On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 8:15 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Eric, before you make a conclusion you really need to understand what I'm > proposing, rather than using your own imagination. First of all, the > Hydroton is a neutral molecule consisting of an equal number of elections > and nuclei. The bond is formed with enough negative change between the > nuclei to bring them closer than normal. > Yes -- you are right. I forgot that we were working with hydrogen atoms (1H) and not bare protons. Thank you for correcting my mistake. I now have a better idea of what you're proposing. As your shielded 1H atoms approach one another, your hypothesis requires that they pass beyond a certain threshold that is less than normal atomic distances -- there's a limit that's approached as they finally come close enough to fuse into 4He. Be careful about tunneling -- I think the probability will increase dramatically as that threshold is crossed. But, then again, it may be that since we're dealing with atoms and not bare nuclei, any snapping together of the hydrons that may occur due to tunneling will be accompanied by the ejection of an electron and a lot of kinetic energy rather than a gamma, a la Robin's approach (if I have understood him). I and indeed all models need to find a mechanism that is able to allow the > energy to leak out while two or more hydrons are assembled in one spot. I > propose a resonance process is required to initiate this release of energy. > This is an important assumption for your model (and for Hagelstein's, and for several others). The assumption is basically that you need a gradual way to fractionate the 24 MeV quantum. I understand why this assumption is adopted -- it seems like there is no other possibility, given the experimental evidence. But it is perhaps the Achilles heel of the various theories at this point. Please keep in mind here that I am addressing a low level detail about how the reaction proceeds and not an experimental observation about the gradual release of EMF or the lack of neutrons. Most of the theories bring many hydrons together by some proposed process > based on assumptions. Kim proposes the collection is held together by a > Bose-Einstein Condensate, Takahashi proposed a new kind of bonding can > occur between the normal hydron molecules, Hagelstein proposes a collection > forms in the metal atom vacancy. Mine is simply another way to get hydrons > together in one place by means of a normal chemical processes. > I find Kim's, Takahashi's, and Haglestein's theories all equally unsatisfying. Each theory posits a rarefied set of conditions that seem unlikely to ever come together in the real world. It feels like they're starting from quantum field theory equations rather than from an intuition of what might happen in real life. At the end of the day, I suspect QFT, to name one culprit, will have been a big barrier to understanding what is going on in this instance. People are perhaps being reductionistic in assuming that you can take an approach that works with great effort when applied to narrow phenomena (what is the likelihood of an up quark flipping to a down quark under such-and-such conditions?) and thinking that it will get us vary far with a many-body problem like LENR. It sort of feels like trying to explain ant colonies using cell biology -- they're different collective phenomena, and cell biology can tell us about what's going on inside an ant, but its value in telling us how ants behave socially is limited. For that we need a different set of approaches that work at a higher level; i.e., that are not reductionistic. For astronomy, we use generalizations that are largely specific to that field rather than trying to explain everything in terms of individual atoms and molecules, although obviously there's a connection. Astronomers do this because the field is not reductionistic. In addition, an electron must be absorbed during the process in order to > account for tritium production. At this point, you need to think outside > of the box. It is easy to find reasons to reject this idea. Even I can do > it. :-) > Yes, this reminds me of another difficulty I have with the hydroton explanation -- I believe you need to accelerate the weak interaction for it to work. That is not the only requirement. The energy needs to leak out while > momentum is conserved, and an electron must be added as the nuclei fuse. > All of these processes must be part of the same logical sequence. > Considering only one requirement is the mistake everyone is making. Or you > can propose that a collection of independent events can occur. Your choice. > Your insistence on giving respect to the actual evidence is laudable. I think more of this is needed. I will add that I think we have to be careful not to assume that the only choice is between (1) a gradual release of energy at the lowest level of the mechanism (and an electron capture in this instance) and (2) independent events. That there is gradual release of energy in terms of what is seen at the macroscopic level in experiments is not in doubt. > But there are other ways to conserve momentum. I think Robin has drawn > attention to the possibility of f/H combining with another nucleus and > expelling the electron instead of a gamma or a fragment, and Ron Maimon > proposes something similar with a d+d reaction occuring close to a > palladium nucleus -- in that case the momentum of the reaction is shared > with the spectator nucleus, and as a result the cross sections for 4He > fragments and gammas are proposed to be competitively disfavored over a > clean 4He + kinetic energy branch. > > > What is the point of considering ideas that have no ability to explain all > that has been observed? Of course, it is easy to explain individual > behaviors. The challenge is to explain ALL behaviors using the same basic > process. > What behaviors are missing from the above? It is important here that we cleanly separate out experimental data (e.g., gradual release of IR and other EMF) from inferences about what is going on at the lowest level (a gradual fractionation of the 24 MeV quantum into little pieces, happening over an extended period). Also, I should add that there is more to "a clean 4He + kinetic energy branch" than has been said above, which when filled in will address additional observations. To the problem of quantum fractionation: I am aware of some of the considerations that go into this. Hagelstein proceeds to adopt the requirement that 24 MeV be sliced up into pieces because of the unwanted result of hot-fusion neutrons that he expects to get when you have fast deuterons racing around the system at greater than ~20 keV. Since there are few neutrons, he assumes there must be an energy cap at around 20 keV on all particles, and to accomplish such an energy cap you cannot have 24 MeV released all at once; or so we are given to understand. Once we adopt this premise, it is easy to understand why he has gone on to try to model things the way he has. And I do not deny that this is an attractive premise. A structure must form consisting of two or more hydrons. This is basic. > Each theory has proposed a method and gives a name to the assembly. I call > mine the Hydroton. Can you think of another way this assembly can be > accomplished using known chemical behavior? Until you can propose another > possibility, I suggest you examine my idea with an open mind. > That there is an assembly of hydrons that forms is an assumption shared by several theories. I find it unlikely. In your research you have come to the conclusion that there is something chemical that happens for the NAE to come together, and I do not have any reason to doubt this. But I do not believe it has to be an assembly if hydrons; it could be something in the substrate, for example (beyond just cracks). I suspect that the main reason people start from assemblies of hydrons is that it fits their preconceptions about what is going on. You assume that present theory is complete and correct in this regard. My > reading of physics reveals many uncertainties and debates about just how > the nuclear force drops off with distance. Some people even propose that > the electron can pass through the nucleus while being captured on a > occasion. How do you know that the electrons in the Hydroton are not > passing through the nucleus and in the process communicating information > about how much mass-energy should be present to maintain a stable > condition? I'm not suggesting this happens, but you are in no position to > say that it does not happen based on what is accepted in physics. No > miracle is required, only a willingness to accept new possibilities that > seem to be accepted when physicists explain nuclear interaction. > Yes -- I do not wish to prevent you from attempting a modification of the strong interaction. But we should obviously be clear that that's what we're doing. As you say, any attempted explanation is going to have to adopt as assumptions things that some people are going to find objectionable. The W-L theory has so many basic flaws, I'm amazed it is considered. I > listed 5 in previous discussions and in my book. Other people have pointed > out other flaws. This theory violates all requirements normally applied to > a theory in science, yet it is discussed. Why? > The main reason I found W-L attractive was that I didn't know anything about nuclear physics when I was first reading about LENR, and I liked that it took care of the Coulomb barrier problem. Now that I know a little more about nuclear physics and about all of the difficulties that W-L gives rise to, I no longer find it a plausible hypothesis. Has Ron described his idea in a paper? If not, it is not worth discussing > because without details we can have no idea what he is actually proposing. > I wish. I've been asking him to write one up. The closest thing to a paper is his post at physics.stackexchange.com; see the section titled "My Personal Theory": http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/13734/6713 I've had several exchanges with him since then and can fill in some of the details. Eric
