Re: [Vo]:The hydrogen s-orbital and the problem of muonic hydrogen
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Sat, 26 Jan 2013 15:16:51 -0800: Hi, [snip] Oh wait a minute, if the electron is inside the proton, doesnt the whole structure look like a neutron, ie it wont see a coulomb barrier and can fuse with another hydrogen at will ? See Horace Heffner's Deflation Fusion theory at www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DeflationFusion2.pdf Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:The hydrogen s-orbital and the problem of muonic hydrogen
Does anyone know how (or if) in theory the proton's radius would effect rates of fusion? Would the proton have to be larger or smaller to increase rates of fusion? A smaller charge radius means less coulomb repulsion. When enough electrons shield enough positive charge from the proton, two protons will bind together in a pair; coulomb repulsion is neutralized. This is the basis for the Shukla,-Eliasson effect. http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=sfrm=1source=webcd=6sqi=2ved=0CD8QFjAFurl=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1209.0914ei=OSBQUO6SJKnF0AH5uoG4CAusg=AFQjCNHGAqMvSJxjgufVpRf7kYFcJtBBIwsig2=8fhHq-SEQvQCAJKvWP4j2A What shields the charge of the proton is unclear. It can’t be the charge, because the electron can approach very close to the proton without coulomb repulsion cancelation. But the muon shields the protons charge more than the electron. Could it be that the mass of the negative particle(s) must be increased to have increased shielding effects? It could be. Heavy (more energetic) electrons provide more shielding effects than do lighter (less energetic) ones at ground state. The trick to LENR might be not to ionize it into plasma but to pack as many electrons into hydrogen as possible. Rossi's reactor has high numbers of electrons packed inside; so many that they can be removed as a high powered current. DGT uses a spark to pack heavy electrons into their reactor. These extra electrons will be energetic and heavy because of the Pauli Exclusion Principle where no two identical fermions (particles with half-integer spin) may occupy the same quantum state simultaneously. The only place that these extra electrons can go is up in energy. These heavy electrons will have a high frequency. A heavy electron(s) may approach the mass of a muon. It might be the mass that is the key to this conundrum. Cheers:Axil On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 9:52 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps the proton's radius can be both increased and descreased under certain conditions. Does anyone know how (or if) in theory the proton's radius would effect rates of fusion? Would the proton have to be larger or smaller to increase rates of fusion? Harry On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: We've already gone over the new Science paper on muonic hydrogen elsewhere, but I saw a comment on E-Cat World that I thought was worth bringing up here. According to a summary of the Science article in Ars Technica [1], the problem I alluded to in the title is that the charge radius of the proton has been measured very accurately to be both 0.84fm and 0.88fm. This would not be a big deal if the accuracy of the measurements allowed both of these values. But the measurements are extremely accurate, and incompatible, unless there is something unexplained going on. The comment by Gerrit in E-Cat World elaborates [2]: Have we discussed the recent finding of the shrunken proton yet ? The proton in muonic hydrogen is 4% smaller that normal hydrogen. They cannot explain it with current understanding, yet the new measurements are very high accuracy. http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/01/hydrogen-made-with-muons-reveals-proton-size-conundrum/ “The proton structure is important because an electron in an S [ground] state has a nonzero probability to be inside the proton.” Oh wait a minute, if the electron is inside the proton, doesn’t the whole structure look like a neutron, ie it won’t see a coulomb barrier and can fuse with another hydrogen at will ? The next question that “established” science should target is measuring the proton size of a hydrogen in a metal lattice. I think it is inevitable that “established” science will eventually stumble over the same phenomenon that has been shown to exists for over 23 years. In a few years we’ll probably be hearing “Well, with the current understanding of physics we can no longer claim that Fleischmann and Pons were wrong” So it seems that under certain conditions, physicists are measuring something vaguely like Mills's fractional hydrogen -- it might be that it is Mills's fractional hydrogen, or it might be something entirely different. Gerrit asks whether you could get screening, e.g., sufficient to lead to the anomalous behavior in metal hydrides we've been following here, from whatever it is that is going on. The Ars Technica article ends with this interesting comment: The one option they [the research team] seem to like is the existence of relatively light force carriers that somehow remained undiscovered until now. New force carriers is an interesting thought. Would that imply a heretofore unknown interaction? Eric [1] http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/01/hydrogen-made-with-muons-reveals-proton-size-conundrum/ [2] http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/01/robotics-and-lenr/comment-page-1/#comment-105365
[Vo]:The hydrogen s-orbital and the problem of muonic hydrogen
We've already gone over the new Science paper on muonic hydrogen elsewhere, but I saw a comment on E-Cat World that I thought was worth bringing up here. According to a summary of the Science article in Ars Technica [1], the problem I alluded to in the title is that the charge radius of the proton has been measured very accurately to be both 0.84fm and 0.88fm. This would not be a big deal if the accuracy of the measurements allowed both of these values. But the measurements are extremely accurate, and incompatible, unless there is something unexplained going on. The comment by Gerrit in E-Cat World elaborates [2]: Have we discussed the recent finding of the shrunken proton yet ? The proton in muonic hydrogen is 4% smaller that normal hydrogen. They cannot explain it with current understanding, yet the new measurements are very high accuracy. http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/01/hydrogen-made-with-muons-reveals-proton-size-conundrum/ “The proton structure is important because an electron in an S [ground] state has a nonzero probability to be inside the proton.” Oh wait a minute, if the electron is inside the proton, doesn’t the whole structure look like a neutron, ie it won’t see a coulomb barrier and can fuse with another hydrogen at will ? The next question that “established” science should target is measuring the proton size of a hydrogen in a metal lattice. I think it is inevitable that “established” science will eventually stumble over the same phenomenon that has been shown to exists for over 23 years. In a few years we’ll probably be hearing “Well, with the current understanding of physics we can no longer claim that Fleischmann and Pons were wrong” So it seems that under certain conditions, physicists are measuring something vaguely like Mills's fractional hydrogen -- it might be that it is Mills's fractional hydrogen, or it might be something entirely different. Gerrit asks whether you could get screening, e.g., sufficient to lead to the anomalous behavior in metal hydrides we've been following here, from whatever it is that is going on. The Ars Technica article ends with this interesting comment: The one option they [the research team] seem to like is the existence of relatively light force carriers that somehow remained undiscovered until now. New force carriers is an interesting thought. Would that imply a heretofore unknown interaction? Eric [1] http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/01/hydrogen-made-with-muons-reveals-proton-size-conundrum/ [2] http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/01/robotics-and-lenr/comment-page-1/#comment-105365
Re: [Vo]:The hydrogen s-orbital and the problem of muonic hydrogen
I wrote: So it seems that under certain conditions, physicists are measuring something vaguely like Mills's fractional hydrogen -- it might be that it is Mills's fractional hydrogen, or it might be something entirely different. This is incorrect. The physicists are measuring *muonic* hydrogen and getting a different charge radius for the proton. So we're not dealing with Mills hydrogen or even something that looks like Mills hydrogen, since these have an electron and not a muon. If you extrapolate the charge radius from these experiments to the case of the normal proton-electron system, that is interesting. But what I don't understand yet is that the new charge radius is 0.04fm *smaller* than previously measured. In light of this, I'm not sure what is meant by the quotation going back to the paper that The proton structure is important because an electron in an S [ground] state has a nonzero probability to be inside the proton. Eric
RE: [Vo]:The hydrogen s-orbital and the problem of muonic hydrogen
“But the measurements are extremely accurate, and incompatible, unless there is something unexplained going on.” Perhaps protons have different energy levels (shells) similar to elections? -Mark From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 3:17 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:The hydrogen s-orbital and the problem of muonic hydrogen We've already gone over the new Science paper on muonic hydrogen elsewhere, but I saw a comment on E-Cat World that I thought was worth bringing up here. According to a summary of the Science article in Ars Technica [1], the problem I alluded to in the title is that the charge radius of the proton has been measured very accurately to be both 0.84fm and 0.88fm. This would not be a big deal if the accuracy of the measurements allowed both of these values. But the measurements are extremely accurate, and incompatible, unless there is something unexplained going on. The comment by Gerrit in E-Cat World elaborates [2]: Have we discussed the recent finding of the shrunken proton yet ? The proton in muonic hydrogen is 4% smaller that normal hydrogen. They cannot explain it with current understanding, yet the new measurements are very high accuracy. http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/01/hydrogen-made-with-muons-reveals-proton-size-conundrum/ “The proton structure is important because an electron in an S [ground] state has a nonzero probability to be inside the proton.” Oh wait a minute, if the electron is inside the proton, doesn’t the whole structure look like a neutron, ie it won’t see a coulomb barrier and can fuse with another hydrogen at will ? The next question that “established” science should target is measuring the proton size of a hydrogen in a metal lattice. I think it is inevitable that “established” science will eventually stumble over the same phenomenon that has been shown to exists for over 23 years. In a few years we’ll probably be hearing “Well, with the current understanding of physics we can no longer claim that Fleischmann and Pons were wrong” So it seems that under certain conditions, physicists are measuring something vaguely like Mills's fractional hydrogen -- it might be that it is Mills's fractional hydrogen, or it might be something entirely different. Gerrit asks whether you could get screening, e.g., sufficient to lead to the anomalous behavior in metal hydrides we've been following here, from whatever it is that is going on. The Ars Technica article ends with this interesting comment: The one option they [the research team] seem to like is the existence of relatively light force carriers that somehow remained undiscovered until now. New force carriers is an interesting thought. Would that imply a heretofore unknown interaction? Eric [1] http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/01/hydrogen-made-with-muons-reveals-proton-size-conundrum/ [2] http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/01/robotics-and-lenr/comment-page-1/#comment-105365
Re: [Vo]:The hydrogen s-orbital and the problem of muonic hydrogen
I am going to play the skeptic on this thread. I have a very strong suspicion that the accuracy of the proton measurement is most likely not as good as is thought. Why does the uncertainty principle allow the size measurement to be this accurate since the particle momentum appears to be well defined. The proton size is a theoretical number that may one day prove to be grossly wrong. The next theory will eventually come around and a new argument will begin. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jan 26, 2013 6:36 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:The hydrogen s-orbital and the problem of muonic hydrogen I wrote: So it seems that under certain conditions, physicists are measuring something vaguely like Mills's fractional hydrogen -- it might be that it is Mills's fractional hydrogen, or it might be something entirely different. This is incorrect. The physicists are measuring *muonic* hydrogen and getting a different charge radius for the proton. So we're not dealing with Mills hydrogen or even something that looks like Mills hydrogen, since these have an electron and not a muon. If you extrapolate the charge radius from these experiments to the case of the normal proton-electron system, that is interesting. But what I don't understand yet is that the new charge radius is 0.04fm *smaller* than previously measured. In light of this, I'm not sure what is meant by the quotation going back to the paper that The proton structure is important because an electron in an S [ground] state has a nonzero probability to be inside the proton. Eric
Re: [Vo]:The hydrogen s-orbital and the problem of muonic hydrogen
This proton measurement thing has me perplexed. So much so that I don't care about it. My only interest is the nuclear wave number. It appears to be 1.36 fm-1 for all nucleons. Frank -Original Message- From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jan 26, 2013 7:17 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:The hydrogen s-orbital and the problem of muonic hydrogen I am going to play the skeptic on this thread. I have a very strong suspicion that the accuracy of the proton measurement is most likely not as good as is thought. Why does the uncertainty principle allow the size measurement to be this accurate since the particle momentum appears to be well defined. The proton size is a theoretical number that may one day prove to be grossly wrong. The next theory will eventually come around and a new argument will begin. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jan 26, 2013 6:36 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:The hydrogen s-orbital and the problem of muonic hydrogen I wrote: So it seems that under certain conditions, physicists are measuring something vaguely like Mills's fractional hydrogen -- it might be that it is Mills's fractional hydrogen, or it might be something entirely different. This is incorrect. The physicists are measuring *muonic* hydrogen and getting a different charge radius for the proton. So we're not dealing with Mills hydrogen or even something that looks like Mills hydrogen, since these have an electron and not a muon. If you extrapolate the charge radius from these experiments to the case of the normal proton-electron system, that is interesting. But what I don't understand yet is that the new charge radius is 0.04fm *smaller* than previously measured. In light of this, I'm not sure what is meant by the quotation going back to the paper that The proton structure is important because an electron in an S [ground] state has a nonzero probability to be inside the proton. Eric
Re: [Vo]:The hydrogen s-orbital and the problem of muonic hydrogen
Perhaps the proton's radius can be both increased and descreased under certain conditions. Does anyone know how (or if) in theory the proton's radius would effect rates of fusion? Would the proton have to be larger or smaller to increase rates of fusion? Harry On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: We've already gone over the new Science paper on muonic hydrogen elsewhere, but I saw a comment on E-Cat World that I thought was worth bringing up here. According to a summary of the Science article in Ars Technica [1], the problem I alluded to in the title is that the charge radius of the proton has been measured very accurately to be both 0.84fm and 0.88fm. This would not be a big deal if the accuracy of the measurements allowed both of these values. But the measurements are extremely accurate, and incompatible, unless there is something unexplained going on. The comment by Gerrit in E-Cat World elaborates [2]: Have we discussed the recent finding of the shrunken proton yet ? The proton in muonic hydrogen is 4% smaller that normal hydrogen. They cannot explain it with current understanding, yet the new measurements are very high accuracy. http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/01/hydrogen-made-with-muons-reveals-proton-size-conundrum/ “The proton structure is important because an electron in an S [ground] state has a nonzero probability to be inside the proton.” Oh wait a minute, if the electron is inside the proton, doesn’t the whole structure look like a neutron, ie it won’t see a coulomb barrier and can fuse with another hydrogen at will ? The next question that “established” science should target is measuring the proton size of a hydrogen in a metal lattice. I think it is inevitable that “established” science will eventually stumble over the same phenomenon that has been shown to exists for over 23 years. In a few years we’ll probably be hearing “Well, with the current understanding of physics we can no longer claim that Fleischmann and Pons were wrong” So it seems that under certain conditions, physicists are measuring something vaguely like Mills's fractional hydrogen -- it might be that it is Mills's fractional hydrogen, or it might be something entirely different. Gerrit asks whether you could get screening, e.g., sufficient to lead to the anomalous behavior in metal hydrides we've been following here, from whatever it is that is going on. The Ars Technica article ends with this interesting comment: The one option they [the research team] seem to like is the existence of relatively light force carriers that somehow remained undiscovered until now. New force carriers is an interesting thought. Would that imply a heretofore unknown interaction? Eric [1] http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/01/hydrogen-made-with-muons-reveals-proton-size-conundrum/ [2] http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/01/robotics-and-lenr/comment-page-1/#comment-105365
