On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote:
> > On May 30, 2013, at 11:39 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: > > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: > >> Harry, imagine balls held in line by springs. If the end ball is pull >> away with a force and let go, a resonance wave will pass down the line. >> Each ball will alternately move away and then toward its neighbor. If >> outside energy is supplied, this resonance will continue. If not, it will >> damp out. At this stage, this is a purely mechanical action that is well >> understood. >> >> > > >> In the case of the Hydroton, the outside energy is temperature. The >> temperature creates random vibration of atoms, which is focused along the >> length of the molecule. Again, this is normal and well understood behavior. >> >> The strange behavior starts once the nuclei can get within a critical >> distance of each other as a result of the resonance. This distance is less >> than is possible in any other material because of the high concentration of >> negative charge that can exist in this structure and environment. The >> barrier is not eliminated. It is only reduced enough to allow the distance >> to become small enough so that the two nuclei can "see" and respond. The >> response is to emit a photon from each nuclei because this process lowers >> the energy of the system. >> >> > Ed, > > With each cycle energy of the system is only lowered if the energy of the > emitted photon is greater than the work done by the "random vibration of > atoms" on the system. > > > NO Harry! > Ed, I am trying to help you understand your model. I am not trying to tear it down. > There is no work done by the random vibrations. These are the result of > normal temperature. The photon is emitted from the nucleus and carries with > it the excess mass-energy of the nucleus. > > Let us return to your ball and spring model of the hydroton and assume an ideal spring which doesn't dissipate energy by getting warm during compressions. If heat energy is the vibration of atoms in the lattice, then the spring is compressed by atoms from the lattice pushing on the spring. As the spring is compressed work is done on the spring, however, the spring will eventually bounce back to its original length so no net work is done on the spring in the course of one oscillation. The oscillations will repeat indefinitely with the same amplitude as long as the temperature remains constant. However, in your model the spring does not return to its original length. Now for sake argument assume no photon is emitted. This means some work has been performed on the spring, which means the spring has effectively turned a little thermal energy into potential energy and thereby slightly cooled the lattice. Now assume a photon is emitted. The subsequent temperature of the lattice will depend on the energy of this emitted photon. If the energy of the photon is less than the work done (W) then the temperature of the lattice will not return to the initial the temperature. The cycle can repeat until the protons fuse but the temperature will gradually decline and the end result can aptly be described as cold fusion! On the other hand if the energy of the photon is greater than W then the temperature of the lattice will be greater after fusion. > The change is analogous to an exothermic chemical reaction which requires > some activation energy to initiate but the reaction products are in a lower > energy state. Because of the shape of the coulomb "hill" the hill can only > be climbed if the energy emitted increases with each cycle. > > > No! The hill height is reduced by an intervening negative charge. As a > result, the hill height is reduced so that it can be surmounted by the > vibrations occuring in the Hydroton. Normally, the hill is too high for > such small vibrations to have any effect. The hill is reduced in height as > a result of the Hydroton forming. As a result, it is the unique condition > required to make CF work. All the theories use something similar, but > without a clear description. > > The barrier is reduced by the electron but I think the net effect only reduces the force of repulsion by 1/2. However, this is not a problem since you have theoretically enlarged the total energy of a p-e-p association (or molecule as you call it) to include all the excess mass-energy as well as the electrostatic energy of the association. Therefore the p-e-p association can shrink in size by entering a lower energy through the conversion of mass into a photon. > This is like a ball rolling between two hills. It rolls down the side of > one hill, through the valley and up the other side. In the process, it > picks up a little energy from the surroundings (temperature in this case) > to reach the top, where it throws a switch and turns on a light for a brief > time. Immediately, it starts to roll back down and returns to the first > hill where it again reaches the top and turns on a light for a brief time. > This back and forth continues until the battery powering the light is > exhausted and the hills disappear. The light has no relationship to the > motion of the ball. The ball only throws the switch. > > This will not warm the lattice as I explained above. That does not mean I think your model is wrong. It means your understanding of your model is incomplete. Whether a creator is sculpting, inventing ecats or models, a creator does not immediately grasp his creation. > > >> The Hydroton allows the Coulomb barrier to be reduced enough for the >> nuclei to respond and emit excess energy. Because the resonance immediately >> increases the distance, the ability or need to lose energy is lost before >> all the extra energy can be emitted. If the distance did not increased, hot >> fusion would result. The distance is again reduced, and another small burst >> of energy is emitted. This process continues until ALL energy is emitted >> and the intervening electron is sucked into the final product. >> >> > In your model, the coulomb barrier appears to be like a hill in a uniform > gravitational field. > > > Yes, see above > > It is possible to climb such a barrier in steps by emitting the same > amount of energy with each cycle, but this barrier does not correspond with > the actual barrier that exists between protons. Climbing a genuine > coulomb barrier requires more energy with each cycle, so that requires more > energy be emitted with each cycle. The extra energy emitted heats the > lattice even more and produces more powerful vibrations of the lattice > which can push the protons even closer together. > > > No, the Coulomb barrier is slowly reduced in height as mass-energy is > lost, thereby allowing the nuclei to get closer each time the cycle > repeats. Finally, the Coulomb barrier disappears and the two nuclei fuse, > but very little excess mass-energy is present when this happens. > Consequently, when the electron is absorbed, the resulting neutrino has > very little energy to carry away. > > The coulomb barrier only gets smaller if charge is being consumed in process. However, this is not necessary, if as I said above the total energy potential includes both the excess mass-energy and the electrostatic energy, progressively lowering the energy state will overcome the coulomb barrier if the energy of the photons progressively increases. Anyway, before we consider the realistic coulomb barriers, we should keep talking about the simplified barrier. Harry
