It would help if you even tried to understand what other people say
rather than using insults. Yes, tunneling is described using quantum
mechanics. Nevertheless, it is applied because the concept of a
barrier energy does not work. A mathematical model was required to
account for the rate of a reaction being greater than the barrier
energy based on QM would allow. Yes, QM was used and it can be very
accurate when applied to certain systems.
In the case of CF, the rate is much greater than expected based on
the barrier energy obtained from hot fusion studies. I'm proposing
that this tunneling concept simply does not apply to CF. The CF
reaction is not the result of tunneling through the expected barrier.
The concept has no meaning when applied to this process. Obviously,
the concept has some value when applied elsewhere, although I suspect
it is more of a church than an explanation. But then, I do not expect
you to agree because you value conventional thinking. The CF
phenomenon demonstrates that conventional thinking is not always
correct.
Yes, I'm a believer in CF because I value what I can see more than I
value what you and other people claim must be true based on what you
call elementary physics. Obvious, some part of your belief is wrong.
I'm trying to find out which part. What are you trying to do?
Ed Storms
On May 3, 2013, at 2:25 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:
Tunneling is not "applied" when an unexpected phenomenon occurs.
Tunneling is a phenomenon completely described within quantum
mechanics. The word is a metaphor because it represents a particle's
ability to penetrate a narrow potential energy barrier higher than
its own kinetic energy, but the phenomenon is perfectly well
described by quantum mechanical theory developed nearly a century
ago, and taught at the undergraduate physics level. The experimental
rates match the expected rates to ridiculous accuracy.
The only conflict is with classical mechanics. But tunneling is not
superimposed on classical theory so classical theory can be
retained. Quantum mechanics is a self-consistent theory, and
tunneling is an intrinsic part of it.
Perhaps it's no wonder that someone with such a misguided
understanding of elementary physics is also a true believer in cold
fusion.
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Edmund Storms
<[email protected]> wrote:
Perhaps, Joe, I should be more exact. We are not discussing motion
of electrons through a material. The concept of tunneling might be
useful to describe this behavior. We were discussing nuclear
reactions. Tunneling is applied when a reaction that should not be
possible based on a theory is found to actually occur at an
unexpected rate. This conflict with theory is then explained by the
ability of the process to avoid the expected barrier and pass under
it, so to speak. This allows the original theory to be retained even
though behavior is not properly described. Instead, a whole new
theory is superimposed on the original flawed description. I prefer
to change the original concept to avoid the need to create a new
concept. In fact, the existence of LENR shows that the original
concept is incomplete. Invoking "tunneling" simply hides the problem.
Ed Storms
On May 3, 2013, at 9:44 AM, Joseph S. Barrera III wrote:
On 5/3/2013 8:31 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:
> 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.
Tunneling is very real. Semiconductor manufacturers have to worry
about tunneling already. It's a massive problem for them as they
continue to shrink feature size, as the electrons simply tunnel
through the gate when they shouldn't, and below a certain size the
transistor is "always on".
- Joe
