Eric, the details do not matter. The basic idea is wrong. The details
are just a series of arbitrary assumptions to avoid dropping the
initial premise. We are simply playing whack-a-mole. He strings a
collection of words together that have no logical relationship, but
because the vocabulary of QM mathematics is used, no one questions the
statements. If Ron wants to make a contribution, he needs to apply
his ideas to what actually exists in the real world based on what
material science has agreed is real based on much study. Simply making
up concepts to which math is applied is not useful except as a game.
Also, we are describing a mechanism. Describing one part in isolation
is not useful. This is like saying an automobile works by turning the
key in the ignition and then go on to describe the key in great detail.
On Feb 12, 2013, at 10:42 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 7:13 AM, Edmund Storms
<[email protected]> wrote:
There is no alpha. The helium CAN NOT MOVE spontaneously. The helium
contains extra energy as mass. This mass must be converted to energy
before it can appear as reaction energy. The He is fixed in space.
Normally the He nucleus explodes into fragments producing hot
fusion. Or it emits a gamma which releases the mass-energy. This
conversion CAN NOT OCCUR outside of the nucleus simply by being near
a Pd.
I suspect that you are very busy and haven't had time to read Ron's
writeup closely. Here is what he says about the production of the
alpha:
The fusion of deuterons always happens through unstable intermediate
states, and the cross section to alpha particle is only small
because of the same non-relativistic issue. To get an alpha, you
need to emit a gamma-ray photon, and emissions of photons are
suppressed by 1/c factors.
Yes, this is why the hot fusion products occur rather than helium.
Even this statement is ambiguous - what does 1/c factors mean? In
fact, the explanation is much easier to understand simply by noting
that energy can be lost by the nucleus exploding into its parts faster
than it can be released by gamma emission. The issue is based on
relative rates. Why is gamma emission slow? It is slow for the same
reason it is slow when photons are emitted from any energetic
nucleus. Many explanations have been suggested including the need to
assemble the required energy and spin in the nucleus before the photon
can be emitted. The statement of 1/c factors has no relationship to
this process.
When there is a nucleus nearby, it can be kicked electrostatically,
and this process is easier than kicking out a photon, because it is
nonrelativistic (the same holds for an electron, but with much
smaller cross section due to the smaller charge, and there is no
reason to suspect concentration of wavefunction around electron
density, as there is for a nucleus).
Here Ron makes an assumption that has no justification. The nearest
nuclei is many Å away and surrounded by electrons. Any nuclear-nuclear
interaction is impossible. That is why spontaneous nuclear reactions
are so rare.
The time-scale for kicking a nucleus is the lifetime of the two-
deuteron resonance, which is not very long, in terms of distance, it
is about 100 fermis, this is about the same size as the inner shell.
If the deuterons are kicking about at random, this coincidence is
not significant, but if the deuteron-hole excitations are banded, it
is plausible that nearly all the energetic deuteron-deuteron
collisions take place very close to a nucleus, as explained above.
This is word salad without meaning in the real world. He makes up a
number and then assumes it applies it to an imagined process. Yes,
the d must be bonded (or as he says banded), but how?
There are conservation laws broken when a nucleus is nearby. The
nucleus breaks parity, so it might open up a fusion channel, by
allowing deuteron pairs to decay to an alpha from a parity odd
state. Such a transition would never be observed in a dilute beam
fusion, because these fusions happen far away from anything else.
This hypothesis is not excluded by alpha particle spectroscopy
(there are a lot of relevant levels of different parities), but it
is not predicted either.
This is word salad. His statement about beams reveals an ignorance
about how beams are used. They are used to bombard a solid in which
many interactions take place resulting in hot fission.
Here there is a concept of a "two-deuteron resonance," i.e., the
metastable 4He you're talking about following upon the d+d fusion,
which will not last long and must shed some energy. Ron states or
alludes to the following in the above paragraph:
There is a metastable "two-deuteron resonance" that will decay.
This is the energetic 4He you're referring to, which will then go
and do something else.
There are three channels for the decay of the two-deuteron
resonance: (a) d+d → [2d]* → 3He+n, (b) d+d → [2d]* → t+p,
(c) d+d → [2d]* → 4He+ɣ. Normally (a) and (b) predominate and
(c) is rare. But the reason that (c) is rare is that it takes a
while for the photon to be produced (my reading, anyway, of
"emission of photons are suppressed by 1/c factors").
This is a restatement of the earlier comment, which is correct.
When there is a palladium nucleus (not atom) nearby, however, the
energy that would have been dumped as a photon will instead be
kicked to a proton in the palladium nucleus, a process that occurs
quickly rather than slowly. Because this occurs quickly, branch (c)
is enhanced and branches (a) and (b) are suppressed in direct
proportion.
This is an impossible assumption.
When the mass deficit of the two-deuteron resonance is
electrostatically dumped into the proton in the nearby palladium
nucleus on the order of 24 MeV, you will get a palladium nucleus
with additional kinetic energy an energetically stable recoil alpha,
moving quite quickly.
In his original description Ron has touched on points that address
nearly every objection you have raised so far. His description may
well be incorrect, but I suspect it is not incorrect for the reasons
you have mentioned so far.
Eric, this discussion is a waste of time simply because the concept
has no relationship to reality. Clever people can create all kinds of
personal realities that are useful as games or as a guide for their
lives. But in science, the reality has to be shared based on centuries
of hard work by millions of people. New ideas have to fit into what is
known and must be described using words that have common meaning.
People seem free to imagine anything about CF that would be laughable
if applied to any other field of study.
I don't mean to press this issue. I just think Ron's theory should
be read closely before objections are raised; some very good
objections have already been raised in earlier threads. I
understand if you're too busy or if this lead does not seem to merit
your time. There may be interest among others here. It is also
entirely possible that while Ron knows something about the math
involved, he knows nothing about what happens with these things in
real-life. I am wary of drawing this conclusion myself without
further evidence.
You are on the right tract. Just have more courage to call a spade a
spade, or more exactly call nonsense what it is.
Ed
Eric
