Mea culpa. The activity of the bulk sample decreases by a factor of two as a result of exposure, but the deduced half-life, taking account of the laser duration and volume is pretty dramatic all right.
But none of this is contrary to ordinary QM, and plausible mechanisms are proposed. Like I said, there are easy ways to induce fusion in metal hydrides. From dc electric fields demonstrated by Cockcroft and Walton in the 30s, to muon-catalyzed fusion in the 50s, to pyroelectric fusion in the 00s. The problem is making a profit. Still, an interesting paper all right. But it ain't LENR of the P&F variety. Citing effects that are not inconsistent with theory does not make effects that are inconsistent with theory any more plausible. On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
