Lou,
Any theory that proposes to use tunneling based on electrons being
concentrated must at the same time show how the resulting energy is
dissipated. Such energy is dissipated normally by the fusion product
breaking into two parts, which go off with high energy in directions
required to conserve momentum. This is called hot fusion and it is
well known and understood.
In contrast, during cold fusion the fusion product does not fragment.
It remains as He, but without the gamma emission as is required to
dissipate the energy. To be consistent with this observation, a
theory MUST explain how this nuclear energy is dissipated. Simply
proposing a process to overcome the barrier without showing how the
next step violates normal behavior is not useful in explaining cold
fusion. The Maimon theory is ok if it is used to explain hot fusion
because this is what would be expected and what has been observed when
tunneling conditions have been created. People have to accept that
hot fusion and cold fusion are two entirely different phenomenon that
play by different rules. Confusion keeps being produced by trying to
mix these two different effects.
Ed
On Feb 9, 2013, at 10:09 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:
Ed,
I assume you are referring to Maimon's theory, which I am not
familiar with.
When you say "the expected reaction is hot fusion", are you only
referring to highly energetic collisions?
Do you think the theory X.Z.Li, et al, involving resonant tunneling
(at low kinetic energy), allegedly avoiding energetic byproducts,
might
be correct? Some references --
"Deuterium (Hydrogen) Flux Permeating through Palladium and Condensed
Matter Nuclear Science"
http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/LENR%20home%20page/acrobat/WeiQdeuteriumh.pdf
"A Chinese view on summary of condensed matter nuclear science"
http://166.111.26.4/JOFE2004Sept.Vol23No3P217.pdf
"Fusion energy without strong nuclear radiation"
http://www.springerlink.com/index/w4721655219541kk.pdf
"Multiple Scattering Theory (MST) and Condensed Matter Nuclear
Science—“Super-Absorption” in a Crystal Lattice—"
http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/LENR%20home%20page/acrobat/LiXZmultiplesc.pdf
I am agnostic on this topic, and am very interested in your view.
-- Lou Pagnucco
The problem Eric is that once the math is solved, the expected
nuclear
reaction is hot fusion, not cold fusion. Consequently, this effort is
a waste of time. This is something the hot fusion field needs to
understand to explain the effect of bombarding materials with
energetic deuterons. The effort has no application to cold fusion.
Ed
On Feb 9, 2013, at 9:13 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:
Eric,
It's good to hear Ron Maimon is trying to develop this theory.
But, the math is truly confusing, bewildering and intimidating -
even to formulate the problem, let alone solve it.
When composite particles are involved, calculating tunneling
probability
is almost intractable - even in free space, much less in condensed
matter.
A recent paper on composite particle tunneling -
"Tunneling of a molecule with many bound states in three dimensions"
http://iopscience.iop.org/0953-4075/46/4/045201
(free - with registration)
- (and, the many references it cites) shows how tricky this is.
There are some related papers on arxiv.org too.
In the case of LENR, I think the empirical trumps the theoretical.
-- Lou Pagnucco
Eric Walker wrote:
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:08 AM, <pagnu...@htdconnect.com> wrote:
While it discusses the extreme focusing of ~1 MeV proton wave-
functions,
perhaps particles/ions in micro-/nano-channels in zeolites,
nano-crevices, nanostructures, ..., experience more wave-function
focusing than expected - possibly increasing tunneling probability
by dramatically increasing overlap of channel particle wave-
functions.
Ron Maimon was getting at a similar idea by having two deuterons
meet near
a palladium spectator nucleus, at the classical turning point where
the
strength of the positive charge of the palladium nucleus would push
the
positively charged deuterons back out again. With 20 keV of
initial
kinetic energy, the deuterons would penetrate the electron shells
as far
as
the K shell before turning around again. At the turning point
their de
Broglie waves would be "enhanced,", or, presumably, focused, and
as a
result overlap and tunneling would be more likely.
Several significant difficulties with this approach were raised
which have
not yet been brought to Ron's attention. Presumably he would set
us
straight on what I misunderstood of what he was saying.
Eric
