Well, the electric field makes sense if that 10^12V/m has the size of an atom bohr, not of a proton. Just scale that field for that of bohr atom, r~5*10^-11m, which gives 2V/bohr atom. That's not far away from a typical working function of a metal.
2012/1/31 Giovanni Santostasi <[email protected]> > 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 < > [email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>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 <[email protected]> >>> >>>> 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 [email protected]
