is to be located precisely between the two protons as >> they head toward each other with exactly the same energy. In this location >> an observer sees that a finite amount of kinetic energy is measured for the >> two particles and that there is exactly zero momentum for the equal >> velocity pair. When they collide together, there is no motion required for >> the resulting alpha particle until it releases the excess energy. When >> that energy is finally emitted in some form, then a reaction force would >> result in relative motion of the alpha particle. In this manner, both >> conservation of energy as well as conservation of momentum is shown. >> >> In my experience, when these laws are seen by any one observer, then >> they are true for all of the others. Do you see a hole in this argument? >> How are the laws true for others but not for the one ideally located? >> >> Dave >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Edmund Storms <[email protected]> >> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >> Cc: Edmund Storms <[email protected]> >> Sent: Fri, Jan 25, 2013 10:38 am >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions >> >> The human mind is able to imagine endless possibilities. In order to >> make any progress, a triage must be done by eliminating the ideas that are >> so improbable or so illogical that they have very little chance of being >> correct. That is what I'm attempting to do. >> >> In any case, several basic rules MUST be considered. Hot fusion is a >> conventional 2 body-2 body reaction as is required to carry away the energy >> and momentum. Cold fusion is a 2-body to 1 body reaction that violates this >> condition. That violation MUST be acknowledged and explained. >> >> People are not free to imaginary any thing. Certain rules are known to >> apply. These rules are so basic that they MUST not be ignored. >> >> Ed Storms >> On Jan 25, 2013, at 8:22 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: >> >> d+d=n+He3 and d+d=t+p >> >> What about d+d+...+d=? We don't know. This is what many many particle >> models ends up being. Theyare hot fusion. The only difference it is that >> there are many, more than 2>, incoming nuclei to fuse. You cannot do that >> in experiments using colliders, it is too unlikely. So, you cannot say that >> cold fusion is any different than hot fusion that easily. >> >> 2013/1/25 Edmund Storms <[email protected]> >> >>> Yes, people try to explain LENR using the behavior described in the >>> paper. >>> >> >> >> -- >> Daniel Rocha - RJ >> [email protected] >> >> >> >> >
