Joshua Cude said: As for changing alpha decay with 10^18W/cm^2 lasers, I suppose it's a start. They get a factor of 2, which is not that far from the 20 or 30 orders of magnitude needed in cold fusion.
Axil says: How many orders of magnitude is implied by a alpha half-life reduction from 69 years to 5 microseconds? Or did you look at the experiment? On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Joshua Cude <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't know where you get the idea that cold fusion skeptics are > skeptical of all discoveries. The 2011 Nobel prize winners postulated the > very new dark energy, and they signed their emails Pons and Fleischmann > because they were initially uncertain of their results. "We didn't want > dark energy to be the next cold fusion," they said. CF skeptics, and yet > Nobel prize winning scientists. > > > As for changing alpha decay with 10^18W/cm^2 lasers, I suppose it's a > start. They get a factor of 2, which is not that far from the 20 or 30 > orders of magnitude needed in cold fusion. > > > You are aware, I assume, that it's quite easy to induce fusion on the > bench top with a small dc power supply to accelerate deuterons into > palladium hydride. It's making an energy profit that's the problem. > > > > On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 4:45 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Nanoplasmonics is a new science that is only a decade old. Almost every >> day now, this science produces another unbelievable breakthrough. >> >> A few days ago, I read an article that showed how light can reach a >> infinite speed when refracted by a custom build optical material. >> >> Invisibility shields are being fabricated using this new science. The >> skeptics of LENR need to be careful in their negative opinions in the age >> of new wonders. >> >> A.V. Simakin is the first experimenter to couple Nanoplasmonics with >> LENR. >> >> This is the demonstration of LENR you are after. >> >> Accelerated alpha-decay of 232U isotope achieved by exposure of its >> aqueous solution with gold nanoparticles to laser radiation >> >> A.V. Simakin, G.A. Shafeev >> >> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&ved=0CEMQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1112.6276&ei=25F9UdCiLqjC4AP3pYHIBQ&usg=AFQjCNFB59F1wkDv-NzeYg5TpnyZV1kpKQ&sig2=pB3pVPZuQrv_xT8EcvrwWA >> >> This is a good example of the modification of tunneling through >> nano-engineering. >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Joshua Cude <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> > 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 <[email protected]>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 >>>> <[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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
