> Yes, tunneling is described using quantum mechanics. Nevertheless, it is applied because the concept of a barrier energy does not work.
No, that's wrong. The concept of barrier energy certainly does work. And again, tunneling is not "applied", it is a phenomenon predicted and observed. Set up an energy barrier, send a wave-function toward it, and use the standard procedure to calculate the probability of penetration. Works perfect. > A mathematical model was required to account for the rate of a reaction being greater than the barrier energy based on QM would allow. No. That's wrong. Tunneling comes out of QM formalism. It was not added in. > In the case of CF, the rate is much greater than expected based on the barrier energy obtained from hot fusion studies. Hot fusion shmot fusion. The claimed rate is much greater than QM predicts. The same QM theory that works in exquisite detail at low and high energy. > I'm proposing that this tunneling concept simply does not apply to CF. You're proposing that QM -- as she is spoke -- does not apply. You're not using the concept of tunneling correctly. > 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. Assuming you mean crutch, that's where you're so misguided. It's not a crutch. It's part of the theory. It comes directly out of Schrodinger's or Heisenberg's QM as first applied to describe the energy levels in hydrogen. Nothing was added to describe tunneling. > 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. No one disagrees that experiment rules. The disagreement is on the credibility of the experiments. The slow but sure decrease in the size of the claims as the experiments improve, as detailed in your own papers, is symptomatic of pathological science. On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > 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 <stor...@ix.netcom.com>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 >>> >>> >>> >> > >
