I mean 50V/(bohr radius) 2012/1/31 Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com>
> Right, the unit they are using is V/m, bohr darius is ~ 1/2*10^-10m. That > gives ~50V for the bohr radius. The ionization energy for the H atom is > 13.6V. But I think the value you cited is a bit smaller. > > > 2012/1/31 Gigi DiMarco <gdmgdms...@gmail.com> > >> I've a problem with the W&L theory. I read carefully their published >> paper >> >> >> http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006Widom-UltraLowMomentumNeutronCatalyzed.pdf >> >> and I found what seems to me to be a major flaw. >> I'm sure I'm totally wrong but I would ask you to check. >> It is only arithmetics, no advanced physics. >> >> My attention was catched by Eq. (25), where an electric field around one >> million of millions V/m appears. >> Too much, I told myself. >> As a comparison the proton induced electrical field at a Bohr distance is >> only about 10 to minus 7 V/m, that is 18 orders of magnitude less. >> >> So I checked the calculations starting from Eq. (23) where the electric >> field is 4 times proton charge divided by 3 times Bohr distance to the >> third power, all multiplied by a term, under square root, that represents >> the proton displacement during its oscillatory motion. >> In Eq. (25) a term equal to the Bohr distance is transported under the >> square root. >> So the term to be evaluated reads: >> >> 4 |e| / 3 a^2 >> >> This term provides us with a numerical value equal to 7.63 V/m, that is >> 11 orders of magnitude less than the value appearing in the paper. >> >> That turns out to be a huge problem for the authors, since the threshold >> criteria for electron capture Eq. (6) and Eq. (27) are no more satisfied >> by a large amount and the ultra low momentum neutron plus neutrino pair can >> not be produced. >> >> Is anybody here that can confirm or disproof my calculations? >> >> >> Best regards >> >> GDM >> >> >> > > > -- > Daniel Rocha - RJ > danieldi...@gmail.com > > -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
