Ed, Thanks for your reply.
Your statement may be correct. I am looking for overlooked explanations for paradoxical LENR experiments. The Feynman Lecture reference I cited at the start of this thread shows that electrons in electric arcs can pick up significant linear momentum as current is interrupted. Due to their small mass, this extra momentum can give electrons a relativistic increase in kinetic energy, and so more mass. This quite counter-intuitive, since kinetic energy is normally defined in terms of velocity. High kinetic energy particles normally move - fast. However, because the electron momentum is defined by a differential operator, an immobile electron wave packet can gain kinetic energy by becoming more localized, and having a more oscillatory envelop. Perhaps this happens when an arcing electron collides with a proton, deuteron or triton which experiences an equal, opposite momentum 'kick' as the current stops. The deuteron and triton have obvious structure. The proton does also since it is a 'quark bag'. Possibly this structure is enough to trap an immobile (lab frame) colliding electron whose momentum is ramping up. K-shell electron capture is another conjecture. I checked my math. I think it is correct. This is also related to "hidden" field momentum, which manifests itself in the "Feynman disk/cylinder (pseudo-)paradoxes." I believe that a similar analysis can be done for strong local transient coulomb forces in plasmons. All just a waste of time, if there really are no LENR transmutations, tho. -- Lou Pagnucco > Lou, most experiments apply no extra energy other than temperature or > electric current. We know that the level of temperature and current > used do not and cannot initiate a nuclear reaction. Something else is > important. Yes, small local variations in energy might occur, but > these are not even close to what is required to initiate a nuclear > reaction. We are discussing the LENR effect here, not whether small > variations in energy might occur in a material based on some novel > process. That subject requires a different discussion. > > Even when high energy is applied on purpose, such as by using ion > bombardment, the energy required to get the observed rates is many > thousands of eV and the result is hot fusion, not cold fusion. > Consequently, we now know that energy cannot be spontaneously > concentrated enough to cause the observed rates and if it were > concentrated, the result would be only hot fusion. > > People keep trying to suggest minor processes that are observed to > occur in materials under conditions that have no relationship to cold > fusion. These discussion, while interesting and I'm sure informative, > are not related to the subject at hand. If you want to understand CF, > you need to focus on what is known about CF. > > We know that energy cannot spontaneously concentrate to levels > required to initiate a nuclear reaction. We know that when energy is > applied at the required level, hot fusion results, not cold fusion. > Nevertheless, modest extra energy applied to when LENR is already > occuring does increase the rate. This means the extra energy is not > required to initiate the process, but affects some aspect of the > process already in progress, such as diffusion. You need to explore > how energy might affect the process, not how it might start the process. > > Ed Storms > [...]
