Joshua Cude swaid: Like I said, there are easy ways to induce fusion in metal hydrides.
Axil says: This is true if you consider water a hydride. It has been experimentally demonstrates that EMF enhancement of upto 10^^15 is produced with the proper nanoplasmonic nanoantenna. The referenced experiment maybe only does 10^^9 enhancement because gold is not reactive. Nickel give a few more orders of magnitude over gold, say in the 10^^18 range. I suspect Rossi and DGT are way beyond this level because of the secret sauce(optically enhancing chemical additives). On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 7:12 PM, Joshua Cude <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
