You are on the right road on the way toward LENR. Now look at what plasmons, polaritons excitons and Plexcitons are. Then we will go from there.
Cheers: Axil On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 2:05 AM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: > This is an interesting discussion Robin. I have worked with resonances > for many years in radio design so I see parallel behavior. It is quite > common to drive a system with frequencies that are below the resonance and > obtain the driven response. You can start at essentially zero hertz and > work your way up as long as you can figure a way to couple to the system. > I believe we would agree that normal heating of a system of metal atoms > results in their vibration at a random average rate. The magnitude of the > vibration should be proportional to the temperature which is then > proportional to the average kinetic energy of the atoms. > > Until I considered what you just wrote, I had not given much thought to > the coupling between the electrons in orbitals and the nucleus of the > atoms. How tightly are they actually connected when in a metal crystal? I > can see how it might be possible to obtain a very large Q if the nucleus is > weakly restrained by the electrons. The spring analogy is a good one and > it is interesting that you were able to obtain a spring constant equivalent > for the mass to stretch and relax as it moves up and down, etc. How do you > calculate a loss factor that damps the vibration? And, if the losses of > each atom associated with the metal are very small, then there would be a > lot of coupling occurring between nearby atoms. In radio design, you can > reduce the actual coupling coefficient between two resonant tanks as the Q > of each rises and still have the ability to transfer a large amount of > energy between them. This is a common practice in band pass filter design. > > If the coupling between nearby atoms is adequate for the Q then we > should see a large amount of energy being transferred in the vicinity of > the resonances. That would be a good way to drive the metal into a frenzy. > > I am trying to visualize your explanation as to the difference between > heat and sound wave movement in materials. I am not convinced that there > is a big difference. Normal random heating must occur as kinetic energy > and linear momentum is propagated into an adjacent region. Take as example > the toy composed of hanging steel balls. Assume that they are a little > separated in distance instead of physically touching. The first ball would > hit the next one in the line and it would come to a complete stop while the > new one continues with all the momentum and kinetic energy forward. This > ball would collide with the next one on down the line. In this case the > energy would move as fast as the beginning ball onward. Could we consider > this as heat energy? I think so since it represents kinetic energy of the > ball which could be scaled up with more of the same to represent a higher > temperature. > > That simple model appears to clarify the issue. Notice that the energy > and momentum was directed away from the source ball at a rapid pace which > seems to far exceed what we normally think of as heat transfer. Now, I > think that this is indeed exactly how it works. This is only one half of > the system and the other half is energy being directed back towards the > original heat source. How interesting. > > Now I understand why the thermal gradient is what drives the transfer of > heat from a hot to cold region. The kinetic energy of the hot particles is > continually being directed outwards and meanwhile energy is returning from > the other direction. The hot regions sends a larger quantity of heat > outward than it recovers and the difference between these two processes can > be represented as the temperature gradient. Heat does not generally move > at full speed as in the toy case because there are a multitude of > balls(atoms) that share the momentum among themselves with collisions. > The total momentum and kinetic energy moves outwards, but it spreads out > into the total metal matrix and does not move as a strongly coordinated > wave. > > Sound on the other hand is coordinated. For the toy analogy you can > think of a sound wave as being the result of a surface containing a large > number of the toys that are driven in a coordinated manner so that the > motion continues with minimal spreading. In this case, the overall motion > consists of parallel compression waves moving in one direction. Sound > waves are thus coordinated in time and space while heat is not. Sound can > therefore move at the maximum speed throughout the material while heat has > to randomly spread forward which is much slower. > > Forgive me for the thinking process that proceeded as I was writing. > Sometimes it is important to follow how a thought is formulated. > > I think this understanding I just visualized is a fairly good > description of the physics behind the two processes. What do you think > Robin? > > Dave > > > -----Original Message----- > From: mixent <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Thu, Feb 28, 2013 8:24 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV > > In reply to David Roberson's message of Thu, 28 Feb 2013 16:44:14 -0500 > (EST): > Hi Dave, > [snip] > >Because it is just wrong! Kidding Robin. Now I am confused a bit, are you > calculating that if I displaced an atom by a tiny amount and let go of it that > it would begin to vibrate at that frequency as the energy damped out? > > Yes. > > >Maybe so, I was not thinking of that process. I assumed that you were > >figuring > out the vibrations due to the temperature of the metal. If what you > calculated > is accurate then an incoming photon of that frequency would easily be absorbed > by one of the atoms and start it vibrating in place. > > Precisely. And heat has an appropriate frequency. Most sound waves OTOH do > not. > In fact they are "off" by many orders of magnitude. Hence my suspicion that > this > is the reason for the difference in speed between sound and heat in a solid. > > >Do you have any idea of how high the Q of the resonance would be? You might > find that energy is stolen away by the nearby atoms quickly. > > I think measuring the speed of heat transport in the solid answers that > question, since that's exactly what's happening when heat spreads. I.e. energy > is transferred to other atoms. The Q must be pretty high, since the speed of > heat spread is usually very low, except in metals where it is also spread by > free electrons. > > > > > > >It would be interesting if you could calculate a similar resonant frequency > >for > the motion of just the nucleus. > >Displace it slightly and allow it to wiggle back and forth within its > >electron > cloud that is somewhat confined by the atoms surrounding it. > > 99.975% of the mass of an atom is in the nucleus, so this *is* essentially > what > I calculated. > Since the nucleus is effectively suspended friction free in a mesh of electric > fields (think springs), that explains why the Q is so high. > > >I wonder if a free atom in space exhibits a resonance of this nature? One > might think that in free space that the electrons would compensate for the > nucleus movement so quickly that it would immediately radiate the energy. > [snip] > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk > http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html > >
