Do some research into the Shukla-Eliasson effect.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.0914.pdf


On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:41 PM, Eric Walker <[email protected]> wrote:

> A few days ago I wrote this about a 1989 paper in Physical Review B by a
> group at UC Berkeley:
>
> What the 1989 paper did not look at was the possibility that you might be
>> able to excite lattice atoms into Rydberg states, where some of the
>> electrons have additional energy, but not enough to ionize and be ejected
>> from the atom.
>>
>
> Since then I have followed up with a question on physics.stackexchange.com,
> asking whether Rydberg states are possible within the bulk of a metal [1].
>  Ben Crowell provided an interesting response, which I think has been
> unfairly downvoted (without an explanation) -- I would not be surprised if
> he is correct.
>
> A question that was linked to my question was raised by Ron Maimon toward
> the end of 2012 [2].  He felt that NiH posed a challenge for his theory, as
> he did not know how to link the two together.  He does not like the idea of
> p+d as the reaction behind NiH, as he thinks that critical parameters would
> be too small and that the rate would be too low to create a chain reaction
> sufficient to keep things going (see the comments to his question for a
> discussion).  He clarified that in order for appreciable fusion to take
> place, the precursors must approach to within a very small distance of one
> another -- .0001 to .1 Angstroms.  This for him ruled out any possibility
> of electron screening being important, as it would involve distances from
> .1 to 1 Angstroms, which are on the wrong scale to do anything interesting.
>
> His complaints are thought provoking.  On one hand they give a better
> sense of the scales involved.  On the other they make his specific theory
> less rather than more likely in my mind, for the deuterons in PdD must
> approach *very* close to the lattice site nuclei, which are little
> pinpoints in a big sea of electrons and empty space.  This makes clearer
> the difficulty that Robin pointed out sometime back, i.e., what is it that
> is causing the deuterons to converge upon the lattice sites in Ron's
> theory?  Now that I have a better mental picture of the scales involved
> (.0001 to .1 Angstroms), I am a little doubtful about the specific
> mechanism that Ron proposes.  He talks about the deuterons being in
> banded states, but I'm not familiar enough with these to get a sense of how
> they are thought to work.
>
> One thing that is very nice about his theory, however, is that it provides
> a way to quickly dispose of the mass energy that must be dumped upon the
> creation of a metastable [2d]* two-deuteron resonance, or [pd]* resonance,
> as has been discussed here, in order to avoid the usual fusion branches and
> gamma rays.  In Ron's account, this energy is electrostatically dumped into
> the palladium lattice nucleus.  As a consequence, his theory implies fast
> 4He, and it is fast 4He that keep the reaction going.  What I will now try
> to think about is seeing whether that energy might be dumped instead into a
> nearby electron in the ambient electron cloud that fills much of the volume
> of the metal.  In this case, the daughter 4He would be nearly motionless
> instead of fast, and you would get a electron on the order of 24 MeV instead.
>  That would imply lots of Bremsstrahlung, for sure.  But it would also
> provide a way to carry the reaction forward, this time, by changing the
> electron charge density and increasing screening, through some as yet
> undetermined mechanism.
>
> The new outline leaves at least three important unknowns to be sorted out
> -- (a) How do the p's and d's acquire sufficient energy to fuse, even with
> screening?  (b) What causes the electron charge distribution to change?
>  (c) What happens to the Bremsstrahlung?
>
> Eric
>
>
> [1]
> http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/74651/can-rydberg-states-exist-within-the-bulk-of-a-metal
> [2]
> http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/43960/is-there-any-reproducible-tested-evidence-for-ni-h-cold-fusion
>
>

Reply via email to