Posted on 12/22/2011 3:47:53 AM PST by Kevmo
Theoretical Feasibility of Cold Fusion According to the BSM Supergravitation Unified Theory
Mon, 19 Dec 2011
New monograph is available on Cold Fusion. 26 pages excerpted
Author: Stoyan Sarg Sargoytchev, York Univeristy, Toronto, Canada
Source: http://vixra.org/abs/1112.0043
Discussion: http://www.ecatplanet.net/content.php?140-bsm-supergravitation
PDF: http://ecatplanet.net/downloads/pdf/1112.0043v2.pdf
Abstract:
Advances in the field of cold fusion and the recent success of the
nickel and hydrogen exothermal reaction, in which the energy release
cannot be explained by a chemical process, need a deeper understanding
of the nuclear reactions and, more particularly, the possibility for
modification of the Coulomb barrier. The current theoretical
understanding based on high temperature fusion does not offer an
explanation for the cold fusion or LENR. The treatise "Basic
Structures of Matter - Supergravitation Unified Theory", based on an
alternative concept of the physical vacuum, provides an explanation
from a new point of view by using derived three-dimensional structures
of the atomic nuclei. For explanation of the nuclear energy, a
hypothesis of a field micro-curvature around the superdense nucleus is
suggested. Analysis of some successful cold fusion experiments
resulted in practical considerations for modification of the Coulomb
barrier. The analysis also predicts the possibility of another cold
fusion reaction based on some similarity between the nuclear
structures of Ni and Cr.
A new theoretical approach
2.1 Brief introduction
The feasibility of cold fusion was theoretically envisioned by Dr. Stoyan Sarg after he developed the BSM-Supergravitation unified theory (BSM-SG). After the first copyright protection in CIPO Canada in 2001 [15], the BSM-SG theory and related articles were posted in physical archives [16,17,18,19] and reported at a number of international scientific conferences. Scientific papers were published in Physics Essays [20], Journal of Theoretics [21] and conference proceedings [22,23]. The complete theory was published as a book in 2004 [24]. The BSM-SG theory is based on an alternative concept of the physical vacuum that has not been investigated before. The models developed as a result of the suggested concept are in excellent agreement with experimental results and observations in different fields of physics. The initial framework is based on two indestructible fundamental particles, FP, with parameters associated with the Planck scale and a fundamental Law of Supergravitation (SG). This law is distinguished from Newton’s law of gravity in that the SG forces, FSG, in pure empty space are inversely proportional to the cube of distance (while the gravitational forces in Newton’s law are inversely proportional to the square of distance).
010203SGmmFGr
mFGr Supergravitation Law (SG) (1)
where: G0 – SG
Supergravitation Law (SG) (1)
where: G0 – SG constant, m01 and m02 - SG masses (different than the Newtonian mass) , r - distance
The two FP particles combine in hierarchical formations of 3D structures held by SG forces. In far range propagation through the space-fabric of the physical vacuum, the SG forces become gravitational forces of
This monograph is a result of non-funded theoretical work 2
Newton’s law of gravity. In contrast to the methods in Quantum Electrodynamics, the BSM-SG theory applies Classical Electrodynamics and the SG law. The suggested concept and derived physical models allow explanation of all kinds of quantum mechanical interactions between elementary particles, using a classical approach and the unveiled structure of both the particles and the space-time fabric. In this approach, the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle is not needed and so does not interfere with the logic of the analysis. The results reveal the missing relationships between Classical Electrodynamics, Quantum Mechanics, Special and General Relativity, and Cosmology.
The SG forces are not only behind the nuclear forces at a close distance between nucleons, but they also define the electrical field of charged particles. Since the elementary particles appear to have a 3D non-spherical structure and shape, the atomic nuclei also possess non-spherical 3D geometrical structures that define the row and column pattern of the Periodic Table. In this sense, one of the major results of the BSM-SG theory is a new vision of the 3D structure of protons and neutrons and their spatial arrangements in atomic nuclei. This is presented in the Atlas of Atomic Nuclear Structures (ANS) that was archived in the National Library of Canada [17] and published elsewhere (viXra:1107.0031).
2.3 Coulomb barrier of the proton
According to BSM-SG theory, the SG forces are not only behind the nuclear forces. They also define the field lines of the electrical charge in closed proximity to the proton core. Therefore the SG field also defines the so-called Coulomb barrier that is one of the most controversial issues in nuclear fusion. Fig. 4 illustrates the distribution of the electrical field (E-field) in close proximity to the proton’s high-density core and the locked E-field around the neutron’s high-density core.
4. Discussions and conclusions: The BSM-SG models of atomic nuclei presented in the Atlas of Atomic Nuclear Structures (ANS) provide a new vision about nuclear reactions and, more particularly, the feasibility of cold fusion. The Coulomb field below the Bohr radius does not converge to a sphere with a radius of about 1 x 10-15 (m) and it is also not spherical. So the Coulomb barrier of the proton does not rise to a very high strength. The Coulomb barrier of the atomic nucleus is formed from superimposed Coulomb barriers of the protons as illustrated in Fig. 13. The shape of the nuclear Coulomb barrier might be slightly modified from the neighboring atoms in solids and especially in a metal lattice. It could also be affected by some technical methods that cause a stress. This may lead to successful cold fusion between properly selected elements if using the methods discussed in section 2.13. The nuclear structures presented in the ANS provide information for selection of the involved elements. From the point of view of the BSM-SG nuclear models, the lack of radioactive byproducts and the insignificant amount of radioactivity in cold fusion experiments is reasonable. Why is this? A careful examination of the BSM-SG models in ANS reveals that when the neutrons are symmetrically distributed in the atomic nucleus, the corresponding isotope is stable. In the case of cold fusion there is not a severe disturbance of the nuclei that lead to refurbishing of the stable isotopes chain reactions the hot fusion, the atomic nuclei are subject to superstrong collisions leading to furbishing of the nuclei, so even in the case of low atomic mass nuclei, a significant release of neutrons, gamma and bet with the release of neutrons and alpha particles. In hot fusion and fission
conditions are quite different. In
re
a radiation takes place. In the nuclear fission chain reactions, heavy nuclei are involved and when a slow neutron is trapped in the nucleus, it is usually not in the right place. The nuclear symmetry is severely disturbed and the process of decay and nuclear refurbishing follows immediately, releasing a large amount of unstable nuclei, neutrons, alpha particles, and beta and gamma radiation. Such a violent process could not take place in cold fusion or nuclear transmutation. The major advantages of cold fusion are the smooth release of energy and the lack of radioactive byproducts or strong radioactivity. Consequently, cold fusion should be a very safe replacement for the nuclear energy based on fission chain reaction or hot fusion. These are big advantages contributing to safety and lack of hazardous radioactive waste.
The Cold Fusion Ping List
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/coldfusion/index?tab=articles
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://ecatnews.com/?p=1144
http://vixra.org/abs/1112.0043
The Cold Fusion Ping List
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/coldfusion/index?tab=articles
Pinging my favorite freeper cosmologists.
In accordance with the BSM-SG model, the process known as electron capture (p + e- -> n) is just a folding of the twisted shape of the proton until it obtains the shape of the neutron as a double twisted torus, held in this shape by the SG forces. Then the charge in the far field disappears. This happens in some nuclear reactions and especially in the radioactive decay of the fission chain reactions leading to unstable nuclei. One of the first of such processes experimentally invoked is the Don Borglhi experiment known as a “synthesis of neutrons from protons and electrons” at low energy. The BSM-SG model also provides an answer to the long standing problem of the “missing neutrino” from the Sun. The resulting locked E-field of the neutron in the conversion of the proton to a neutron is wrongly attributed to the emission of a neutrino particle.
But according to super string theory when any of the dimensions of space begin to uncurl the virtual particles trapped there can assume any indentity imposed upon them by the moving gravitational field generated by lose of mass due to emerging cat hair.
In theory of course. Nothing yet proved.
Thanks. I downloaded and kinda struggled through the paper, and it has some things that really stood out to me:
The prediction/projection of a type of “cosmological pressure” that does away with the need for dark energy.
Also, the idea that cold fusion might be seen as some sort of (and I am loosely giving it a description) resonance effect, with much less radiation emitted/resulted because you are not relying on smashing things together with all the resultant debris.
The problem with that type of theory is that you could then expect for it to sometimes happen naturally. And I don’t know or haven’t heard of any serious tests spectroscopic or otherwise that show any spontaneous changes in purified samples of elements “off the shelf”.
It WOULD APPEAR however that this theory is testable - at least far more testable than and string theory approaches.
Thanks!
It may be that the Coulomb Barrier is ‘neutralized’ by the presence of the catalyst and an initial ‘energy input’ that allows the free association of the two other elements’ nuclei, thus allowing exchange of protons, neutrons, etc. The ‘cold fusion’ may be like a ‘virus’ that mimics it’s host’s cellular materials, and thus defeats the host’s immune system, or at least fools it into allowing entry..........
From Schrodinger's cat, I suppose.........
They can compare their prediction of energy output to the thousands of experiments that Kevmo likes to cite, or do they even bother with a prediction of energy output?
viXra is an open repository for scientific articles. It does not endorse preprints accepted on its website, nor does it review them against criteria such as correctness or author's credentials.[4] Because of this ViXra contains many articles of debatable scientific merit.
Well, the energy output would depend on the rate of reaction. The theory seems to tell us how it might happen, but not how often.
Simple energy tests can surely show us something is going on, but beyond that, they are pretty variable and unreliable.
Spectroscopic and electron-diffraction analysis, if the tests were performed over a wide variety of elements/isotopes, would give much, much more concrete results. And as a bonus we could get some ideas about the rate of reaction, thus predictions of energy output.
But there is an important point - as the paper correctly points out, elements below iron give up binding energy when fused. That’s what makes a hydrogen bomb blow up.
Elements above iron need to have energy ADDED to make them “fuse” (or assume stable configurations of higher atomic mass).
So even if it works for the heavy, dense elements, there ends up being an energy cost not an energy surplus.
arXiv backwards.
There are a lot of papers at arXiv of “debatable scientific merit”, so that quality by itself isn’t enough to condemn something.
Perhaps they should have replaced the highlighted word with, dubious.
A minor quibble for arXiv, but the highest praise possible for viXra.
Simple energy tests can surely show us something is going on, but beyond that, they are pretty variable and unreliable.
Spectroscopic and electron-diffraction analysis, if the tests were performed over a wide variety of elements/isotopes, would give much, much more concrete results. And as a bonus we could get some ideas about the rate of reaction, thus predictions of energy output.
Pretty much I agree, but it's been over 20 years for cold fusion. At best, it's still a scientific anomaly. It's getting moldy and rotten from being in the basement of science for so long.
That’s why we need a testable theory. With a testable theory, the experimental setups can be controlled to the point where they can maximize the results.
Without a theory, they’re kind of shooting in the dark. Cold fusion happens Only on a Tuesday if I was in too much of a hurry to take a shower before work, and Mars is retrograde...
I think it is a real phenomenon, there are simply too many examples of results, yeah, there are plenty of nutballs in the mix but some of these guys are the very best. And it only takes one actual positive result, it would help a whole lot if it’s reproducible.
This will be my standard post to moonboy that says you’re not worth trying to have reasonable discussion, also says “buzz off” & doesn’t leave crickets. But if it offends you to the point that you get it removed like my prior innocuous citation then I’ll have to come up with some other ‘ignore button’ post.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/2800058/posts?page=55#55
To: Moonman62
This means I have nothing more to say to you about LENR. Bye.
55 posted on Sunday, October 30, 2011 4:41:07 PM by Kevmo (Caveat lurkor pro se ipso judicatis: Let the lurker decide for himself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
Doesn’t super string theory postulate 11 dimensions? At least this theory has some testability points in this dimension.
Right. The quantity over quality argument doesn't make any sense. All cold fusion needs is a theory that accurately predicts output. But seeing how the thousands of results so far are all anomalous and all over the place, I don't think it's going to happen.
Of the 14,700 experiments you cite from your Chinese source, which ones can be used as a test?
This will be my standard post to moonboy that says you’re not worth trying to have reasonable discussion, also says “buzz off” & doesn’t leave crickets. But if it offends you to the point that you get it removed like my prior innocuous citation then I’ll have to come up with some other ‘ignore button’ post.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/2800058/posts?page=55#55
To: Moonman62
This means I have nothing more to say to you about LENR. Bye.
55 posted on Sunday, October 30, 2011 4:41:07 PM by Kevmo (Caveat lurkor pro se ipso judicatis: Let the lurker decide for himself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.