On May 25, 2013, at 1:41 PM, Andrew wrote:
Hi Ed,
I appreciate your nuclear insights; I ought to own up to the fact
that, although I have a first degree in physics (Oxford), I have
never practised nuclear physics professionally. So, I'm a bit
confused by this talk of gamma emission and electron capture, so I
went off to confirm my doubts. FWIW, Wikipedia agrees with my doubts
- namely, it's a neutrino, not a photon, that's emitted in K-
capture. Perhaps I misunderstand what you and others are saying.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture
Andrew, you need to evaluate the various theories separately because
they each purpose different processes. Yes, electron capture and
electron emission both involve the neutrino of various kinds. In my
case, the fusion reaction takes place over a period of time and the
mass-energy is released as a series of photons. The electron gets
absorbed at the end of the process when very little mass-energy is
available for release, hence the neutrino does not have much energy to
take away. This process is unique to LENR.
Also, a general comment about LENR. If we are trying to overcome the
Coulomb barrier, then let's look at mundane systems where we are
doing our damndest to bang them into each other.
I agree, no amount of mechanical banging as you describe can initiate
a nuclear reaction directly. My theory does not propose resonance in a
normal crystal structure. In fact, CF cannot occur by any process in a
normal crystal structure. Something MUST change. This change I call
the NAE. All theories require this change, although each proposes a
different change. In my case, I propose a very stable and unusual
covalent molecule between the hydrons can form in a gap of a critical
size. This gap forms as a result of stress relief. If it gowns wider,
it can be identified as a crack and is no longer active. This special
molecular structure is the NAE. It is able to initiate fusion only
because it causes the hydrons to get closer than is possible under any
other condition. Other theories suggest different reason for the
hydrons to get close enough to fuse. Once the hydrons are critically
close, a process must start that dissipates the mass-energy in quanta
too small to be easily detected. I propose this process involves
photon emission. Other theories propose phonons. Regardless of the
kind of emission, this process must involve movement that is the only
way energy of any kind can be transferred from one objcet to another -
thus resonance is proposed.
One example that springs to mind is a piezoelectric material like
barium titanate (BaTiO3). It's typically an FCC crystal structure
and, when excited electrically to vibrate, exhibits a very high Q-
factor at resonance. At high drive powers, the ions really do jiggle
a significant delta-distance, expressed as a fraction of the inter-
ion distance scale. And yet nothing like nuclear fusion has ever
been observed in piezoelectric materials. It would therefore appear
that investigating mechanical resonance in regular crystal
structures is not the mechanism for LENR, if such is real.
As you see from the above description, I agree.
In the case of the Rossi experiment, we know that we're not allowed
to know the stoichiometry of the initial powder, but the testers
were allowed to break open the reaction vessel after the run -
there's a photo of the cut tube and its powder content in the
report. Is it the case that Rossi disallowed analysis of this final
powder material? It would appear so, given that no such analysis
appears in the report.
Rossi treats the Ni to a special chemical reaction he calls a
catalyst, which I claim creates the required gaps. He does not want
anyone to discover what this material is. Nevertheless, this treatment
is the essential condition that causes Ni to become nuclear active.
Normal Ni is not active. Until people understand this fact, all
discussion is only chasing a wild goose. :-)
Ed Storms
Andrew
(this is a resend of a post which did not "take")
----- Original Message -----
From: Edmund Storms
To: [email protected]
Cc: Edmund Storms
Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 7:30 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved
On May 24, 2013, at 10:38 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]
> wrote:
On May 22, 2013, at 11:21 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
Ed,
I think the structure of the coulomb barrier is open to intrinsic
modification, but the variables governing this possibility cannot
be uncovered by the tools and concepts of high energy physics.
I agree. In fact, the insistence that high energy physics be used
is the flaw in the skeptical arguments.
In most situations the coulomb barrier behaves in a textbook
fashion, but when bathed in the right vibrations the barrier can
be "tuned" to "soften".
I think a different description is more useful. The two nuclei have
first to get critically close together by intervention of an
electron. This process is conventional. Once this happens and the
bond can resonate, the periodic reduction in distance causes the
nuclei to emit a photon (gamma). Each emitted photon allows hte
distance to be reduced because the energy of the system has now
been reduced, which reduces the Coulomb barrier. After enough
photons have been emitted, the two nuclei collapse into one, which
is the nuclear product. Of course, the intervening electron that is
required to reduce the barrier is sucked into the final nucleus.
The process you have described has the characteristics of a
ratchet. Curiously, Jones used the ratchet metaphor in another post
where he characterised the effect of modulating the input on the
cell.
Yes Harry, this can be called a ratchet. All kinds of ratchets exist
in Nature. The challenge is to find the cause. In this case, the
nuclei have to communicate before they have fused into a single
nuclei. The form of htat communication is unknown, but very
important. Once discovered, this will get someone the Nobel prize.
Imagine the following sequence. The nuclei are held apart by an
electron bond, which is normally the case. Once formed, this
structure starts to resonate so that the two nuclei get periodically
closer together. As they approach each other, information is
exchanged between the nuclei that tells them they have too much mass
-energy for being this close. After all, if they were in contact,
the excess mass-energy would be 24 MeV if the nuclei were deuterons.
But they are not in contact yet, so that the excess mass-energy is
less than the maximum. Nevertheless, this excess must be dissipated,
which each nuclei does by emitting a photon having 1/2 of the excess
energy for the distance achieved. After the photons are emitted, the
resonance moves the two nuclei apart, but this time not as far as
previously the case. The next resonance cycle again brings the
nuclei close, but this time they come closer than before, again with
emission of two photons. This cycle repeats until all energy has
been dissipated and the two nuclei are in contact. The intervening
electron, that was necessary to the process, is sucked into the
final nucleus. Because very little energy is released by entry of
the electron, the neutrino, if it is emitted at all, has very little
energy available to carry away.
This process, I suggest, is the unique and previously unknown
phenomenon that CF has revealed.
Ed Storms
This model requires the nuclei to "know" that they must emit energy
when they get close and that magnitude of the Coulomb barrier is
sensitive to the excess mass-energy of the two nuclei.
Ed Storms
Is this another way of saying it is related to the nuclear force?
If so then the ratchet is the nuclear force.
harry
