Well, 10^11 - 10^12 seems to be the right order of magnitude for the electric field to trap a surface electron. At the classical proton radius, ~2fm, it should be around 10^(~-22)V/M.
2012/1/31 Giovanni Santostasi <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]>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 <[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] >> >> > -- Daniel Rocha - RJ [email protected]
