Absorption, in WL, happens because of a mysterious collective oscillation of surface plasmons which cause some of the electrons to be tunnel into a proton, it's like thousands of plasmons together pushing 1 electron inside a 1 proton. The order of magnitude of plasmons is bound by the workfunction, otherwise, the electron would be removed from the metal.
2012/1/31 Giovanni Santostasi <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]>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 <[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] >> >> > -- Daniel Rocha - RJ [email protected]
