I have a PhD in Physics even if this is not my field, I'm trying to learn more about it. But usually I can read most physics papers and understand their main content.
I will read the paper more carefully but it seems that they are describing in section 3, the harmonic motion of a proton that is immersed in a electric field and displaced from equilibrium by a small displacement u. The a in equation 25 is not well explained but I believe is a distance on the order of the size of a proton. In fact you could use 25 as a definition of a=5.1x10^11V/m/e. It is arbitrary at this point and this quantity is used to parameterize the field in terms of a distance ratio between small displacement and this a. So for example, the field would be E^2=16/9 * (5.1x10^11V/m)^2 *4 if the small displacement u is 2a (9 if displacement is 3a and so on). Nothing wrong in the equation. Giovanni On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Giovanni Santostasi <gsantost...@gmail.com>wrote: > They are using a about the size of a proton not the Bohr radius. > That seems correct. > Giovanni > > > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Alain Sepeda <alain.sep...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> >> can someone contact a physicist that could check, and even maybe the >> author. >> maybe is there a typo in the formulas, >> is it corrected in a newer version? >> >> i confirm the computation >> >> beware of the cm unit instead of meter... I find 76V/m anyway. >> >> the ratio of the mistake seems to be 9*10^9... >> maybe one of the formula is wrong, or wrongly interpreted >> >> >> in >> http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006WidomLarsen-TheoreticalStandard-V2.pdf >> in(89) I see the same huge "looking like a mistake" (I compute 4.55V/m) >> and same for 87 >> >> maybe is the notation very different from what we imagine, >> and I could not check units coherency >> it is a key point, and I hope they check it. >> it could make W-L theory out, if confirmed. >> >> note that in >> http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2010/2010Srivastava-Primer.pdf >> I can infer from (25) that a=5.48e-16m, which is about the charge >> diameter (8.8e-16m) >> while bohr radius is 5.3e-11m officially >> >> so srivastava did not notice the problem, or it is not a problem... >> his computation are more simple, so I think it is a misunderstanding... >> >> have to find a professionnal >> >> >> >> >> >> 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 >>> >>> >>> >> >
