[Vo]:Re: HUP-spread-out electron "feels" (and thus Coulomb-screens?) like a point charge... - T.GIF

[Michel Jullian]

    
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robin van Spaandonk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 11:51 PM
    
    
>>Indeed momentum p is the denominator of the De Broglie wavelength h/p, my 
>>mistake. So in fact the more immobile the target deuteron, the less close the 
>>incident deuteron needs to get in order to fuse...
>
>This is also the way I used to think, however it is somewhat problematic. In
>order to tunnel, a particle has to "make an attempt", i.e. it has to move at
>least a little. Furthermore, the more frequent the attempts, the more likely
>tunneling is in any given period of time.

Indeed two immobile d's wouldn't attempt much I don't think, but isn't it ok if 
_one_ d in the pair, namely the incident one, makes the attempt, as in the 
Desorbing vs Incident Excess Surface Electron Catalyzed Fusion (DIESECF) 
scenario we are discussing?

>(However maybe the zero point motion
>is enough to count as an attempt?)
>- Anyone know how to calculate the frequency?
>>1/ Wouldn't it therefore dramatically improve things if we threw (by 
>>electrolysis, gas discharge or whatever) the incident deuterons onto a 
>>deep-cooled deuteron desorbing cathode? (liquid deuterium in a back side 
>>chamber could provide the deuterium, the low temp and the pushing pressure 
>>maybe)
>
>IIRC, there were a few early attempts using loaded cathodes rapidly immersed in
>liquid nitrogen (with a few neutrons detected if I'm not mistaken).

I was thinking of permanently cooling the back (loading) side and exposing the 
front side to more energetic incident deuterons. This way we would benefit from 
the cooling-induced wider quantum spread (larger De Broglie wavelength h/p) of 
the target deuteron, allowing tunneling to it from a larger distance, and of 
the energy of the incident one to get as close as possible to the target, does 
this make sense?

>>2/ Another thought triggered by your correction, forced cooling or not, isn't 
>>a deuteron about to desorb (for Jones's entertainment: stuck half way through 
>>the surface Pd "sphincter") particularly immobile due to its squeezed 
>>condition, and therefore an easier fusion target?
>
>I wouldn't think *anything* is particularly "stuck" at the atomic level.

Not really stuck of course, but particularly slow, think of the motion of an 
internal d traveling between successive octahedral sites on its way out, you 
will certainly agree it slows down while passing bottlenecks: in terms of 
potential, it's a succession of hills and valleys where the bottlenecks are the 
"mountain passes" where the d almost comes to a halt before gathering speed 
again on the next downhill stretch.

As a result the bottlenecks are the most favorable places for fusion to occur, 
with the output "sphincter" at the cathode surface the most favorable of all 
since it features surface electron screening, plus initially relatively 
energetic incident deuterons (a few to a few hundred eV depending on the CF 
experiment type) in frontal collision course, agreed?

>>3/ I have found this 2002 paper "Study on Physical Foundation of Cold Fusion" 
>>:
>>http://www.swip.ac.cn/cfs/english/Information/nb2002/024.2.pdf
>>The English is very poor but the physics seem quite understandable, even to 
>>this QM ignoramus. I find the "volcano section view" shaped potential curve 
>>quite helpful: positive hill shape is Coulomb repulsion potential (hill is 
>>lowered and narrowed by any screening negative charge density I guess), 
>>narrow 
>>central pit going down to very negative values is nuclear force attraction 
>>potential.
>>   Summary of my understanding of this paper: in order to fuse i.e. fall into 
>>the pit an incident deuteron doesn't have to classically go all the way up 
>>the 
>>hill, instead it can tunnel through it if it gets closer than the target's De 
>>Broglie wavelength. It seems the incident deuteron can be treated as a 
>>classical point charge loosing KE and gaining PE to find how high on the hill 
>>--and therefore how close to the target deuteron-- it gets.
>>   Your comments on the paper or my summary welcome.
>>
>>4/ Do you have a ref for your factor 10 to 20 (0.035 to 0.07 Å instead of D2's
>> 0.7 Å separation) required for practical D-D fusion power production?
>
>Sorry, but that's based upon my own (possibly wildly inaccurate) calculations.
>(See attached gif, which contains one of my various attempts to get this 
>right).
>Z = atomic number of the target nucleus
>d = initial distance before tunneling
>m = mass of tunneling particle
>(assuming that tunneling particle has an atomic number of 1).

I appreciate, thanks also for your other posts. What do you mean by "initial 
distance before tunneling", is this the distance at which the incident 
(projectile) deuteron comes to a halt? I don't see where the De Broglie 
wavelength or the energy of the particle(s) comes into play BTW, it should 
matter as we discussed above.

Surely there must be a standard way to compute this, could the approach used in 
the Chinese paper I quoted above be a standard one?

>See also the paper:- "Catalysis of Nuclear Reactions between Hydrogen Isotopes
>by mu- Mesons" by J.D. Jackson, Physical Review, Vol. 106, Number 2, April 15
>1957, page 330.

Thanks, do you have a pdf version by any chance?

Cheers,
Michel