On May 2, 2013, at 11:15 PM, Eric Walker 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).
Eric, tunneling in my mind is not real. It is a conceptual ploy to fix
a flawed understanding of how a process actually works. Consequently,
I do not use this concept.
The hydroton is a stable molecule having all the proprieties and
meeting all the requirements of a chemical structure. It is only
stable in the rare conditions created by the nano-crack structure.
However, because the hydrons are closer together than is possible
under any other condition and because the structure can resonate,
thereby causing the hydrons to get closer briefly and repeatedly, the
mass energy can leak out of the structure as it collapses to form a
new nuclear structure. This process has not been observed before
because the required conditions are very rare. Nevertheless, If the
required conditions are created and populated by enough hydrons, the
process will take place, as F-P first observed. That is the unique
lesson taught by the discovery. The discovery shows that something is
missing in our understanding of how nuclei of hydrogen can interact.
This missing process is only visible at very low energy. It was missed
previously because to much energy was applied causing this process to
be overwhelmed, hence made invisible.
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.
Yes, this is the new requirement and the great insight CF has required
physics to understand and accept. Understanding this requirement is
like seeing radioactivity or the effect of X-rays for the first time.
The eyes cannot be denied but the behavior makes no sense. A
rearrangement of how people view Nature must occur.
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.
Good, then we agree completely. I agree with your analysis below. The
theories ignore too much in order to fit one part of the behavior into
a narrow part of physics. They fail to see the big picture, as you
point out.
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.
I do not know what this statement means. The electron is operating as
part of the process of lowering the barrier. It must remain close to
the nuclei at all times for it to have this effect. However, once the
structure shrinks and has almost formed He, the electron can be
expected to become part of the final nuclei. You might call the
process k-capture if you want, which might occur for the same reason
it occurs in other conditions.
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.
Of course, anything is possible conceptually. I'm trying to simplify
the problem to make it tractable. Of course, I might be wrong, but I
have to start somewhere. In my case, I start by assuming that only one
NAE is involved and only a single mechanism operates. My goal is to
explore these assumptions. Other people are free to explore their own
assumptions. We will see who finds the gold first. My only objection
is being told that I'm wrong while the other approaches are accepted
without challenge. All of the explanations are probably wrong in
different ways at this level. The value of present theories is in
encouraging experiment and giving a logical path to better
understanding. I think my approach has a better ability to do this
than most of the other theories. My general failure to get the
important people in the field to understand this has been a serious
disappointment and one reason I see little future for me in this field.
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?
An answer to this question is too complex to give here. The main
behaviors are helium and tritium production and their relationship to
transmutation. The present theories no not explain these reactions
and, indeed, are modified to explain the Rossi claim for the Ni+p=Cu
reaction when this is clearly not the source of energy. Any theory
that can be modified to explain something that does not occur is not a
very useful theory. Instead, I predicted that deuterium production is
the source of energy and I'm waiting for people to make the necessary
measurements. I predicted that Rossi and others were wrong based on my
model. No other model made this prediction. We will soon see which
approach is correct.
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.
Yes, his approach is correct, but I do not agree with how he solves
the problem.
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.
Here we have a very basic conflict in approach. I believe that all
the laws now known to control behavior in a lattice must be obeyed by
the CF process. These laws prevent what you propose. I will not
explain this here because it is explained in my papers. If you want to
ignore the laws of thermodynamics, then you have more serious problems
in having your ideas accepted than just explaining CF.
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.
I agree. That is the problem. People will object to any explanation.
This will happen until the required shift in attitude has occurred.
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.
Good to hear. Too bad NASA is not as smart.
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 will read what he wrote and reply later.
Ed Storms
I've had several exchanges with him since then and can fill in some
of the details.
Eric
