On May 2, 2013, at 6:56 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 7:43 AM, Edmund Storms
<[email protected]> wrote:
I now propose it is a chain formed from 2p bonds that allow a series
of hydrons to form a chain of atoms. This kind of bond is normally
not stable. I propose it becomes stable in the crack for reasons I
will not describe here. The bond provides an electron between the
nuclei as a normal consequence. This high probability of an electron
between the hydrons reduces the barrier and brings the nuclei closer
together than is normally achieved. This eliminates your first
objection.
In this scenario you have two positive charges (+2) and a cloud of
charge -1 sandwiched between them, making the balance approx. +1 or
greater, I assume (I'm guessing that the electron shielding is
diffuse). So there's still a bit of barrier to overcome, although I
gather the probability of tunneling increases. I do not have a
clear sense of how this affects things, but we still have Coulomb
repulsion to deal with. I don't think you want tunneling for your
explanation, since that will cause the hydrons to snap together. So
for it to work you probably need a normal, stead approach, which
seems unrealistic to me. The basic intuition is that there is a
very nonlinear potential curve that the nucleons can be expected to
traverse, making them hard to control, and that you need a linear
potential curve for your explanation to work as presently formulated.
Eric, before you make a conclusion you really need to understand what
I'm proposing, rather than using your own imagination. First of all,
the Hydroton is a neutral molecule consisting of an equal number of
elections and nuclei. The bond is formed with enough negative change
between the nuclei to bring them closer than normal. This distance by
itself is not sufficient to increase the fusion rate. In fact, simply
bring the nuclei closer, such as when a muon is used, produces hot
fusion. I and indeed all models need to find a mechanism that is able
to allow the energy to leak out while two or more hydrons are
assembled in one spot. I propose a resonance process is required to
initiate this release of energy.
Most of the theories bring many hydrons together by some proposed
process based on assumptions. Kim proposes the collection is held
together by a Bose-Einstein Condensate, Takahashi proposed a new kind
of bonding can occur between the normal hydron molecules, Hagelstein
proposes a collection forms in the metal atom vacancy. Mine is simply
another way to get hydrons together in one place by means of a normal
chemical processes. What happens next is the the unknown process. The
collection of hydrons must interact and release energy. In addition,
an electron must be absorbed during the process in order to account
for tritium production. At this point, you need to think outside of
the box. It is easy to find reasons to reject this idea. Even I can do
it. :-)
The LENR phenomenon reveals the existence of a process that can
cause emission of mass-energy before the final He nucleus is fully
formed, because otherwise hot fusion results. The only unknown is
the exact nature of this process.
This is where I think you're headed in the wrong direction. It's
clear that you're looking for a way to conserve momentum, so that
you don't get 4He fragments and gamma rays -- i.e., hot fusion.
That is not the only requirement. The energy needs to leak out while
momentum is conserved, and an electron must be added as the nuclei
fuse. All of these processes must be part of the same logical
sequence. Considering only one requirement is the mistake everyone is
making. Or you can propose that a collection of independent events can
occur. Your choice.
But there are other ways to conserve momentum. I think Robin has
drawn attention to the possibility of f/H combining with another
nucleus and expelling the electron instead of a gamma or a fragment,
and Ron Maimon proposes something similar with a d+d reaction
occuring close to a palladium nucleus -- in that case the momentum
of the reaction is shared with the spectator nucleus, and as a
result the cross sections for 4He fragments and gammas are proposed
to be competitively disfavored over a clean 4He + kinetic energy
branch.
What is the point of considering ideas that have no ability to
explain all that has been observed? Of course, it is easy to explain
individual behaviors. The challenge is to explain ALL behaviors using
the same basic process.
My point here is not that one of these two mechanisms is what must
going on, it's only that there may be other ways to achieve
conservation of momentum, a clean 4He daughter and no gammas.
Yes, other ways may exist. I suggest you find them. Whatever you
suggest, someone will reject it because it does not fit their
intuition, as you are doing. As I have said repeatedly, a proposed
process must do many things at the same time. Explaining a single
reaction, such as He formation, is useless. We need to explain what
condition makes the effect work and them show how all the observed
reactions can take place in that condition. That is what I'm trying
to do and have succeeded to some extent. I would welcome an idea that
can do better.
No matter what process is proposed, it must be consistent with a
structure that can form by chemical means. This requirement severely
limits the kind of structure that is possible. Nevertheless, the
demonstrated reality of CF requires such a structure to form. What
structure would you suggest?
Here I must defer to you on the formation of the cracks -- I have no
reason to doubt this. As for the formation of the hydroton, which I
take it is also what you have in mind when you mention "chemical,"
I'm a lot less sure about.
A structure must form consisting of two or more hydrons. This is
basic. Each theory has proposed a method and gives a name to the
assembly. I call mine the Hydroton. Can you think of another way this
assembly can be accomplished using known chemical behavior? Until you
can propose another possibility, I suggest you examine my idea with an
open mind.
By the way, nuclei do not snap together because the strong force is
obviously not operating as expected. Perhaps, the theory of the
strong force acting outside of the nucleus needs to be modified.
You have now used up one of your three miracles and have two left. ;)
You assume that present theory is complete and correct in this
regard. My reading of physics reveals many uncertainties and debates
about just how the nuclear force drops off with distance. Some people
even propose that the electron can pass through the nucleus while
being captured on a occasion. How do you know that the electrons in
the Hydroton are not passing through the nucleus and in the process
communicating information about how much mass-energy should be present
to maintain a stable condition? I'm not suggesting this happens, but
you are in no position to say that it does not happen based on what is
accepted in physics. No miracle is required, only a willingness to
accept new possibilities that seem to be accepted when physicists
explain nuclear interaction.
The basic problem is that LENR is impossible if all objections are
correct. But LENR is possible, therefore some objections are not
correct. Now you need to decide which objection you are willing to
modify. My approach is to find a logically consistent process that
can be applied to all observations without violating any BASIC law
and without making arbitrary assumptions. Of course, gaps exist
within this logical structure, which I identify. Nevertheless the
structure allows the process to be partially understood and
hopefully made reproducible. Full understanding will only happen
after an army of graduate students have finished their work.
This makes sense -- there appears to be some flawed assumption going
on in statements to the effect that LENR is impossible. Here I am
at the mercy of you and Michael McKubre and Melvin Miles and others,
epistemologically speaking, since I've never seen LENR in operation
myself. Even if I have reservations with the hydroton, I still
think it's worth of research attention.
Thanks, that is a start.
When you say "unpromising", what does this mean? I have proposed a
physical condition in which the nuclear reaction must occur, I have
proposed a nuclear process that predicts the observed products and
the variables that affect these reactions, and I have proposed the
form of the emitted energy. What is unpromising about that?
By "unpromising," I mean only that it is not my working hypothesis.
I have no strong opinion here, really. As for my own working
hypothesis, it is that Ron Maimon is on to something. But at one
point I really liked W-L, so who knows where things might go.
The W-L theory has so many basic flaws, I'm amazed it is considered. I
listed 5 in previous discussions and in my book. Other people have
pointed out other flaws. This theory violates all requirements
normally applied to a theory in science, yet it is discussed. Why? Has
Ron described his idea in a paper? If not, it is not worth discussing
because without details we can have no idea what he is actually
proposing.
Ed Storms
Eric
