On May 2, 2013, at 11:49 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
How do theories explain lead, boron, iron and beryllium in LENR ash?
Transmutation occurs but not at the a rate required to make detectable
energy. Addition of a hydron to a target atom frequently is followed
by fission into smaller fragments. My theory predicts transmutation
occurs along with fusion of hydrons, but as a minor secondary
reaction. The energy and conditions associated with the fusion
reaction provide the ability to overcome the huge Coulomb barrier for
the transmutation process. Without this extra energy, transmutation
would be impossible according to my mpdel.
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?
The electric discharge provides ions to the NAE, which are combined
there to make the hydroton. Only ions can enter the NAE. These ions
either come from hydron dissolved on the metal or are made by ionizing
the gas. Because very few ions are present in Ni, making extra ions in
the gas is necessary to have the process operate at commercial rates.
Why do only even Z elements work in LENR.
I know of no such requirement
If this is true, how can you build up elements one neutron or proton
at a time.
This looks like fission to me.
Of course, some fission occurs. However, this is not the main reaction.
Ed Storms
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
