We can analyze the paper together, but what is discussed in that section is what happens when an electron is absorbed inside a proton. The proton would oscillate because of the presence of the electric field distributed over the volume of the proton. So the relevant scale is the size of a proton.
Giovanni On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 <gsantost...@gmail.com> > >> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > > > -- > Daniel Rocha - RJ > danieldi...@gmail.com > >
