Experimens have shown that a BEC can form at a temperature of 2640 K. arxiv.org/pdf/1210.7086
I have posted on this elsewhere.Cheers: Axil On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: > > On Feb 14, 2013, at 12:19 AM, Chuck Sites wrote: > > I think you are being very dismissive of the way quantum mechanics works > with in the nuclear realm. > > > I have no problem applying QM if it is applied to realistic conditions. > Simply assuming a condition that has no reality and then applying QM to > justify the assumption means nothing. This is only a dog chasing its tail. > You can use any vocabulary you want, but Gibbs energy determines the basic > behavior of atoms. The temperature must be low because the bonding energy, > obtained from the process you describe, is very low. The entropy * T will > overwhelm the enthalpy if the value for T is large, thereby causing the BEC > structure to decompose. Or do you think BEC formation violates the Laws of > Thermodynamics? > > Ed > > It all boils down to PSI and if the nuclear force is point charge with a > probability of interacting defined by PSI, or that PSI is blurred motion > where the nuclear force is spread over space describing PSI. Is it a wave > or is a particle probability? It's a very fundamental question with > respect to BECs. The BEC comes about by the overlapping wave functions of > integral spin. By it's nature bose particles when chilled they like to > fall towards ground states and as they do, their PSI's will completely > overlap making one big PSI(n) where PSI(n) describes all of the properties > of that mix. The PSI is the matter wave, and with the matter wave all of > the other attributes of a particle are carried along, so the electric force > and the nuclear force(s) are just aspects of that PSI(n). The overlap of > the PSI is where there is a probability of interaction. That's why I > mentioned the Gamow factor is that it describes perfectly what the > collision of two PSI's with nuclear interactions looks like. At very high > energies, it looks like CERN, but at very low energies it looks like solid > state. > > Eventually you have to have PSI(x) describing the model. If that wave > function overlap doesn't occur, there is no probability for interaction and > nothing will occur. > > I think maybe a hybrid of Chubbs' and Kim's theory could be very > compelling. Specifically with the Nano scale BECs or 100 atom Bose-band > states. > > Best Regards, > Chuck > On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: > >> Eric, the details do not matter. The basic idea is wrong. The details are >> just a series of arbitrary assumptions to avoid dropping the initial >> premise. We are simply playing whack-a-mole. He strings a collection of >> words together that have no logical relationship, but because the >> vocabulary of QM mathematics is used, no one questions the statements. If >> Ron wants to make a contribution, he needs to apply his ideas to what >> actually exists in the real world based on what material science has agreed >> is real based on much study. Simply making up concepts to which math is >> applied is not useful except as a game. Also, we are describing a >> mechanism. Describing one part in isolation is not useful. This is like >> saying an automobile works by turning the key in the ignition and then go >> on to describe the key in great detail. >> >> On Feb 12, 2013, at 10:42 PM, Eric Walker wrote: >> >> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 7:13 AM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: >> >> There is no alpha. The helium CAN NOT MOVE spontaneously. The helium >>> contains extra energy as mass. This mass must be converted to energy before >>> it can appear as reaction energy. The He is fixed in space. Normally the He >>> nucleus explodes into fragments producing hot fusion. Or it emits a gamma >>> which releases the mass-energy. This conversion CAN NOT OCCUR outside of >>> the nucleus simply by being near a Pd. >>> >> >> I suspect that you are very busy and haven't had time to read Ron's >> writeup closely. Here is what he says about the production of the alpha: >> >> The fusion of deuterons always happens through unstable intermediate >> states, and the cross section to alpha particle is only small because of >> the same non-relativistic issue. To get an alpha, you need to emit a >> gamma-ray photon, and emissions of photons are suppressed by 1/c factors. >> >> >> Yes, this is why the hot fusion products occur rather than helium. Even >> this statement is ambiguous - what does 1/c factors mean? In fact, the >> explanation is much easier to understand simply by noting that energy can >> be lost by the nucleus exploding into its parts faster than it can be >> released by gamma emission. The issue is based on relative rates. Why is >> gamma emission slow? It is slow for the same reason it is slow when photons >> are emitted from any energetic nucleus. Many explanations have been >> suggested including the need to assemble the required energy and spin in >> the nucleus before the photon can be emitted. The statement of 1/c factors >> has no relationship to this process. >> >> When there is a nucleus nearby, it can be kicked electrostatically, and >> this process is easier than kicking out a photon, because it is >> nonrelativistic (the same holds for an electron, but with much smaller >> cross section due to the smaller charge, and there is no reason to suspect >> concentration of wavefunction around electron density, as there is for a >> nucleus). >> >> >> Here Ron makes an assumption that has no justification. The nearest >> nuclei is many Å away and surrounded by electrons. Any nuclear-nuclear >> interaction is impossible. That is why spontaneous nuclear reactions are >> so rare. >> >> >> The time-scale for kicking a nucleus is the lifetime of the two-deuteron >> resonance, which is not very long, in terms of distance, it is about 100 >> fermis, this is about the same size as the inner shell. If the deuterons >> are kicking about at random, this coincidence is not significant, but if >> the deuteron-hole excitations are banded, it is plausible that nearly all >> the energetic deuteron-deuteron collisions take place very close to a >> nucleus, as explained above. >> >> >> This is word salad without meaning in the real world. He makes up a >> number and then assumes it applies it to an imagined process. Yes, the d >> must be bonded (or as he says banded), but how? >> >> >> There are conservation laws broken when a nucleus is nearby. The nucleus >> breaks parity, so it might open up a fusion channel, by allowing deuteron >> pairs to decay to an alpha from a parity odd state. Such a transition would >> never be observed in a dilute beam fusion, because these fusions happen far >> away from anything else. This hypothesis is not excluded by alpha particle >> spectroscopy (there are a lot of relevant levels of different parities), >> but it is not predicted either. >> >> >> This is word salad. His statement about beams reveals an ignorance about >> how beams are used. They are used to bombard a solid in which many >> interactions take place resulting in hot fission. >> >> >> Here there is a concept of a "two-deuteron resonance," i.e., the >> metastable 4He you're talking about following upon the d+d fusion, which >> will not last long and must shed some energy. Ron states or alludes to the >> following in the above paragraph: >> >> 1. There is a metastable "two-deuteron resonance" that will decay. >> This is the energetic 4He you're referring to, which will then go and do >> something else. >> 2. There are three channels for the decay of the >> two-deuteron resonance: (a) d+d → [2d]* → 3He+n, (b) d+d → [2d]* → t+p, >> (c) >> d+d → [2d]* → 4He+ɣ. Normally (a) and (b) predominate and (c) is rare. >> But the reason that (c) is rare is that it takes a while for the photon >> to >> be produced (my reading, anyway, of "emission of photons are suppressed by >> 1/c factors"). >> >> This is a restatement of the earlier comment, which is correct. >> >> >> 1. When there is a palladium nucleus (not atom) nearby, however, the >> energy that would have been dumped as a photon will instead be kicked to a >> proton in the palladium nucleus, a process that occurs quickly rather than >> slowly. Because this occurs quickly, branch (c) is enhanced and branches >> (a) and (b) are suppressed in direct proportion. >> >> >> This is an impossible assumption. >> >> >> 1. When the mass deficit of the two-deuteron resonance is >> electrostatically dumped into the proton in the nearby palladium nucleus >> on >> the order of 24 MeV, you will get a palladium nucleus with additional >> kinetic energy an energetically stable recoil alpha, moving quite quickly. >> >> In his original description Ron has touched on points that address nearly >> every objection you have raised so far. His description may well be >> incorrect, but I suspect it is not incorrect for the reasons you have >> mentioned so far. >> >> >> Eric, this discussion is a waste of time simply because the concept has >> no relationship to reality. Clever people can create all kinds of personal >> realities that are useful as games or as a guide for their lives. But in >> science, the reality has to be shared based on centuries of hard work by >> millions of people. New ideas have to fit into what is known and must be >> described using words that have common meaning. People seem free to >> imagine anything about CF that would be laughable if applied to any other >> field of study. >> >> >> I don't mean to press this issue. I just think Ron's theory should be >> read closely before objections are raised; some very good objections have >> already been raised in earlier threads. I understand if you're too busy or >> if this lead does not seem to merit your time. There may be interest among >> others here. It is also entirely possible that while Ron knows something >> about the math involved, he knows nothing about what happens with these >> things in real-life. I am wary of drawing this conclusion myself without >> further evidence. >> >> >> You are on the right tract. Just have more courage to call a spade a >> spade, or more exactly call nonsense what it is. >> >> Ed >> >> >> Eric >> >> >> > >
