On Feb 9, 2013, at 12:33 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
Experiments by Piantelli and information about early Rossi systems
indicate that a cold LENR system will produce high energy radiation,
but a hot system will not.
Alix, this statement does not describe the evidence. All we know is
what Rossi claims, i.e. that INITIALLY radiation is produced that is
reduced as the process continues. Many people have detected radiation
under various conditions.
How can we understand the physical meaning of these experimental
results?
It has been shown that coherent EMF in the form of time-dependent
potentials can lead to substantial cooling in Bose Einstein
condensates in an open system that allows entropy to be removed.
Formation of a Bose-Einstein condensate is routinely accomplished by
using laser light to cool the system – in laser cooling in the form
of scattered photons, in evaporative cooling in the form of
discarded atoms.
Energy is transferred from atoms to be cooled to atoms which are
rejected from the system.
In another example, this cooling technique is also used in cooling
elements in the formation of clusters.
Yes, but all of these processes you describe are done near absolute
zero while using complex apparatus. This has no relationship to cold
fusion.
Ionic clusters consist of a single ion surrounded by one or more
neutral molecules. They are created when a gas is cooled. Molecules
in the gaseous state are widely separated and move about in
continual motion. So widely separated in space are these molecules
that they exert no force of attraction upon one another, and
although they frequently collide, their kinetic energy is so high
they will not stick together. These gas molecules must be cooled to
reduce their kinetic energy and associated random motion.
As the temperature in the gas drops, however, molecular motion slows
and the molecules begin to gather and stick together. Eventually,
the motion slows sufficiently for intermolecular forces of
attraction to bind the molecules together into clusters that number
from a few to a few hundred individual molecules in size. If the
number of neutral molecules surrounding the ion in each cluster
becomes sufficiently large, an assemblage of clusters will resemble
a conventional bulk material--either a liquid or a solid.
Three common ways exist to produce clusters:
a) Gas aggregation sources: This is the oldest and easiest method
for cluster production. Atoms or molecules are evaporated into a
flow of rare gas atoms. The evaporated atoms are cooled in collision
with the rare gas. When the atoms or molecules loose enough energy
the cluster production is started.
b) Laser-ablation sources (surface sources, sputtering): Photon or
heavy particle impact on a surface leads to the desorption of atoms
or molecules. The released atoms or molecules are partially ionized
and form plasma. Similar like in the gas aggregation sources the
plasma is cooled by present rare gas that removes kinetic energy
from the system and cluster formation is achieved
c) Supersonic cluster sources: A gas under high pressure is expanded
adiabatically through a small nozzle. This is how noble gases are
liquefied.
In a LENR system where a metal lattice is present, the coherent
motion of the lattice will remove kinetic energy from the active
nuclear sites containing the Bose-Einstein condensates by rejecting
kinetic energy produced in these structures by nuclear processes
contained the metal lattice.
This description has no justification in theory or in observation.
Coherent motion of atoms does no occur spontaneously in a lattice.
If the coherent motion of the lattice is not robust enough, the
radiation produced by the nuclear reactions will be unmodified by
the cold lattice and escape as gamma rays.
I have no idea what you are describing by the above comment.
Ed
Cheers: Axil
On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Edmund Storms
<[email protected]> wrote:
Lou,
Any theory that proposes to use tunneling based on electrons being
concentrated must at the same time show how the resulting energy is
dissipated. Such energy is dissipated normally by the fusion product
breaking into two parts, which go off with high energy in directions
required to conserve momentum. This is called hot fusion and it is
well known and understood.
In contrast, during cold fusion the fusion product does not
fragment. It remains as He, but without the gamma emission as is
required to dissipate the energy. To be consistent with this
observation, a theory MUST explain how this nuclear energy is
dissipated. Simply proposing a process to overcome the barrier
without showing how the next step violates normal behavior is not
useful in explaining cold fusion. The Maimon theory is ok if it is
used to explain hot fusion because this is what would be expected
and what has been observed when tunneling conditions have been
created. People have to accept that hot fusion and cold fusion are
two entirely different phenomenon that play by different rules.
Confusion keeps being produced by trying to mix these two different
effects.
Ed
On Feb 9, 2013, at 10:09 AM, [email protected] wrote:
Ed,
I assume you are referring to Maimon's theory, which I am not
familiar with.
When you say "the expected reaction is hot fusion", are you only
referring to highly energetic collisions?
Do you think the theory X.Z.Li, et al, involving resonant tunneling
(at low kinetic energy), allegedly avoiding energetic byproducts,
might
be correct? Some references --
"Deuterium (Hydrogen) Flux Permeating through Palladium and Condensed
Matter Nuclear Science"
http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/LENR%20home%20page/acrobat/WeiQdeuteriumh.pdf
"A Chinese view on summary of condensed matter nuclear science"
http://166.111.26.4/JOFE2004Sept.Vol23No3P217.pdf
"Fusion energy without strong nuclear radiation"
http://www.springerlink.com/index/w4721655219541kk.pdf
"Multiple Scattering Theory (MST) and Condensed Matter Nuclear
Science—“Super-Absorption” in a Crystal Lattice—"
http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/LENR%20home%20page/acrobat/LiXZmultiplesc.pdf
I am agnostic on this topic, and am very interested in your view.
-- Lou Pagnucco
The problem Eric is that once the math is solved, the expected nuclear
reaction is hot fusion, not cold fusion. Consequently, this effort is
a waste of time. This is something the hot fusion field needs to
understand to explain the effect of bombarding materials with
energetic deuterons. The effort has no application to cold fusion.
Ed
On Feb 9, 2013, at 9:13 AM, [email protected] wrote:
Eric,
It's good to hear Ron Maimon is trying to develop this theory.
But, the math is truly confusing, bewildering and intimidating -
even to formulate the problem, let alone solve it.
When composite particles are involved, calculating tunneling
probability
is almost intractable - even in free space, much less in condensed
matter.
A recent paper on composite particle tunneling -
"Tunneling of a molecule with many bound states in three dimensions"
http://iopscience.iop.org/0953-4075/46/4/045201
(free - with registration)
- (and, the many references it cites) shows how tricky this is.
There are some related papers on arxiv.org too.
In the case of LENR, I think the empirical trumps the theoretical.
-- Lou Pagnucco
Eric Walker wrote:
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:08 AM, <[email protected]> wrote:
While it discusses the extreme focusing of ~1 MeV proton wave-
functions,
perhaps particles/ions in micro-/nano-channels in zeolites,
nano-crevices, nanostructures, ..., experience more wave-function
focusing than expected - possibly increasing tunneling probability
by dramatically increasing overlap of channel particle wave-
functions.
Ron Maimon was getting at a similar idea by having two deuterons
meet near
a palladium spectator nucleus, at the classical turning point where
the
strength of the positive charge of the palladium nucleus would push
the
positively charged deuterons back out again. With 20 keV of initial
kinetic energy, the deuterons would penetrate the electron shells
as far
as
the K shell before turning around again. At the turning point
their de
Broglie waves would be "enhanced,", or, presumably, focused, and as a
result overlap and tunneling would be more likely.
Several significant difficulties with this approach were raised
which have
not yet been brought to Ron's attention. Presumably he would set us
straight on what I misunderstood of what he was saying.
Eric
