U.S. Navy scientists claim cold fusion breakthrough
Eds: A terrific comment back-and-forth has developed on this post since we published it March 24. If your interests trend toward particle physics and cold fusion, treat yourself with a read.
Researchers are reporting compelling new scientific evidence for the existence of low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR), the process once called “cold fusion” that may promise a new source of energy.
One group of scientists, for instance, describes what it terms the first clear visual evidence that LENR devices can produce neutrons, subatomic particles that scientists view as tell-tale signs that nuclear reactions are occurring.
Low-energy nuclear reactions could potentially provide 21st Century society a limitless and environmentally-clean energy source for generating electricity, researchers say. The report, which injects new life into this controversial field, will be presented here today at the American Chemical Society’s 237th National Meeting. It is among 30 papers on the topic that will be presented during a four-day symposium, “New Energy Technology,” March 22-25, in conjunction with the 20th anniversary of the first description of cold fusion.
“Our finding is very significant,” says study co-author and analytical chemist Pamela Mosier-Boss, Ph.D., of the U.S. Navy’s Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWAR) in San Diego, Calif. “To our knowledge, this is the first scientific report of the production of highly energetic neutrons from an LENR device.”
The first report on “cold fusion,” presented in 1989 by Martin Fleishmann and Stanley Pons, was a global scientific sensation. Fusion is the energy source of the sun and the stars. Scientists had been striving for years to tap that power on Earth to produce electricity from an abundant fuel called deuterium that can be extracted from seawater. Everyone thought that it would require a sophisticated new genre of nuclear reactors able to withstand temperatures of tens of millions of degrees Fahrenheit.
Pons and Fleishmann, however, claimed achieving nuclear fusion at comparatively “cold” room temperatures — in a simple tabletop laboratory device termed an electrolytic cell.
But other scientists could not reproduce their results, and the whole field of research declined. A stalwart cadre of scientists persisted, however, seeking solid evidence that nuclear reactions can occur at low temperatures. One of their problems involved extreme difficulty in using conventional electronic instruments to detect the small number of neutrons produced in the process, researchers say.
In the new study, Mosier-Boss and colleagues inserted an electrode composed of nickel or gold wire into a solution of palladium chloride mixed with deuterium or “heavy water” in a process called co-deposition. A single atom of deuterium contains one neutron and one proton in its nucleus.
Researchers passed electric current through the solution, causing a reaction within seconds. The scientists then used a special plastic, CR-39, to capture and track any high-energy particles that may have been emitted during reactions, including any neutrons emitted during the fusion of deuterium atoms.
At the end of the experiment, they examined the plastic with a microscope and discovered patterns of “triple tracks,” tiny-clusters of three adjacent pits that appear to split apart from a single point. The researchers say that the track marks were made by subatomic particles released when neutrons smashed into the plastic. Importantly, Mosier-Boss and colleagues believe that the neutrons originated in nuclear reactions, perhaps from the combining or fusing deuterium nuclei.
“People have always asked ‘Where’s the neutrons?’” Mosier-Boss says. “If you have fusion going on, then you have to have neutrons. We now have evidence that there are neutrons present in these LENR reactions.”
They cited other evidence for nuclear reactions including X-rays, tritium (another form of hydrogen), and excess heat. Meanwhile, Mosier-Boss and colleagues are continuing to explore the phenomenon to get a better understanding of exactly how LENR works, which is key to being able to control it for practical purposes.
Mosier-Boss points out that the field currently gets very little funding and, despite its promise, researchers can’t predict when, or if, LENR may emerge from the lab with practical applications. The U.S. Department of the Navy and JWK International Corporation in Annandale, Va., funded the study. Other highlights in the symposium include:
Overview, update on LENR by editor of New Energy Times – Steve Krivit, editor of New Energy Times and author of “The Rebirth of Cold Fusion,” will present an overview of the field of low energy nuclear reactions, formerly known as “cold fusion.” A leading authority on the topic, Krivit will discuss the strengths, weaknesses, and implications of this controversial subject, including its brief history. (ENVR 002, Sunday, March 22, 8:55 a.m. Hilton, Alpine Ballroom West, during the symposium, “New Energy Technology)
Excess heat, gamma radiation production from an unconventional LENR device —Tadahiko Mizuno, Ph.D., of Hokkaido University in Japan, has reported the production of excess heat generation and gamma ray emissions from an unconventional LENR device that uses phenanthrene, a type of hydrocarbon, as a reactant. He is the author of the book “Nuclear Transmutation: The Reality of Cold Fusion.” (ENVR 049, Monday, March 23, 3:35 p.m., Hilton, Alpine Ballroom West, during the symposium, “New Energy Technology.”)
New evidence supporting production and control of low energy nuclear reactions — Antonella De Ninno, Ph.D., a scientist with New Technologies Energy and Environment in Italy, will describe evidence supporting the existence of low energy nuclear reactions. She conducted lab experiments demonstrating the simultaneous production of both excess heat and helium gas, tell-tale evidence supporting the nuclear nature of LENR. She also shows that scientists can control the phenomenon. (ENVR 064, Tuesday, March 24, 10:10 a.m., Hilton, Alpine Ballroom West, during the symposium, “New Energy Technology)
- California,
- chemist ,
- electricity,
- electrolytic cell,
- energy,
- Entertainment,
- Martin Fleishmann,
- Pamela Mosier-Boss,
- San Diego,
- Stanley Pons,
- Technology,
- United States Navy
- 8822 reads
Printer-friendly version | 
Send to friend
Cold Fusion Nuclear Reactions
A possible explanation for cold fusion reactions and an alternate explanation for SPAWAR CR-39 triple tracks can be found here:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf
Horace Heffner
Chemist vs. Physicist ...... vs. Astrophysicist
Max Planc said you have to wait until they all die off.
You have hit the sociological nail on the head.
Only an Astrophysicist can understand what is happening inside the palladium crystals.
Fleischmann said it in 1989 - "a million million atmospheres".
It is not kinetics. It is electrostatic pressure.
The hundreds of different approaches by researchers underscores the race for patent rights. They don't have the inclination to prove someone else's technology. If it isn't patentable, noone will invest. It is greed and jealousy. We are still in the Dark Ages.
What needs to be devised is a palladium engine that sucks in the protons, pinches them into helium and pipes them out so they don't gum up the works.
Researchers have stated that nuclear effects occured with ordinary water. Neutrons were created from protons and electrons in the same anvil. All kinds of nonsense is going on inside the crystals. Transmutation. Why not?
variations
To Anon-Robert:
In my earlier post I was trying to point out something the ECF hypothesis indicates COULD happen, without trying to imply there could be no variations on that theme. In my last post I tried to be more specific about variations being possible. Do note that the SPAWAR data indicates that high-energy neutrons are rather rare, compared to the total number of fusions that would have to happen to explain the excess heat. Whatever the mechanism is, that fuses two hydrogen nuclei, the evidence is clear that it needs to be able to carry away most of the energy most of the time for a D+D reaction (since practically no gammas are detected, while He-4 has been found (in other experiments) in amounts appropriate to the heat energy measured). That automatically means that only rarely might a full-energy neutron be released, even for a D+T reaction.
Regarding leptons, just because they might be involved in fusion, that does not mean the WAY they are involved must include the Weak Nuclear Force. Their ability to interact via the ElectroMagnetic Force is about 10^30 times their ability to interact via the WNF.
"Handel"
Your Comments
Handel,
Your points are well taken. But recall that you were the one that posted below that ECF experiments result in neutrons at maximum of 9 MeV--so, I was only making the observation that this energy level is not consistent with what was found in Navy experiment. OK, now you claim that higher levels of neutron energy are possible from ECF interactions.
Next, I can see how my suggested terminology (weak vs strong force LENR) is confusing. My point being that, since electrons and muon are leptons, and leptons are involved in weak force interactions, I thought it may be useful to distinguish cold fusion experiments that involve leptons directly (WF-LENR) as compared to those that do not (SF-LENR). The fact remains that leptons are not associated with all models that try to explain the energy released during cold fusion experiments. Perhaps you can suggest alternative ways to distinguish explanations of cold fusion that do and do not require the input of leptons.
Anon-Robert
energy
To anon-Robert, ECF does not arbitrarily predict a particular value for the neutron energy of a deuterium-tritium reaction. The value it could predict depends on the number of conduction-band electrons available to participate in the reaction. The fewer electrons, the higher-energy the neutrons will be. You wouldn't happen to know how many electrons are available at a given point within the metal lattice, would you? Oh, and the amount of electric current going through that spot, due to the electrolysis going on in a typical CF cell, could be a factor, too, in terms of making electrons available to participate in ECF. So don't jump to conclusions, please.
Next, whatever gave you the idea that the Weak Nuclear Force is involved in deuterium fusion? There is no reason for it to be, a good reason for it not to be involved. That's because the WNF does such things as change neutrons to protons (or vice-versa), and those sorts of changes NEVER happen in fusion of pure deuterium (or in fusion of deuterium with tritium). The WNF is only involved in protium-fusion, where two protons, the nuclei of Hydrogen-1, fuse to make Hydrogen-2 (deuterium) and one of the two protons turns into a neutron in the process. And since "control" CF experiments that use ordinary water instead of heavy water report no CF activity greater than can be explained by the natural content of deuterium in ordinary water (about 1 atom out of every 6500 hydrogens), there is still no reason to think the WNF has anything to do with cold fusion.
To ted 'at' debtrecoveryinitiative.org, you might find this page interesting: http://coldfusionpolicy.org/
"Handel"
Why no funding?
I'm a software guy, barely comprehending the discussion. I've been trying to get an idea as to whether or not the 60-minutes report last week (Sunday, April 25th, 2009) regarding 'cold-fusion' is to be taken seriously or not. I wrote to DARPA and suggested that a 'fuel depletion test' should be run to verify Dr. McKubre's results, and got an answer which basically said "It's not that simple..." Based on reading these entries, I now realize that is true.
However, it appears there is something close to a consensus amongst those who do understand this line of research that it has promise. My concern is that it appears (to me at least), that the national priorities on energy policy continue to be set almost entirely with the entrenched interests of the oil, gas & coal industry as primary, and that we would rather spend $1-Trillion (or so) over 40 years trying to figure out how to burn 'clean-coal', than fund one or more of several promising non-carbon or carbon-neutral options, such as this one.
1. Do we need a "Manhattan Project" for sustainable energy?
2. Is 'cold-fusion-2009' sufficiently plausible as a focus that would benefit from such an approach?
3. Would it not make more sense to divert some of the funds being allocated to exploring the "outer planets" (I believe the current number is $3-Billion) and applying it towards sustainable energy systems?
If anyone cares to respond: ted 'at' debtrecoveryinitiative.org
Navy neutron energy
To Handel,
Yes, I know about electron catalyzed fusion (ECF) --also is muon catalyzed fusion (MCF), the muon being a large type of electron. So, if ECF only predicts neutrons at maximum of 9 MeV, then this is conclusive experimental information that falsifies ECF as the cause of the Navy experiment. Why ? -- because they report neutrons that have a MINIMUM energy of 9 MeV up to ~ 15 MeV max. So, thanks for report, clearly Navy experiment not caused by electron catalyzed fusion--the search for the strong-force cause continues.
Also, recall the these types of fusion caused events by weak force is not at all what is predicted to be the going on in so-called cold fusion events as since Fleischman and Ponns in 1989--this is not what they predicted to be the cause--just not enough energy. I think it better we give another name to weak force causes that result in low energy input interactions of isotopes such as D and T. So, I suggest we call such events 'weak force activated low energy nuclear reactions' (WF-LENR) to distinguish from strong force events (SF-LENR). The results of the Navy experiment indicate a SF-LENR event has occurred--we need to understand the dynamics, because I predict such SF-LENR can result in 100's MeV if controlled properly. WF-LENR devises will in future warm my tea water, SF-LENR will in future power New York City and transform society as we know it.
Anon-Robert
Navy reactions
Robert, earlier in this Thread I described an alternate hypothesis, regarding "electron catalyzed fusion". It would occasionally create tritium from the D+D reaction, and once formed, that tritium would react with another deuterium to produce a high-energy neutron. Note a difference between the hypothesis you described and this one: Electron catalyzed fusion can produce 9MeV neutrons (due to amount of energy carried away by electrons before the fusion finalizes). It is even likely that most neutrons produced by T+D reactions will have significantly less energy than 14MeV. So, if the Navy data only supports 9MeV neutrons, the ECF hypothesis is the better "fit".
"Handel"
What type of fusion reaction in Navy experiment?
In their report, the Navy indicates they have no idea what type of fusion reaction must have occurred in their experimental set-up to cause the release of a very energy neutron in the 9-15 MeV range. They cite a few examples, one the well know D-D (deuterium-deuterium) type of reaction from 'hot fusion and a modified type D-D fusion within Pd by Takahashi.
I am now reading a very interesting book on the topic--'The Science of Cold Fusion Phenomenon", Hideo Kozima, 2006, Elsevier. In this book, Kozima offers an alternative explanation to the typical D-D fusion process which I think has merit. He calls his model of the process--Trapped Neutron Catalysed Fusion [TNCF Model]. I cannot present what it takes a whole book to present, but the TNCF Model could very well explain what the Navy found.
In a nutshell, the TNCF model suggests the fusion process occurs within spaces of metals such as Pd that have an affinity for hydrogen, both H (the proton) and D (deuterium). Next the TNCF uses the fact that neutrons constantly hit the earth, and that some of these background neutrons must be within any cold fusion set-up--that is, some must be within the Pd lattice along with the added D and other metals that may be present such as Lithium 3Li6. So, with the background neutron [N] in close packing to a D [NP], the TNCF model suggests that low energy input in the keV range can result in the background N to become a thermal neutron (Nt) and fuse with D to form tritium [NPN]. So the reaction is: (Nt) + D = tritium-energized(6.98 KeV) + gamma (6.25 MeV). Now, once this tritium is formed, it then can undergo a second reaction at the Pd electrode as such:T-energized + D = Helium-4(3.5 MeV) + high energy neutron (14.1 MeV). So, this high energy neutron with 14.1 MeV on average is right within the range of what was predicted by the Navy experiment. Of course then Navy evidence on the CR-39 film is that the high energy N hit carbon-12 to form the 3-pit pattern.
In summary, my point is, it is possible that what Navy observed may have nothing at all to do with D-D type fusion reaction that is well studied in hot fusion process. It is possible a new model is needed and the model must allow for enough energy to form a 3-pit pattern. The TNCF Model of Kozima meets this goal. Anyone interested in this topic must read the book by Kozima.
Now, one problem I see with Kozima TNCF is that background N is not a parameter that can be experimentally increased (?-or maybe it can), so some other factors must be responsible for the large range of heat energy observed in cold fusion type experiments. A nice test of the Kozima TNCF model would be to isolate the experimental setup from background radiation for different times. Since N is unstable and decays to proton, less heat energy should be generated in an experiment where new neutrons were blocked for say 24 weeks or 52 weeks compared to one where neutrons blocked for 1 week, all other experimental parameters being the same.
Finally, it would be nice to have a summary list of any other models, outside the typical D-D reaction known from hot fusion, that could in theory explain the Navy experimental results--so here is the first I add to the list--along with predicted energy of a thermal neutron released--please anyone add to the list, also please give citation:
MODELS OF COLD FUSION NOT OF THE D-D TYPE THAT MAY EXPLAIN NAVY EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
==============================================================
1. TNCF Model (H. Kozima).......thermal N with (14.1 MeV)
N + D reaction first, then Tritium + D reaction second to form thermal N (14.1 MeV)
The Science of Cold Fusion Phenomenon, 2006, Elsevier
Anon-Robert
I'm sorry for the crash, Fred :-(
Fred:
I'm sorry for crashing your browser. :-(
The URL for WG's chemicalforum post could be shortened by eliminating the "PHPSESSID=3391fd4638dafdd894cf1a56b39a0f52&" portion. (I'm not sure why that crept in there. I'm sorry I didn't check to make sure whether all the portions of the URL were necessary.)
While the URL you provided will bring up the entire topic and discussion, I was trying to make it easy for the reader to get to the relevant portion from WG.
I do agree that "The Galileo Complex" does appear to be applicable, unfortunately.
David
To David re: WG
David, the link you gave crashed my browser, but I was able to find the discussion thread with this simpler link.
It's incredible in its scope. WG rants and rants and pays no attention to criticism.
He also writes about a conspiracy against his ideas. He's a classic example of "The Galileo Complex", as described by Renaisauce some time ago.
In any case, David, you managed to neatly reduce WG's claim to a violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics.
So not only does he think that cold fusion is real and shows that quantum mechanics is wrong, he also believes in perpetual motion machines.
IN CONCLUSION: I repeat my earlier concern for the guy's emotional state. I think it's time to stop commenting and let him fade away. As long as he gets attention, he will remain here, hoping for a dribble of appreciation from someone.
Fred Bortz
An interesting consequence of Wladimir Guglinski's theory :-J
According to Wladimir Guglinski's theory, we have:
1) p+e→n+νe with essentially no energy input
(see Wladimir Guglinski's post Re: The difference between cold fusion and cold fusion at <http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=3391fd4638dafdd894cf1a56b39a0f52&topic=17140.msg73758#msg73758>, the emission of the neutrino is ascertained from point 3 of Wladimir Guglinski's post Fred Bortz wrote: [Comment id: 36068] at <http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/us-navy-scientists-claim-cold-fusion-breakthrough-19762.html#comment-36068>) (Note: The extent of the enrgy balance provided by Wladimir Guglinski in his Re: The difference between cold fusion and cold fusion post precludes much if any energy loss to the emitted neutrino.)
Then the neutron decays by the well known pathway (Wladimir, you don't dispute this, do you?)
2) n→p+e+(anti-)νe yielding an energy of 781.53 keV (in the combined kinetic energy of the particles, and the small rest mass of the anti-neutrino).
Simply prevent the proton and electron from escaping (at least on the whole) and reuse them in the first reaction. Why even bother with p+p, D+D, or D+T fusion? The above two
reactions alone will perpetually generate all the energy we could hope for!
:-J -)
David
Fred Bortz wrote:
"He touts an e-mail from someone who likes his theory, but that person doesn't have a single mention on Google Scholar and barely appears on Google at all. Yet WG treats that e-mail as if it has come from a reputable scientist doing important work."
Well, at least Edel Pons is making experiments in his laboratory.
While you try to impose your opinion to everybody, without any experimental support.
This is a betrayal to the scientific method
wladimir guglinski
Concern for WG
Now I'm actually starting to feel concern for Wladimir Guglinski.
He touts an e-mail from someone who likes his theory, but that person doesn't have a single mention on Google Scholar and barely appears on Google at all. Yet WG treats that e-mail as if it has come from a reputable scientist doing important work.
It's one thing to be enamored of an idea, but quite another to interpret such a wisp of support as validation. He must really be hungry for acceptance, which explains why he misread that e-mail from the Navy researchers.
At this point, I fear that WG is in a precarious psychological state and that my challenge to his ideas may have pushed him closer to a breaking point.
This is sad!
Do we need...to conclude that WG is not worth further engagement
From: Edel Pons (canmarrai@gmail.com)
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 12:20:10 PM
To: Wladimir Guglinski (wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com)
Thank you Wlad
I am working in similar experiments to those of Prof. Kanarev. When a variable and complex sinusoidal signal is applied to an electrolyte composed of water and KOH, the hydrogen and oxygen production is higher than predicted by Faraday laws. I have been reading Kanarev theory about this process but I must say that I like your theory more than Kanarev´s one.
I have found a curious article from Popular Science June 1944. It is actually related with one of the experiments I will carry out. It seems that when electrolysis takes place under the effect of a magnetic field, the production of hydrogen and oxygen increases without an increase in the used power. Prof. Felix Ehrenhaft, former director of the Physical Institute at the University of Vienna, suggested the existence of magnetic particles already in 1944 following his experiments with electrolysis under the effects of a magnetic field. His and my experiments confirm your theory. You can read the article at http://www.electricitybook.com/magnetism/.
Regards
Edel Pons
on stupidity, ignorance, and assumptions
I previously wrote: "there is indeed a way for the model to work, and it involves the particle known as the "antineutrino". The reaction is actually n->p+e+antineutrino."
I was referring to the Standard Model in Modern Particle Physics, of which WG appears to be ignorant. His reply to what I wrote also appears to contain the assumption that I was talking about his own model ---but I actually wasn't. I admit to stupidly making the assumption that WG was not ignorant of the Standard Model, such that he could be able to recognize what I was writing about.
Final note to WG: It is essential to learn a great deal about any Standard Thing, before you try to point out flaws in it. It is the only way to have a chance of convincing others that the claimed flaws are actually there. Even Pablo Picasso first became an expert at realistic painting, before he led the art into new directions.
"Handel"
Re: Handel and Re: Gluginski theory to be tested
This is for Handel and the other readers of this thread, not for WG, who has gone off the deep end.
WG's comment called "Handel:" is precisely the kind of rant I predicted when I took my leave from discussions with WG. Note that WG has started calling his detractors stupid because they don't understand him. Okay, I'm stupid, too. Everyone who disputes WG is clearly stupid.
And his message stating that the Navy will test his results is simply wrong. What he was given is a gentle put-down:
In other words, it is really saying, "We have no plans to test your ideas, but this looks like a good way to end the discussion without telling you what we really think of your suggestions."
As a writer, I know all about such gentle and noncommittal rejections, as in, "Your work does not fit our present needs. Good luck."
Do we need any more than this to conclude that WG is not worth further engagement?
Fred Bortz
Science Books for Young Readers
and
Science Book Reviews
Another Youtube video on Navy experiment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U93AtjakNDc&feature=related
Youtube videos about Navy experiment
Take a look at these from youtube concerning Navy experiment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ww5UWsGJVdE&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uToLOOg1hI
Handel:
I will not waste my time with you anymore, since you dont have knowledge of theoretical physics.
I will only put a last comment here, only in order to show how stupid things you say.
Handel wrote:
"You wrote: "the electron loses its spin into the neutron, otherwise there is no way to conciliate the model n=p+e with Fermi-Dirac statistics."
--This is also false; there is indeed a way for the model to work, and it involves the particle known as the "antineutrino". The reaction is actually n->p+e+antineutrino. All the particles are fermions, and..."
WHY WHAT YOU SAID IS STUPID:
1- the model n=p+e is proposed by my Quantum Ring Theory. Such model does not exist in current Modern Physics.
2- The model n=p+e is not accepted in current theories (they consider a quark model).
So it is stupid to say: "This is also false; there is indeed a way for the model to work, and it involves the particle known as the "antineutrino", because you try to justify a model n=p+e that does not exist in current theories.
3- But as you say that: "there is indeed a way for the model to work", this means that you believe that the neutron model of Quantum Mechanics is wrong, since a model n=p+e is considered impossible in QM.
4- It is stupid to say: "there is indeed a way for the model to work, and it involves the particle known as the antineutrino"
because the antineutrino does not exist into the neutron.. The antineutrino is created in the instant of the neutron's decay.
You have a confuse mind, Handel.
And I dont have time to waste with confuse people.
wladimir guglinski
Guglinski' theory will be tested in US Navy
RE: absence of gamma-rays in your experiment, and neutron's background?
From: Boss, Pamela A CIV SPAWAR SSC PAC, 71730 (pam.boss@navy.mil)
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 2:29:49 PM
To: Wladimir Guglinski (wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com)
Cc: m_bernstein@acs.org; David Hestenes (hestenes@asu.edu); EDEL PONS (canmarrai@gmail.com)
Dear Wladimir,
Like many, we have very few funds and resources. But we will consider your suggestions and see what we can do as time and money permits.
Regards,
Pam
RE: absence of gamma-rays in your experiment, and neutron's background?
From: Wladimir Guglinski (wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com)
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 10:35:59 PM
To: PAMELA MOSIER-BOSS (pam.boss@navy.mil)
Bcc: JOHNATHAN CHAN (coldfusion111@gmail.com); jnaudin509@aol.com
Hi, Pamela
Be careful, and take cary.
If all the deuteriuns of the Pd lattice alligned in the same direction get resonance and have fusion at the same time, perhaps it can occur a small explosion in your electrolytic cell.
Also, I recomend you to put a loadstone externally in the cell (like in the Letts-Cravens experiment), in order to help to keep a lot of deuteriuns alligned toward the same direction (that of the external magnetic field applied)
Good luck
WLAD
D+D = D2 molecule
This is off topic to Navy experiment, but...there was a comment below concerning the deuterium molecule, which is a stable system of two D atoms, it is called D2. It is possible a pathway that forms a stable D2 molecule also results in a rare possibility of fusion.
It has been experimentally shown that, the distance between the two D atoms is in the D2 stable state ~ 0.74 Angstrom, and the reason the two protons in D2 stable molecule do not repel via Coulomb repulsion of the two positive charged protons is from electron screening, which has two probability waves of e- ever present between the two protons at different levels of screening.
However, as predicted by statistical quantum mechanics, there exist very, very rare system states that would arrive when the two electrons show 100% maximum magnitude of Coulomb screening effect, which then results in spontaneous fusion of the two D, to form the unstable 2He4, which is also observed in the common D+D "fusion" reaction (for both low energy and hot energy pathways). As known, the reaction of the unstable 2He4 path is: tritium with ~1.01 MeV and proton with ~ 3.12 MeV. The "fusion" of the D2 molecule is predicted to occur 10 -74 times/second.
Now, this has nothing really to do with the Navy experiment, but it does show that quantum theory does predict that two D atoms will fuse naturally, and rarely, under normal low energy conditions. It also provides one mechanism to explain possible background concentrations of tritium and proton in cold fusion type experiments. Not sure, but it seems one would expect 10-74 times/second that within a pure gas of D2 there should arrive free D when both electrons are 180 degrees opposite the Coulomb potential when the Coulomb force would be greatest and perhaps force the two protons apart.
Now, perhaps the addition of low energy across two electrodes as in the cold fusion experiments increases the rate at which the above D2 molecular fusion would occur ? -- and thus perhaps be one way to explain small increases in heat (from the positive charged particles) with no high energy neutrons and/or gamma rays seen in some cold fusion experiments ?
But again, this has nothing to do with the Navy experiment which is predicting high energy neutrons have been observed (indirectly, via splitting carbon-12) to be released. As I see it, there is only one other possible explanation of the Navy 3-pit pattern, and it is that a very high energy helium-3 was released, at an energy not predicted by any widely accepted model of how cold fusion experiments work. Then for reasons associated with the unstable energy dynamics of such a high helium-3 being released, that the Navy 3-pit pattern results from the impact of the individual nucleons present. I see no other even possible explanation of the Navy 3-pit pattern, and even this helium-3 hypothesis impossible from energy considerations unless it can be linked to a model of the atomic nucleus that predicts it to occur.
Anon-Robert
Understandings and misunderstandings
"Handel" seems to have responded quite completely to WG's message "Fred Bortz misunderstandings," so I am now quite comfortable exiting this discussion.
I agree with "Handel" that WG's interjection of his pet theory is a diversion from the main thread and that it the muddies an otherwise interesting discussion.
I have a suggestion for "Handel" about the best way to end this diversion.
Having tried arguing with true-believers in fringe ideas before, I have learned that they never accept that quantum mechanics or relativity (whichever happens to be their target) has enormous experimental support and that their ideas contribute nothing new. So I suggest you let WG respond once more to your comments and let his remarks pass without further discussion. Eventually, he will figure out that no one shares his obsession here, and he will disappear, having provided a perverse sort of entertainment for a while.
Fred Bortz
Science Book for Young Readers
and
Science Book Reviews
A bit more on electron screening
Among various conversations about Cold Fusion on the Internet is an occasional note regarding hydrogen molecules and the probability that their nuclei might fuse. It seems that the probability is not quite zero, but is rather close to zero (something like the 50th digit after the decimal point is not zero). In a few of those conversations it was indicated that if the distance between nuclei could be reduced to about a tenth of the initial distance, the probability that fusion could occur would actually become reasonable (rare, but reasonable).
So let's take another quick look at muon-catalyzed fusion, in which the muon, 206 times as massive as an electron, orbits at 1/206 the distance from the nucleus. If we had two muonic deuterium atoms and bounced them off of each other, the distance between nuclei would drop to 1/206 the initial value represented by ordinary deuterium atoms. Given the data at the end of the previous paragraph, is it any wonder that the nuclei fuse, even when only one muon is involved?
In the electron-catalyzed fusion scenario, it is not necessary for electrons to screen the deuterons until it is guaranteed they are close enough to fuse. Only enough screening is needed to make the probability of fusion reasonable. And, of course, the more that deuterium is packed into the metal, the greater will be the quantity of nuclei that might be screened such that some fusions, among all of those nuclei, actually happen in accordance with that "reasonable probability".
Given that the experimental observations indicate a relatively low rate of fusions, considering the total quantity of deuterium loaded into the metal, we might forever be disappointed in being able to use CF on a large scale. However, the point of this message is simply that a hypothesis has been proposed that might explain how, if CF happens at all via electron catalysis, the deuterons might not need the same magnitude of screening that is observed in muon-catalyzed fusion.
"Handel"
"CF" that is not CF
Wladimir Guglinski, you should be discussing this subject in a different forum, since this subject is not about hydrogen fusion at low temperatures, and the lead blog article on this page is about that topic --and the comments here are supposed to be about that topic.
You wrote: "explain to us from Quantum Mechanics how a neutron is formed by proton+electron at low energy" --I think you need to specify the magnitude of that "low energy". Also, how well-shielded were those experiments from cosmc rays? It is well known that cosmic ray interactions can easily interfere with delicate experiments/measurements, and so it is often necessary to go deep underground to do those experiments.
For the standard explanation of how a neutron becomes a proton and an electron, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_force --especially see the diagram near the top of that page. It clearly shows a quark transforming to a different type, and an electron resulting from it (along with an antineutrino). Regarding the reaction going the other way, one possibility is this (slightly different than the exact opposite): An appropriately energetic electron, interacting via the Weak Force, would disappear; a quark would change its type, and a neutrino (an ordinary neutrino) would be emitted (the simultaneous absorption of an antineutrino is not required).
I note that you sometimes put some effort into staying within strict limits of the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy, and sometimes you might not. For example, if an electon that has "insufficient" energy (relative to the previous paragraph) was to be absorbed by a proton, causing a neutron to appear, then where did the extra mass-energy of the neutron come from (it is more than the simple sum of proton plus electron)? This is why I'd like to know just how "low" are those low-energy electrons you were talking about. As far as I'm concerned, if an electron has enough energy, such that proton plus electron can equal neutron plus neutrino, then QM does indeed answer your question, per the description in the previous paragraph (or by some other but not very different mechanism, involving the positively charged W boson). If the electron doesn't have enough energy, then either the proton-conversion reaction doesn't happen, or Energy Conservation gets violated, long-term. Take your pick.
On the other side of the coin, you have declared the Uncertainty-spawned temporary loophole in Energy Conservation to be "stupid". Yet we have some quite good data indicating that it is quite real. Have you studied the properties of liquid helium lately? Are you aware that even at Absolute Zero, at ordinary Earthly atmospheric pressure, liquid helium will remain a liquid? It will not turn solid because the Uncertainty Principle declares that it is impossible to actually remove enough energy from it to solidify it (at ordinary pressure). In other words, Uncertainty's Loophole in Energy Conservation provides just enough temporary energy, one atom at a time, to ensure that helium does not solidify at Absolute Zero. (Hmmmm...recent developments may indicate it might turn into a Bose-Einstein Condensate instead, but that doesn't qualify as a solid, either.)
There is also the "Casimir Effect". In a vacuum, just place two flat metal sheets, neither one electrically charged, facing very close to each other, and a force will appear that will cause the two plates to collide. QM explains this force in terms of the Energy Conservation Loophole: At each and every spot in that vacuum, its energy content is not Certainly zero. Temporary energy fluctuations are happening everywhere and all the time. Some of those fluctuations produce temporary photons of various energies. I assume you know that lower-energy photons have longer wavelengths than higher-energy photons. Well, in-between the two metal plates, spontaneous temporary formation of larger-sized photons is suppressed, they simply cannot fit in the narrow space. But they are not suppressed in the space surrounding the plates. The net effect is that interactions between all the photons and the plates are unbalanced; there are more temporary photons bouncing off the outside of them than in-between them. The result is the force that pushes the plates together; this Casimir Effect demonstrates quite well the loophole in Energy Conservation, thanks to the Uncertainty Principle.
Regarding positron emission by aluminum 26, I'd like to say that while it is known that the result of the decay of this isotope is indeed a positron and magnesium 26, it is not-so-thoroughly known just what happens inside the nucleus. Nobody has ever had a camera in there watching the events unfold! It is of course quite possible that an electron/positron pair spontaneously appears inside the nucleus (even inside one of the protons there!), simply because Energy-Time Uncertainty allows it to happen anywhere and any time. The electron could then interact via the Weak Force with one of the quarks of a proton, on the rare occasion when the Weak Force bothers to act at all (it requires another and simultaneous and rather larger-magnitude/shorter-duration energy fluctuation). The proton then becomes a neutron, while a neutrino and the positron shoot out of the nucleus. The outside observer would merely see, basically, the event I described in # 36052. It could be explained more simply in this manner: One of the quarks inside a proton changes into a different quark while emitting a positively charged W boson; the boson decays into a positron and a neutrino. Either way, the total mass of the aluminum 26 nucleus goes down a bit, as the temporary energy (that had appeared courtesy of the Uncertainty Principle) disappears.
Finally, you wrote: "the quark model of neutron cannot be conciliated with the results of Don Borghi's experiment." --This is false. Quantum Physics, especially in the forms of Quantum ElectroDynamics and the Unified Electro-Weak Theory, which includes descriptions of proton/neutron conversions (and involves quarks borrowed from Quantum ChromoDynamics), has theory and experiment matching each other to as many as dozen significant figures in places. Only if Borghi's experiment violates Energy Conservation long-term, by using too-low-energy electrons, would there be a problem.
I think I will not be writing more on the subject of neutron/proton conversions in this particular Blog page. It is simply not related to the main/original topic here. Please find a more relevant forum.
TO THE EDITORS: Can you extract all these neutron-proton conversion messages from the Cold Fusion page and put them on another? Thank you!
"Handel"
on W.G. misunderstandings
To Wladimir Guglinski, regarding messages #36073 and #36099:
Fred Bortz indicated (#36073) he is not likely to reply to your message, until after you become better informed on several issues. I dare to attempt some teaching.
You wrote: " nothing gives us garantee that QM is correct, mainly because from such a model of neutron it's impossible to explain cold fusion."
--That statement is nonsense, on the face of it. (However, see the last paragraph here; I wrote what follows based on a standard definition.) It is indeed quite possible to explain cold fusion using various known facts, including a number of facts about quantum mechanics. See messages #35911, #35926, #36005, #36023, and #36051. And that's not the only hypothesis that has been dreamed up, using quantum mechanics, over the past 20 years.
You wrote: "the electron loses its spin into the neutron, otherwise there is no way to conciliate the model n=p+e with Fermi-Dirac statistics."
--This is also false; there is indeed a way for the model to work, and it involves the particle known as the "antineutrino". The reaction is actually n->p+e+antineutrino. All the particles are fermions, and all of them are generically associated with 1/2 spin, although because it is an anti-particle, the antineutrino actually has -1/2 spin. That cancels out the spin of one of the other two decay products, leaving the total spin of the equation balanced.
You wrote: "Yukawa's theory violates the energy/mass conservation, nevertheless he won the Nobel Prize with such a stupid theory."
--In actual fact Yukawa did not devise the notion that energy conservation can temporarily be violated; Albert Einstein devised it. Yukawa merely used it to predict that a particle with certain characteristics might exist, to explain how the Strong Nuclear Force held protons together against their mutual repulsion in all nuclei more complex than hydrogen. When the particle (the "pion") was discovered, that was when Yukawa was declared worthy of a Nobel Prize.
Now, regarding Einstein, he got into a famous debate with Niels Bohr over the Uncertainty Principle. Einstein did not like the idea one bit, and proposed a number of thought-experiments to show that the Uncertainty Principle should be declared invalid. But Bohr was able to poke logical holes into every single one of Einstein's arguments, and the Uncertainty Principle has never been seriously challenged by any physicist since.
As you may know that Heisenberg's formulation of Uncertainty involved multplying momentum and position together, let us take a moment to consider the "dimensional units" of that. First, "position" is a location in Space that is typically measured in units of distance (d), "momentum" is the product of a "mass" (m) and a "velocity" (v); velocity itself can be described as some distance (d) associated with a certain amount of "time" (t). So, if momentum is (m)(d)/(t) and this is multiplied by position/distance (d), then the total of dimensional units is (m)(d)(d)/(t).
Einstein specified that the momentum-position formulation of Uncertainty was mathematically equivalent to an energy-time formulation; he then used that to specify a thought-experiment in which the energy of something could be precisely measured in zero time. Well, the thought-experiment was wrong, but the mathematical equivalence is perfectly correct:
I'm sure you are aware that the dimensional units of energy are mass multiplied by velocity, and again by velocity (especially when the velocity equals the speed of light). We can write those dimensional units as (m)(d)(d)/((t)(t)). If this is multiplied by time (t) per Einstein's specification, then the result is (m)(d)(d)/(t), exactly the same as the combined dimensional units of the original momentum-position formulation for the Uncertainty Principle.
Therefore the Law of Conservation of Energy DOES have a very small loophole in it. It allows a short-term and undetectable change in the total energy-content of any system. We can only detect side-effects of the violation having happened; we can never directly detect the violation in action.
You wrote: " Dehmelt experiment showed that the electron peruses the space between two orbits" --Sorry, I don't have a clear picture of what that is supposed to mean, so I can't specifically comment on it at this time. I DO know that because of the Uncertainty Principle, the exact location of an electron is not fixed; an orbiting electron could indeed be located (momentarily) outside or inside the pathway it would take if Uncertainty did not exist.
You wrote: "experiment that proves QM be wrong is that made by Don Borghi, where a neutron is formed by proton and electron at low energy" --This experiment does not in any way prove that QM is wrong. Various radioactive istopes routinely, at low temperatures, grab electrons and convert protons to neutrons. See "K-capture".
You wrote: "Don Borghi experiment is a cold fusion experiment. He showed that a neutron is formed by proton+electron at low energy." --That does not match the typical definition of "fusion". In nuclear physics the word is intended to describe the merging of entire atomic nuclei. It most certainly does not usually involve the Weak Nuclear Force (the thing responsible when a proton and an electron combine), except in the lone case where two protium-hydrogens fuse to form deuterium (a reaction that is difficult because it depends on the Weak Force acting at just the right moment). It is important that you use the terminology of the field correctly. The type of Cold Fusion discussed at the top of this Web page, and in many of the comments, has nothing at all to do with proton or neutron transformations.
"Handel"
the entire complete process of 26Al decay:
a- A pair positron-electron is formed within the nucleus. They are formed from the energy into the nucleus 26Al, which is converted to mass according to Einstein's equation E=mc2.
b- The positron is emitted by the nucleus.
c- After that, a proton captures the eletron, forming a neutron
d- As the pair positron-electron was formed from the energy of the nucleus Al, and as the positron is emitted out, then the nucleus Al loses some mass regarding that of the positron
Handel wrote:
1- "I disagree, completely. At most, all that the actuality of CF would prove is that physicists need to be more clever in applying QM to explain how it can occur. That's because there is"
Ok, Handel.
Then explain to us from Quantum Mechancis how a neutron is formed by proton+electron at low energy, as obtained by Don Borghi and Conte-Pieralice in their experiments (the experiments were confirmed by Ruggero Santilli in 2008).
2 - "Also, you might consider the fact that one of the known methods of radioactive decay, by various unstable isotopes (example: aluminum 26) involves a proton emitting a positron, and thereby becoming a neutron."
What a stupid assertion.
It's not the proton that emits the positron.
The correct is the following:
a- A pair positron-electron is formed within the nucleus.
b- The positron is emitted by the nucleus.
c- After that, a proton captures the eletron, forming a neutron
From such alternative interpretation there is not need to use that stupid solution mentioned by you:
"Despite the fact that an individual proton has less mass than an individual neutron, this decay process can happens because...",
since from such interpretation there is not need to make use of the uncertainty principle (used in that stupid solution because it violates the mass/energy conservation)..
3- "Where did you get the idea that quantum physicists think that a neutron is composed of a proton and an electron? "
The first model n=p+e of neutron was proposed by Rutherford (he supposed the neutron is formed by proton+electron).
Such model was abandoned because the theorists supposed wrongly that such model n=p+e would be formed by two fermions.
But actually the model n=p+e is formed by one fermion and a boson (a fermion that losts its spin), as proposed in Quantum Ring Theory.
Concerning the quark model:
the quark model of neutron cannot be conciliated with the results of Don Borghi's experiment .
From here you may start to understand why the quantum theorists betray the scientific method, rejecting the Don Borghi experiment : it's because his experiment requires a New Physics, where some wrong concepts of Quantum Mechanics must be replaced by new fundamental principles .
It's not the first time that scientists betray the scientific method, trying to keep their dogmas in Physics.
wladimir guglinski
Fred Bortz misunderstandings
Fred Bortz wrote:
1- "Saying "the electron gets back its spin" does not make sense, since the electron is not present within the neutron, nor is there a boson within the neutron."
Again, Fred, you are making confusion. What you say above is the proposal of Quantum Mechanics.
However nothing gives us garantee that QM is correct, mainly because from such a model of neutron it's impossible to explain cold fusion.
Only from a model n=p+e formed by proton+electron (where the electron is within the neutron's structure it's possible to explain cold fusion.
And a model n=p+e requires the phenomenon named "spin-fusion", proposed in Quantum Ring Theory, according to which the electron loses its spin into the neutron, otherwise there is no way to conciliate the model n=p+e with Fermi-Dirac statistics.
2- "Here, I think you are confusing Yukawa's work, for which he won the Nobel Prize in 1949, with Quantum Electrodynamics (Nobel 1965) as developed with diagrams by Feynman..."
No, Fred, actually are you that does not know Physics very well.
I translate bellow a text in the page 795 of the book Quantum Physics, by Eisnberg and Resnick (my book is in Portuguese, then forgive my bad English).
They write about Yukawa's neutron (a system of a meson jumping between two protons):
"While this happens, there is a violation of the mass/energy conservation: before and after the process, the total energy of the system is equal to the rest energy of the mass of a nucleon and it could not be also equal the rest energy of a mass of a nucleon added, at least, to the mass of a meson pi, along the process."
So, Yukawa's theory violates the energy/mass conservation, nevertheless he won the Nobel Prize with such a stupid theory.
3- "Cite specific experimental evidence that quantum mechanics is wrong..."
I quoted Dehlmet experiment.
But of course it's impossible to prove that QM is wrong, because physicists like you find durty strategies in order to neglect the results of experiments.
Other experiment that proves QM be wrong is that made by Don Borghi, where a neutron is formed by proton and electron at low energy.
4- "What predictions does your theory make that can be used for an experimental test of quantum mechanics vs. your theory?"
My theory predicts that a neutron can be formed by proton+electron at low energy, as confirmed by Don Borghi experiment.
Is such predicton also made by Quantum Mechanics ??????
5- "Finally: If your theory is such a great breakthrough, why has it not been published in a major journal?"
Just because the referees of major journals are like you: they betray the scientific method, by rejecting the results of experiments, like the experiment made by Don Borghi.
6-"Why is cold fusion inconsistent with quantum mechanics? Again, you are the only person who asserts that it is."
Don Borghi experiment is a cold fusion experiment. He showed that a neutron is formed by proton+electron at low energy.
If you believe that from the principles of Quantum Mechanics a neutron can be formed by proton+electon at low energy, then please cite here the book where we find it.
wladimir guglinski
A note to Wladimir Guglinski
This is a separate reply to #36052.
You wrote: "cold fusion occurrence proves that Quantum Mechanics is wrong"
I disagree, completely. At most, all that the actuality of CF would prove is that physicists need to be more clever in applying QM to explain how it can occur. That's because there is too much interlocking/mutually-supporting experimental data for quantum mechanics. It's always possible that QM might be incomplete, but that is hardly the same thing as saying it is "wrong".
And, right here in this blog are a few posts that offer an explanation for CF that in no way violates QM. Not to mention there are a number of alternative ideas that have been developed over the past two decades, most of which also strive to stay within the framework of QM. There is no reason to bother stepping outside that framework so long as people think some aspect of QM can explain CF.
I also want to take issue with this statement of yours: "the neutron is not formed by two fermions (proton and electron), as wrongly supposed the quantum physicsts"
Where did you get the idea that quantum physicists think that a neutron is composed of a proton and an electron? For the last few decades most quantum physicists have instead embraced the idea that the neutron is composed of three quarks (all of which are fermions). Two of their spins cancel out; the neutron basically gets its spin from the third quark.
Also, you might consider the fact that one of the known methods of radioactive decay, by various unstable isotopes (example: aluminum 26) involves a proton emitting a positron, and thereby becoming a neutron. Despite the fact that an individual proton has less mass than an individual neutron, this decay process can happen because the proton is part of a fairly complex nucleus; the entire nucleus loses some mass during the event. It can happen because of energy-time Uncertainty. Look up the Weak Nuclear Force for details.
"Handel"
A set of questions to challenge WG's assertions
WG,
Now you write
That was almost what I was saying when I disputed your claim that an electron becomes a boson. In neither process does an electron become a boson. Saying "the electron gets back its spin" does not make sense, since the electron is not present within the neutron, nor is there a boson within the neutron. The neutron decays in a three body process, and likewise electron capture is a three body process. The standard model is fully adequate to explain this, and you seem to be adding an unnecessary complication.
You also write
Here, I think you are confusing Yukawa's work, for which he won the Nobel Prize in 1949, with Quantum Electrodynamics (Nobel 1965) as developed with diagrams by Feynman (and in a more mathematical way by Schwinger and independently by Tomonaga). Indeed, Feynman notes that virtual pairs of antiparticles or photons can emerge from the vacuum for a short time, delta-t, as long as delta-t times their combined mass-energy is less than Planck's constant (h/2pi)--that is, their existence does not violate Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
The calculations of QED have been remarkably successful, which is one reason that Quantum Mechanics is regarded as one of the most precisely developed theories in physics.
This discussion is now following a similar trajectory to others in the past, which have proposed unnecessary modifications to Relativity or Quantum Mechanics when there appears to be neither evidence nor need for the change. For that reason, I'll close with a few questions and exit the discussion, allowing others to pick it up if they care to.
So my questions, which are unanswered by your assertions, are these:
* Cite specific experimental evidence that quantum mechanics is wrong, rather than your merely asserting that your interpretation of the experiment is inconsistent with quantum mechanics.
* Why is cold fusion inconsistent with quantum mechanics? Again, you are the only person who asserts that it is.
* What predictions does your theory make that can be used for an experimental test of quantum mechanics vs. your theory? Correspondingly, show how your theory is as successful in quantum mechanics in predicting or explaining the many quantum phenomena that have been observed (tunneling, electron bands in solids, superconductivity, and superfluidity to name four).
* Finally: If your theory is such a great breakthrough, why has it not been published in a major journal? In previous discussions, this question produced a rant against the editorial process or a string of excuses about why the rest of the scientific community can't see what is so obvious to the writer. That has often been followed by a lot of blaming the reader for not understanding rather than acceptance of the writer's responsibility to communicate his/her point.
I suggest you get a copy of my Physics: Decade by Decade for details of the history of QED, quantum mechanics, and the standard model. If nothing else, my reference list can provide you with some interesting reading and may provide you with a clearer understanding of that remarkable work which you reject as "wrong" without supporting evidence beyond your assertions.
At this point, I'll leave the rest of the discussion to others. I've raised the questions that I feel are necessary to challenge your claims.
Fred Bortz
Fred Bortz wrote:
1- "And it seems that you are also willing to remove conservation of mass/energy as one of the pillars of physics."
No. Just the contrary.
For instance, the conservation mass/energy was just removed by Yukawa, in his theory of the neutron model. He tried to justify it by saying that such violation of the mass/energy conservation is possible thanks to the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
But it's obviously an absurd.
2- "Extraordinary claims like yours require extraordinary evidence. "
I agree.
You're rigth.
And my Quantum Ring Theory is just confirmed by extraordinary evidences, like the Conte-Pieralice experiment and the Don Borghi's experiment, which confirmed my model of the neutron.
And cold fusion is another extraordinary evidence that is also confirming my theory.
3- "Do you deny the existence of neutrinos?"
Of course not.
When the electron is captured by a proton, and they form the neutron, the electron loses its spin, together with a neutrino emission, in order to keep the angular momentum conservation before and after the electron capture.
And in the beta decay of neutron, the electron gets back its spin, and an antineutrino is emitted, in order to keep the angular momentum conservation, before and after the beta decay.
4-"Your work seems to be just another attempt to discard quantum mechanics with no regard for the experimental evidence and theoretical work from Planck onward that supports quantum mechanics."
Just the contrary.
For instance, Dehmelt experiment showed that the electron peruses the space between two orbits, a fact that cannot explained by Quantum Mechanics. And when any new experiment shows that QM is wrong, the quantum theorists make use of "extraordinary claims" in order to keep QM, as in the case of Dehmelt experiment, when they alleged that the atom is "dressed" (ha, ha , ha).
In the new hydrogen model of atom proposed by my QRT the electron peruses the space between two orbits, as confirmed by Dehmelt experiment.
This, dear Fred, IS ANOTHER EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE, which you said to be required.
5- "And what of the many important technologies that have developed based on those theories?"
Quantum Mechanics is successful in the development of technology, because it was developed according to Heisenberg's scientific criterion.
For instance, Heisenberg proposed the concept of ISOSPIN, which explains, for instance, why two neutrons dont form a dineutron (as two neutrons have attraction by the strong force in a distance of 2fm, and as there is no Coloumbic repulsion between them, a dineutron would have to exist in Nature, but it does not exist.). However the isospin is a mathematical abstract concept, and it cannot be the cause why a dineutron does not exist. Only a force of repulsion can win the force of attraction between two neutrons, and to hinder them to form a dineutron..
Heisenberg's solution does not explain WHY a dineutron is not formed.
Its isospin only describes mathematically that a dineutron does not exist, but it does not point out the phyisical CAUSE.
So, from the aspect of the development of technology, the Heinsenberg's proposal of isospin is satisfactory as a mathematical description.
But in spite of his solution is satisfactory for the development of technology, it does not mean that his solution describes with accuracy what really happens in the Nature.
In my Quantum Ring Theory is proposed a solution where a FORCE of repulsion apart the two neutrons, and they cannot form the dineutron.
And finally, not only cold fusion will prove that Quantum Mechanics is wrong.
The upcoming experiments in the LHC also will show that Heisenberg scientific criterion is not successful for the understanding of the fundamental principles of Physics in the deepest level of Nature, in spite of Heisenberg method was successful for the development of technology.
6- "Basically, WG, I consider this one in a long series of crackpot notions that..."
Fred, I suggest you to call crackpot the results of cold fusion experiments. Just cold fusioin is showing that Quantum Mechanics is wrong.
Besides, what you consider does not matter. I preffer to trust in the results of experiments. They will tell us if my theory is correct, or not. Not you.
wladimir guglinski
Tossing out accumulated evidence and energy conservation
WG-
You set yourself a mighty task. Not only do you discard quantum mechanics, but you also toss out the entire "standard model" of particle physics, which is based on nearly a century of experimental evidence at the world's best facilities. And it seems that you are also willing to remove conservation of mass/energy as one of the pillars of physics.
All because you accept unverified claims of cold fusion.
And BTW, though I doubt cold fusion is viable, it would not require a revamping of quantum mechanics if it were shown to exist.
Extraordinary claims like yours require extraordinary evidence. Do you deny the existence of neutrinos? If so, how do you explain the fact that they have been detected? And how do you explain that neutrinos preserve conservation of both energy and spin in beta decay.
Your work seems to be just another attempt to discard quantum mechanics with no regard for the experimental evidence and theoretical work from Planck onward that supports quantum mechanics. And what of the many important technologies that have developed based on those theories?
Basically, WG, I consider this one in a long series of crackpot notions that occasionally emerge here. They are usually worth one or two comments from me before they degenerate, so I'm probably done with this.
Meanwhile, I suggest that you start with neutrinos if you have any hope of persuading any physicists of your claims.
Fred Bortz
Science Books for Young Readers
and
Science Book Reviews
YES, the electron becomes a boson
Fred Bortz wrote:
"The neutron is not formed by a proton and electron. In beta decay, a neutron becomes a proton, an electron (beta particle) and an antineutrino. In the reverse process, the electron does not become a boson; rather a neutrino is also necessary for the transformation."
What you say is what is proposed in Quantum Mechanics.
However cold fusion occurrence proves that Quantum Mechanics is wrong.
Cold fusion can be explained only by addopting a model of neutron formed by proton+electron, n=p+e.
This is the model proposed in Quantum Ring Theory, (QRT) published in 2006 by the Bauu Press.
According to an original proposal of Schrodinger, the spin and magnetic moment of the electron is due to its zitterbewegung (helical trajectory).
So, the spin 1/2 of the electron is due to its zbw.
According to QRT, when the electron is captured by a proton and they form a neutron, the electron loses its zbw, and it becomes a boson. Such phenomenon explains why the neutron follows the Fermi-Dirac statistics, because:
1- the neutron is not formed by two fermions (proton and electron), as wrongly supposed the quantum physicsts
2- the neutron is formed by one fermion (proton) and one boson (an elecrron that lost its spin).
wladimir guglinski
on mixing apples & oranges
David, regarding your posts #36024 & 36025 (replies to my earlier posts):
I did not say much about hydrogen molecules in my posts; I mostly focussed on atoms. That's because of the palladium environment, through which smaller helium atoms cannot pass, while larger hydrogens can. It makes no sense to imagine hydrogen in palladium as still being molecular. There is also the aspect of using electrolysis in many CF experiments, which offers an excellent chance for hydrogen atoms to interact with palladium (directly entering the body of the metal) before interacting with each other (that is, forming molecules).
So, if we consider two ordinary hydrogen atoms bumping into each other (at low enegy, so they don't form a molecule), it is their electron shells that are closer to each other than their nuclei. Since the electrons in those shells have the same magnitude of charge as the protons in the nuclei, it logically follows that there is more repulsion between electrons than between nuclei, at least during the initial phase of that "bumping". It also logically follows that IF there might be able to exist such a thing as "electron catalyzed fusion", the shells MUST be eliminated somehow. It would be the only way a loose electron can, if only momentarily, pass closer to a deuteron than normal orbital distance (say on a parabolic or hyperbolic trajectory, although I do know that doesn't translate perfectly from classical to quantum mechanics). In all ordinary circumstances involving intact electron shells, no loose thermal-energy electron would be able to penetrate a shell and do such a thing.
As mentioned previously, it is the simple fact that helium, a smaller atom than hydrogen, cannot permeate palladium while hydrogen can, which can lead us to the possibility that perhaps hydrogen indeed has no ordinary sort of electron shell, inside palladium, thereby setting the stage for the possibility of ECF. You have not denied the stage, although you seem to have introduced some irrelevent data.
You wrote (parenthesized), regarding a large effectivenss of charge-screening by electrons: "If it were, we would be seeing a great many strange transmutations occurring in practically all such systems". However, the apples are low energy and the oranges are high energy. Per quantum mechanics, the size of an electron's "cloudiness of position" shrinks as its energy goes up. At stellar-core temperature/pressure the number of nuclei electrons can "simultaneously" be nearby, thanks to their quantum cloudiness, goes way down, and so the numbers of electrons "nearby" any protons or deuterons, available to screen those particles long enough for them to get close enough to fuse, also goes down. On Earth, plasmas we've made at low temperature are simply all too diffuse; they don't approach the particle density of solid matter, and therefore again the conditions don't actually exist for the magnitude of screening you are talking about.
And the preceding goes double or squared, to the extent you dared to talk about electrons being able to screen other nuclei that contain multiple protons! (apples, oranges, and bananas!)
Only inside solid metal have we so far examined conditions that can include lots of low-energy loose electrons plus lots of bare nuclei (hydrogen isotopes only!). It is my understanding that some CF researchers claim to have obtained excess heat using titanium instead of palladium, for example. What you wrote implies that a great many metals have been saturated with deuterium, by people looking for the CF effect, but I don't know that that is actually true. Besides, the palladium evidence indicates a limited number of metals can work (they have to be able to allow tremendous "loading" of deuterium).
What you wrote about other metals that can pack hydrogen more densly than palladium is interesting. Perhaps their existence is not widely known (I thought palladium was the champ, until I recently learned about some palladium alloys)? Or, perhaps they simply don't work right. For example, if they pack hydrogen as molecules or as chemical compounds (metal hydrides) instead of as nuclei-in-the-conduction-band, then CF should not be expected to occur in those metals, IF electron catalysis is the fusion initiation mechanism. A hydride almost by definition would have very few loose electrons!
Moving on to the other message, if you wish, you can use "Handel" as the handle for me, just because I'm feeling punny at the moment. I will confess to having written these messages in this blog: 35911, 35925, 35926, 35927, 35938, 35942, 35959, 35972, 35988, 35991, 36005, and 36023. And I'm not planning on registering because I've discovered it's basically a way to get spammed after a data breach (the fewer sites I register to use, the lower the risk).
Next, you wrote: "the lowest energy state of the electron and muon within the created atom entails reasonably high probabilities that they will be "inside" the nucleus" --I'm curious as to why you mentioned "electron" in that. Accident? (Of course, if ECF is the explanation for CF, then I couldn't agree more.) In purely muon-catalyzed fusion, no electrons are involved; the MCF event happens totally inside an ordinary deuterium's electron shell, a muonic deuterium atom interacting with the nucleus of the ordinary deuterium atom.
Your description of the two products of an ordinary fusion reaction (say a tritium nuclide and a proton) shooting away from each other, leaving the muon behind, makes excellent sense. However, I suspect the muon shoots out even before that happens (some backward logic is involved.) One way it might do that involves the pions mentioned in #35959. Consider the situation when the two deuterons have JUST started to interact via the Strong Force. In that situation the deuterons are some distance apart, and have begun exchanging virtual pions. Many of those pions will be electrically charged, and therefore they are able to electrically interact with the muon that is directly in-between the deuterons (in their way!). This of course would mean that the total energy of the fusion reaction would actually be divided among all three real particles (tritium, proton, and muon), and of couse some measurements would need to be made to verify this scenario.
The reason I brought up the mystery directly relates to the ECF idea. After all, if a number of electrons got sequentially in-between two deuterons, allowing them to approach closely enough to fuse, then it follows that a number of electrons might continue to get in-between the two deuterons even after they start exchanging virtual pions. ALL of those electrons could then (still sequentially) interact electrically with pions, acquire some energy, and leave the scene. Net result: most of the energy of the reaction is drained away, before-the-deuterons-actually-merge/while-they-are-merging, allowing helium 4 to be directly produced most of the time. No gamma ray; just a lot of energized electrons (heat!).
In situations where the metal is very thin (such as during electrolysis co-deposition), electrons could approach the scene of a catalyzed fusion reaction from only 2 dimensions, not 3. That significantly restricts the total number of electrons involved, increasing the chance that not enough energy can be carried away before two deuterons merge, to prevent the result from breaking apart as the "more typical" fusion reaction products.
Heh, it happens the electrons as a group only need to carry away a little more than 4MeV to force the fusion reaction to yield helium 4. That's because the total energy released, when the fusion yields tritium and a proton, or helium 3 and a neutron, is at most about 4Mev. Those reactions simply can't happen if more than their total possible energy has already been carried away! (Hmmmm...maybe we should be looking for a lot of 18-19MeV gammas...or maybe not, depending on the total energy it is possible for the gang of electrons to carry away.)
The "backward logic" mentioned earlier is simply that if CF is real, then SOME sort of explanation is required for why two deuterons make helium 4 and heat so often. If "pion interactions with many electrons" is the answer, then pions must energize the muon in MCF, also (and so, logically, "Q.E.D.", the muon is energized even before the reaction ends). It is because only one muon is involved in MCF that that particular kind of cold fusion process exhibits the same reaction-product statistics as hot fusion.
Electron becomes a boson - not correct
WG states
The neutron is not formed by a proton and electron. In beta decay, a neutron becomes a proton, an electron (beta particle) and an antineutrino. In the reverse process, the electron does not become a boson; rather a neutrino is also necessary for the transformation.
I have written about this at different levels in Physics: Decade by Decade (Twentieth-Century Science series, Facts On File, 2007) and The Library of Subatomic Particles (Rosen, 2004), which includes a book called The Neutrino as well as other volumes on protons, neutrons, electrons, photons, and quarks.
Fred Bortz
such interpretation on Don Borghi experiment is not correct
Anonymous wrote:
"I do find it interesting that one interpretation of Don Borghi data is that he never observed "neutron", but a new state of matter."
Such interpretation is not correct.
In his paper Don Borghi wrote:
"Thus, from a qualitative standpoint, all the samples, after a conveniently long exposure near the external wall of the klystron (for hours, several days, or months), show an activity clearly many times above many reasonable fluctuation of the background, as well as evident decays with short periods, whose origin cannot be other than a recent activation. All this strongly suggests the existence of a small flux of neutrons outgoing from the device."
However, as always happens when a new experiment defies Quantum Mechanics, the physicists start to undertake an effort to descredit the results,
WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI
Guglinski's theory on cold fusion can be tested
An email was sent to Pamela Mosier-Boss in 11 April 2009, suggesting to use an oscillator in her experiment.
The email is ahead.
From: Wladimir Guglinski (wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com)
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 3:46:25 PM
To: pam.boss@navy.mil
Cc: m_bernstein@acs.org; David Hestenes (hestenes@asu.edu); EDEL PONS (canmarrai@gmail.com)
Dear Pamela
My theory can be tested by your experiment.
My idea is to use an oscillator capable to increase the oscillatory motion of the molecules D-D within the Pd lattice, by stimulating the resonance D-D.
If you succeed to stimulate the resonance D-D , we have to expect a growth in the rate of fusion D-D and also in the rate of neutrons emission by unity of time.
The oscillator I suggest is the following:
1- A glass buble is fulfilled by heavy hydrogen (D-D molecules).
The buble must be placed close to the Pd lattice deposited in the cathode.
2- Two electrodes are connected inside the buble.
3- A high voltage is applied to the electrodes, producing an electric discharge that crosses the gas of molecules D-D.
4- The molecules D-D into the buble are excited, and they emit photons in a frequency which is a sub-multiple of the frequency oscillation of the molecules D-D that fulfill the Pd lattice.
5- The molecules D-D within the Pd lattice get resonance with the frequency of emission by the D-D molecules into the buble, and the oscillation of D-D within Pd is stimulated to increase its amplitude.
6- I suppose such stimulation of resonance may increase the velocity of D-D fusion within the Pd lattice.
A SECOND ALTERNATIVE:
You can use a laser that hits the molecules D-D within the glass buble, instead of using an electrical discharge.
A THIRD ALTERNATIVE:
The best would be to build a laser which emission is produced by D-D molecules. In such case there is no need to have a glass buble, because the laser would be applied directly to the region of Pd lattice.
Perhaps you have to try the three alternatives.
It’s my opinion you should have to try it.
After all, we are in front to a new Physics, and we have to try any new idea if it makes sense.
Good luck in your attempt, if you decide to do it.
Regards
Wladimir Guglinski
Re: notes on anonymity and MCF
Anonymous poster of comment ID 36023:
I don't have to be able to know who you are, or may be, in real life. I would have no problem with you, any of you, registering with pseudonyms for posting in this forum. Even using a pseudonym as a signature (without any registration and logging in) would be preferable over the present lack of continuity and context even within this limited sphere. (At least Wladimir Guglinski, even though his identity is certainly unverified, though it is plausible that it is actually him [based on the nature of his comments], does provide a name in his signature, at least much of the time. Of course why he doesn't register/login is still a mystery.)
As to your "mystery" of how such a tightly bound muon can escape any fusions it may catalyze to be able to catalyze others: I'm reasonably certain Professor Jones addressed this, though it's been a long time since I've ready any of the work or heard him speak on such. I would hope you recognize that 1) the nucleus resulting from the fusion will recoil from the emission of a neutron or proton (with the emission of a proton providing additional cause for "ripping" the muon from the "clutches" of the nucleus it engendered); and 2) while the muon cannot "feel" the strong nuclear force, the lowest energy state of the electron and muon within the created atom entails reasonably high probabilities that they will be "inside" the nucleus, well able to couple to the nucleus through the electromagnetic interaction (and even the weak force).
So, while I'm not certain of the details of how the muon "escapes" I can certainly see that it is well within the energetics of the system. After all, all it would take is a transfer of energy on the order of a tenth of an MeV to free it. This is nothing like the energy gaps in DD fusions in the palladium-deuterium system.
David
Re: possible ECF details
Anonymous author of comment ID 36005:
I do remember having read the comment you quote: "If electron catalyzed fusion can occur, it certainly won't happen in the same manner that muon catalysis works (due to the difference in mass of the two particles)." The problem was not that you hadn't acknowledged the difference in masses, the problem appeared to be your lack of recognition that it is the difference in mass that is the sole raison d'etre of muon catalyzed fusion (MCF). Hence, no higher mass, no "catalyzed" fusion of anything like unto MCF. However, I can see the subtle distinction that's possible within what you wrote so I'll grant you that.
As for your proposed scenario: You appear to have little understanding of the nature of the hydrogen molecule ("the electron shells of hydrogen atoms" are not a part of the hydrogen molecule). The separation of the hydrogen atoms/nuclei in the hydrogen molecule is not due to a repulsion of the electrons, but of the nuclei themselves. The separation distance is a balance between the repulsion of the nuclei and the tendency of the electrons to seek their lowest energy state (close down to the nuclei, though Quantum characteristics prevent them from "collapsing" all the way down to those attractive nuclei, as they would in the classical case: However, the higher the mass of the negative charge carriers [electrons or muons, for instance] the closer they can get to the classical "ideal", in a sense).
However, you are roughly correct that the hydrogen atoms sort of "dissolve" into the palladium (or other hydride making material, or, to a greater or lesser extend in almost any metal—it's really difficult to prevent hydrogen from leaking through almost any metal). On the other hand, your concept of electron screening within palladium (or any material with conduction electrons) just doesn't jibe with any and all observations of solid state conductors (or even ion conductors).
While there is most certainly a screening effect within any conductive material (including plasmas, which are great conductors), it's not nearly so effective as what you propose. (If it were, we would be seeing a great many strange transmutations occurring in practically all such systems.) Perhaps a more fruitful avenue for pursuit would be the nature of periodic structures within the solid state (Bloch states and such). (By the way, there are metals that pack hydrogen in significantly more densely than palladium. Why have these not been pursued, especially if hydrogen density is what's needed?)
Anyway, thanks for trying. :-)
David
notes on anonymity and MCF
Although I wrote #36005 in response to #39995, there were a couple of things that seemed to me to deserve a separate posting.
Since Cold Fusion research has had low status for so many years, anonymous posting of ideas relating to it may be the best option, and for several different circumstances. For example, I could be somebody well-known, who would be academically assailed for having anything to do with the subject. Or I could be someone whose specialty is a wildly different subject, who only dabbles in this area, and doesn't need to hear remarks from colleagues like, "Why are you wasting time on THAT?" Or I could be someone you could find with a Web search, associated with all sorts of idiotic notions, and if you saw that before reading an idea I posted here, would you bother?
I like the fact that anonymity dissociates the writer from the idea. The idea either stands or falls on its own, and no preconceptions about it, based on the writer's reputation, need get in the way.
Next, while studies of muon catalyzed fusion do indeed indicate that low-temperature conditions need not affect the types of fusion results that occur, as compared to hot fusion, there is nevertheless a minor mystery here. Remember that because the muon is about 206 times as massive as an electron, it can orbit a proton 206 times closer than an electron. That means, thanks to the inverse-square law, the electrical attraction between proton and muon is about 206*206 (or 42436) times stronger than the ordinary attraction between a proton and an electron. More, when the muon catalyzes a fusion, two protons are nearby, so we can deduce that the attraction is roughly doubled, to maybe 85,000 times the normal attraction between one proton and one electron. Well, it is a fact that frequently, despite its mass and that electrical attraction, the muon can somehow acquire enough energy to escape the site of the fusion that it catalyzed (and can afterward catalyze another fusion).
The mystery is HOW did it acquire that energy? We know the muon cannot "feel" the Strong Nuclear Force, which is going to release a bunch of energy during the fusion reaction, usually appearing as the kinetic energy of particles such as a tritium nucleus and a proton, or a helium 3 nucleus and a neutron..
David and others, I leave you to ponder that mystery, while I await a reply to #36005.
Structure of CR-39
Here is the monomer structure of CR-39 used in Navy experiment:
CH2=CH-CH2-O-CO-O-CH2CH2-O-CH2CH2-O-CO-O-CH2-CH=CH2
Lots of carbon-12 atoms for a high energy neutron to hit and cause three alpha break-up pattern (the 3-pits). So, why so few 3-pit patterns seen in the Navy experiment when so many DD fusion events predicted to occur given the density of deuterium loaded near Pd electrode ?
Also lots of oxygen atoms in CR-39. So, what pit pattern expected in the Navy experiment on CR-39 film when high energy neutron hits oxygen ? Seems like also would be good evidence that high energy neutron was released. So, seems logical that if high energy neutron hit carbon and caused break-up, some also must hit oxygen and form some type of pit pattern. Anyone have any idea what pit pattern predicted from N hitting O in CR-39 ?
Of course, neutron that hits hydrogen (a proton) in CR-39 would form a 1-pit pattern, and lots of these shown in Navy experiment. But perhaps these 1-pits only caused by lower 2.5 MeV neutrons from DD fusion, and not the 9-15 MeV neutrons claimed to break-up the carbon-12 ?
Don Borghi Experiment
To W. Guglinski:
Not sure if you have read this experimental confirmation of Don Borghi experiment:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0608/0608229v1.pdf
It does appear that such a simple process of how [proton <---> neutron] may well be the limit of quantum mechanics and thus open door to new understanding of physical reality. I do find it interesting that one interpretation of Don Borghi data is that he never observed "neutron", but a new state of matter.
new nuclear model explains cold fusion
Based on the new nuclear model of Quantum Ring Theory, a new theory is proposed to explain the results obtained by Pamela Mosier-Boss cold fusion experiment, published in last March.
See the article in Peswiki:
How zitterbewegung contributes for cold fusion in Pamela Mosier-Boss experiment:
peswiki.com/index.php/Article:_How_zitterbewegung_contributes_for_cold_fusion_in_Pamela_Mosier-Boss_experiment
Re: Neutron Impact on CR-39
Anonymous poster of comment ID 35927:
What you have here only validates what I said: the neutron will not, itself, due to its electromagnetic neutrality, cause any tracks. Neutrons only cause tracks when they interact with the nucleus of another atom in the material. Hence there will be only one track (tritium) or two tracks (helium-3) before the neutron or neutrons interact(s) with a nucleus or nuclei. Furthermore, the likelihood that both neutrons from a fully disintegrated tritium will interact with nuclei at very nearly the same time and place will be extremely low.*
David
* Of course, all this presumes the existence of fully disintegrated tritium and/or helium-3 particles in the first place. :-)
Re: Questions for David
Anon-Robert:
The questions you pose are good ones, and yes, I am concerned at the poor quality of the "cold" fusion evidence in this and many other experiments. (See, for instance, my first post to this topic and my Reply to Wladimir Guglinski (unverified ID, though plausible).)
However, just because the experiments are of poor quality doesn't, immediately, invalidate the possibilities. On the other hand, I shall most certainly reserve judgement until I see sufficient evidence.
David
P.S. As for your question #3: Even if "cold" fusion has a difficult time producing sufficient excess heat to do much work (for instance, if the reaction can only work at room temperatures, so thermodynamic efficiency is down the drain), if there are novel phenomena involved, the research may yet be well worthwhile. (See my discussion in my first post to this topic.)
David:
you wrote:
"it's certainly going to show up in any electron capture/emission/annihilation experiments (such as electron/positron creation/annihilation, where the energies of the absorbed/emitted gamma-rays are easily measured), whether the zbw motion is "ignored" or taken into consideration."
All the particles move with zitterbewegung.
A gamma-ray has zbw energy, which it is not measured.
The electron liberates its zbw energy when it is captured by a proton, and they form the neutron, and this unexpected energy has melted the cathode in the Conte-Pieralice experiment, where an electron with low energy is captured by a proton.
When the electron is captured by a proton, it loses its zbw, because it gyrates about the proton with newtonian motion. The electron becomes a boson, that's why the neutron has spin 1/2, in spite of it is formed by proton+electron.
wladimir guglinski
see here from Wikipedia: Electron capture (K-capture)
electron capture as mentioned in Wikipedia occurs only in conditions of extreme pressure and temperature, like into the Sun
Electron capture cannot occur in room temperture, as happens in Don Borghi experiment.
The results of Don Borghi experiment are impossible according to the principles of Quantum Mechanics.
WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI
possible ECF details
David, I wrote #35911, and can attempt to respond to #35995.
One thing I shall quote from the earlier message: "If electron catalyzed fusion can occur, it certainly won't happen in the same manner that muon catalysis works (due to the difference in mass of the two particles)." Your message did not seem to acknowledge that.
For ECF to be possible, the electron shells of hydrogen atoms have to be "out of the picture", since (1) the shells repel other electrons, including other electron shells, and (2) trapped within separate shells, nuclei are basically too far apart to fuse.
It happens that palladium is special in a way that could be relevant to the preceding. Helium is a physically smaller atom than either a hydrogen atom or a hydrogen molecule, but helium cannot permeate palladium, while hydrogen can flow through the metal fairly easily. Why? One possibility is that hydrogen "alloys" itself to palladium, giving its electron up into the overall "conduction band" of the metal. We know that hydrogen absorption by palladium is exothermic, yet we also know the two elements have practically identical electronegativities, and that palladium remains metallic after absorbing 900 times its volume of hydrogen. An ordinary chemical reaction between the two seems unlikely. If this possibility of alloying is correct, then the size of a hydrogen atom would shrink by about 100,000 times, since it has only one electron and so becomes just a bare nucleus without it (having donated it to the conduction band). That would make it easily able to permeate the solid metal; it would simply claim an electron from the conduction band as it emerges on the other side.
So, in deuterium-saturated palladium, if the deuteriums have given away their electrons to the conduction band, we can now consider what sorts of interactions there might be between bare deuterons and loose conduction-band electrons. Since the electrons are not orbiting the deuterons, is there anything preventing the two from approaching (momentarily) arbitrarily closely? So far as I know, the answer to that is "NO". This means that if two deuterons just randomly happen to be on a collision course, their mutual repulsion can momentarily be shielded by any loose electron that happens to get in-between them (and that location is the point of greatest electrical attraction between the two deuterons and an electron). The extent to which the electron electrically attracts the two deuterons closer together would be balanced by the fact that the electron's location-uncertainty will cause it to quickly leave that special location --but there are lots of other electrons nearby, also loose in the conduction band. THEIR location-uncertainties can allow them to replace the first electron just as soon as it leaves the scene. Remember that in muon catalysis, only one negative charge suffices to shield two deuterons (and only one negatively charged particle is present); in the conduction band the deuterons can easily attract two or more charges to their vicinity. (Talking in terms of quantum uncertainty, we can imagine 20 nearby electrons each having 10% of its "cloudiness-of-location" close to the two deuterons, the group effectively acting as two close-by electrons.) That's a major reason why a second electron should be "right there", able to immediately replace the first, and take over the task of shielding the deuterons from each other.
The net result seems to be that random collision courses can be shielded until two deuterons are close enough for the Strong Nuclear Force to start overcoming their mutual repulsion. Note that the collision courses need to be very precise, since nuclei are so small; this means that high loading of the palladium by deuterium is needed, for significant numbers of precise collision courses to happen. And, of course the failure to achieve high loading is now considered to be a major explanation for why so many early attempts failed to replicate the original experiment.
Do you have an objection to that scenario, David?
Neutron Impact on CR-39
David,
Your statement that the neutron found within either helium-3 or tritium cannot cause a pit in CR-39 seems to be falsified by this previous post from somewhat that apparently works in the field--since they state they made an oops of information known:--see here:
====
April 7, 2009 by Anonymous, 2 days 10 hours ago
Comment id: 35927
I neglected to remember that a moderately energetic neutron can interact with hydrogen in CR-39 plastic in a particular way. A collision with a hydrogen nucleus can give it enough energy to break its molecular bond and go tearing for a short distance through the other molecular bonds in the plastic. This damage can be revealed by etching. Only a single track or pit is revealed, and other causes of such damage (cosmic rays, for example) are quite possible, leading to some uncertainty as to the true cause of the pits. This is why the triple-track data is much more important (it's more difficult to explain as anything other than the result of neutron interactions).
====
So, David, your statement that a neutron cannot form a pit in CR-39 just not correct. So, since we being scientific here, my hypothesis that 3-pit pattern observed by Navy (which they admit is very, very rare pattern of all the pits they see) may be caused by rare break-up of [PNP] and/or [NPN], given extra momentum to neutron supply from knock-on reaction, still on the table, open for you or anyone else to falsify via controlled experimentation.
Post new comment