How do theories explain lead, boron, iron and beryllium in LENR ash? Explain this:
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/35/SR35906insights.shtml Isotopic Anomalies Reveal LENR Insights How do theories explain the need for heat and/or electric discharge to activate LENR? Why do only even Z elements work in LENR. If this is true, how can you build up elements one neutron or proton at a time. This looks like fission to me. On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 1:15 AM, Eric Walker <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 8:15 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]>wrote: > > 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. >> > > Yes -- you are right. I forgot that we were working with hydrogen atoms > (1H) and not bare protons. Thank you for correcting my mistake. I now > have a better idea of what you're proposing. > > As your shielded 1H atoms approach one another, your hypothesis requires > that they pass beyond a certain threshold that is less than normal atomic > distances -- there's a limit that's approached as they finally come close > enough to fuse into 4He. Be careful about tunneling -- I think the > probability will increase dramatically as that threshold is crossed. But, > then again, it may be that since we're dealing with atoms and not bare > nuclei, any snapping together of the hydrons that may occur due to > tunneling will be accompanied by the ejection of an electron and a lot of > kinetic energy rather than a gamma, a la Robin's approach (if I have > understood him). > > 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. >> > > This is an important assumption for your model (and for Hagelstein's, and > for several others). The assumption is basically that you need a gradual > way to fractionate the 24 MeV quantum. I understand why this assumption is > adopted -- it seems like there is no other possibility, given the > experimental evidence. But it is perhaps the Achilles heel of the various > theories at this point. Please keep in mind here that I am addressing a > low level detail about how the reaction proceeds and not an experimental > observation about the gradual release of EMF or the lack of neutrons. > > 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. >> > > I find Kim's, Takahashi's, and Haglestein's theories all equally > unsatisfying. Each theory posits a rarefied set of conditions that seem > unlikely to ever come together in the real world. It feels like they're > starting from quantum field theory equations rather than from an intuition > of what might happen in real life. At the end of the day, I suspect QFT, > to name one culprit, will have been a big barrier to understanding what is > going on in this instance. People are perhaps being reductionistic in > assuming that you can take an approach that works with great effort when > applied to narrow phenomena (what is the likelihood of an up quark flipping > to a down quark under such-and-such conditions?) and thinking that it will > get us vary far with a many-body problem like LENR. It sort of feels like > trying to explain ant colonies using cell biology -- they're different > collective phenomena, and cell biology can tell us about what's going on > inside an ant, but its value in telling us how ants behave socially is > limited. For that we need a different set of approaches that work at a > higher level; i.e., that are not reductionistic. For astronomy, we use > generalizations that are largely specific to that field rather than trying > to explain everything in terms of individual atoms and molecules, although > obviously there's a connection. Astronomers do this because the field is > not reductionistic. > > 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. :-) >> > > Yes, this reminds me of another difficulty I have with the hydroton > explanation -- I believe you need to accelerate the weak interaction for it > to work. > > 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. >> > > Your insistence on giving respect to the actual evidence is laudable. I > think more of this is needed. I will add that I think we have to be > careful not to assume that the only choice is between (1) a gradual release > of energy at the lowest level of the mechanism (and an electron capture in > this instance) and (2) independent events. That there is gradual release > of energy in terms of what is seen at the macroscopic level in experiments > is not in doubt. > >> 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. >> > > What behaviors are missing from the above? It is important here that we > cleanly separate out experimental data (e.g., gradual release of IR and > other EMF) from inferences about what is going on at the lowest level (a > gradual fractionation of the 24 MeV quantum into little pieces, happening > over an extended period). Also, I should add that there is more to "a > clean 4He + kinetic energy branch" than has been said above, which when > filled in will address additional observations. > > To the problem of quantum fractionation: I am aware of some of the > considerations that go into this. Hagelstein proceeds to adopt the > requirement that 24 MeV be sliced up into pieces because of the unwanted > result of hot-fusion neutrons that he expects to get when you have fast > deuterons racing around the system at greater than ~20 keV. Since there > are few neutrons, he assumes there must be an energy cap at around 20 keV > on all particles, and to accomplish such an energy cap you cannot have 24 > MeV released all at once; or so we are given to understand. Once we adopt > this premise, it is easy to understand why he has gone on to try to model > things the way he has. And I do not deny that this is an attractive > premise. > > 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. >> > > That there is an assembly of hydrons that forms is an assumption shared by > several theories. I find it unlikely. In your research you have come to > the conclusion that there is something chemical that happens for the NAE to > come together, and I do not have any reason to doubt this. But I do not > believe it has to be an assembly if hydrons; it could be something in the > substrate, for example (beyond just cracks). I suspect that the main > reason people start from assemblies of hydrons is that it fits their > preconceptions about what is going on. > > 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. >> > > Yes -- I do not wish to prevent you from attempting a modification of the > strong interaction. But we should obviously be clear that that's what > we're doing. As you say, any attempted explanation is going to have to > adopt as assumptions things that some people are going to find > objectionable. > > 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? >> > > The main reason I found W-L attractive was that I didn't know anything > about nuclear physics when I was first reading about LENR, and I liked that > it took care of the Coulomb barrier problem. Now that I know a little more > about nuclear physics and about all of the difficulties that W-L gives rise > to, I no longer find it a plausible hypothesis. > > 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. >> > > I wish. I've been asking him to write one up. The closest thing to a > paper is his post at physics.stackexchange.com; see the section titled > "My Personal Theory": > > http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/13734/6713 > > I've had several exchanges with him since then and can fill in some of the > details. > > Eric > >
