Gigi, The criticism in the link you gave doesn't seem very strong to me. The main point was that the fields involved are two strong to be realistic. I maybe missing something but the field density implied in the paper is about 1 electron per Bohr atom. It is true that to have such density in throughout the material you would have to have atoms basically touching each other but given we are talking about a metal I don't see this as a problem.
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 7:06 PM, Giovanni Santostasi <gsantost...@gmail.com>wrote: > Ok, > Daniel you are right. > The order of magnitude of a field at the Bohr radius from a proton is > 10^11 V/m. It seems also that the interpretation of the paper describes > this situation where the electron sphere is the size of an average atom. I > misunderstood what the paper was discussing. > Gigi, did you use cgs units to do your calculation? Otherwise if you want > to use mks you have to add the coulomb constant to the Coulomb equation in > the Srivastava paper. I think this where you error was. > Giovanni > > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> 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 <gsantost...@gmail.com> >> >>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Daniel Rocha - RJ >> danieldi...@gmail.com >> >> >
