Ok, let me read the paper and reply. I need to understand it better. But what I said before it is right in terms of using 25) to define a. To make sense of the numbers then a has to be on the order of a nucleus. Giovanni
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 <gsantost...@gmail.com> > >> 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 >>> >>> >> > > > -- > Daniel Rocha - RJ > danieldi...@gmail.com > >
