Posted on 07/01/2011 10:45:05 PM PDT by Kevmo
BTW, I no longer associate with that denomination. It is one of the most liberal-infested/infiltrated religious instruments of leftist hype in the world. Not going to name it though, out of respect for it's noble early history.
Anyhow, thanks again. And I have no bone to pick. I would welcome something approaching 'free energy', and I suspect it is coming, but not next week or next year.
Even assuming that this impossible deflated state were to exist, it exists with an energy that is degenerate with, i.e. exactly equal to, the energy it had when it was participating in the electron state that formed the chemical bond. Since its energy is not different (and cannot be in fact) it cannot subtract 4 MeV or so from the mass energy of the free deuterium nuclei, and cannot suppress the normal fusion channels. Conservation of energy allows us to go way back in the past and add up all of the energies pre deflation state (mass energies, heat energies, chemical bonds), and go way forward in the future and add up all the energies and expect the books to balance. What happens in between stays in between, tunneling virtual particles and virtual transition or whatever.
But the guy's ignorance does not stop there. He the hypothesizes that the deflated electron must be confined to a space the size of r = 2.4×10^-16 m. This is 2/10th of a fermi. He is asking that an electronically bound electron have a wavefunction at chemical energies more compact than that of a strong force bound proton, so its momentum must be about 3 x that of a nuclear proton. Since it has 1800 times less mass, its velocity is 1800*3 times higher, and total energy which is P*P/2*m is 9*1800 or 16,000 times that of the proton. Now, at this point we have to consider relativistic effects, which I have ignored, but we are talking 20GeV electrons that must be bound by an electromagnetic force that is maximally tens of eV (the ground state binding energy of the Hydrogen atom). Even if the strong force were to be invoked that only provides binding of a few MeV per particle.
There are two points to this this observation. First is that this guys by guessing and by goshing is off by not factors of a few, or of ten, or even a hundred, but by 10's of billions.
Second, I hope that I am conveying some of the reasons for why this entire LENR crowd is taken as charlatans by any serious scientific researcher. Anyone can go through the numbers that I have gone through and determine just exactly how far these guys have departed from reality. If they were only off by factors of 3 or 5 then one would have to be much more careful and much more precise. But when anyone can take out a piece of paper and show that they are off by the age of the universe in years, they cannot be taken seriously.
Lewis Strauss made that statement in 1954. There were no large-scale commercial nuclear plants then. The first came on line in this country in 1969. No responsible person in the commercial industry ever said those words. Strauss was merely speculating on a possible future world where things would be different than they were then. One difference might be that electrical energy in bulk would be abundant enough to offer users on a flat-rate basis, just as many wireless plans, cable TV and Internet services, and regular maintenance on various items and systems, are available today.
Now, this is all fiction and fantasy that we are even talking about this, but following this fiction, these exotic nuclei would produce unmistakle nuclear signatures (alpha beta and gamma emission, electron capture, etc.) that any undergraduate in nuclear physics or nuclear engineering could readily detect.
This is all just further demonstration of just exactly how orthogonal this fictionalized LENR universe is to the real universe that is inhabited by all the other scientists who live.
Roger that. But I notice he’s making reference to ‘zero point’ energy, amongst some pretty other bizarre assertations with repsect to quarks. It almost seems as if he’s trying to assert some sort of quantum mechanical affect.
It would also seem the article is predicated on the instances where the electron is actually on the nucleus. Something which apparently happens frequently according to the author.
Well yes, the l=0 n=0 bound state wavefunction of an electron has finite probability of being in the neighborhood of the nucleus, but the probability is about 1x10-15^3/.5*10-8^3 (ratioing atomic and nuclear volumes), so the probability of being "in" the nucleus is about 1*10-11. It is pretty small so any proposed close-in screening of the nuclear charge by the atomic charge is pretty negligible as a direct consequence of this weigting of charge densities.
There are two points to this this observation. First is that this guys by guessing and by goshing is off by not factors of a few, or of ten, or even a hundred, but by 10’s of billions.
***You do exactly the same thing. Your refusal to answer the question about whether you accept the observations is one demonstrable way. Let’s say your objection to those 14,000 observations is that the operators don’t know calorimetry well enough, even though everyone who does these experiments is aware of the objection. Let’s say the chances of making a calorimetry error are 1/3. The chances of EVERYONE involved making substantial error is 1/3*1/3*1/3... 14thousand times... making it (1/3)^14000. The mathematical cutoff point for the impossible is typicall (1/10)^50. That makes you off by billions and billions, by thousands of orders of magnitude.
I can see why you won’t answer the question.
My objection is that the explanations that they provide fro what they observe are are complete and utter HS. They would fill the Paris sewers to brimming. There is not a wit of proper scientific reasoning in the whole lot of it.
My second objection is, if the 14,000 observations are true the rather lemming like quality of the work of those 14,000 independent researchers all repeating more or less the same thing without any refinement or improvement of instrumentation to make measurements that would cast some insight into what the underlying processes are. And none of them have done that, after the 14,000 experiments heaped one on top of the other. In most branches of science you don't get very far by doing nothing more than just repeating the last guys work. You have to do something new, and if 14,000 really smart folks were to put their minds to this problem we would either have convincing evidence that it was going on along with convincing understanding of the underlying mechanisms. But here we have 14,000 mindless gradgrinds slaving away claiming to see what the last person saw. The claim that 14,000 repeated it is worse than claiming that it never happened.
And then while you are trying to claim that folks have seen all sorts of nuclear effects we have these vaunted so-called theorists trying to explain why they don't see what you insist they do see.
It is you and your fellow charlatans who cannot get your story straight and until you do I have every right to call you the fraud that you are, and certainly every right to believe none of it.
And until I see proper evidence backed up by proper physics based explanations I have every right to call all of you and your kind a pack of damn liars.
Great, chimera. Do you get that I get what you are saying?
I can have no objection to the observations.
***Then you are the one who’s the damned liar here. It is obvious that you know much of the physics, and therefore you know that those 14,000 observations are in direct contradiction of modern “laws” of physics. Therefore, any theory that explains the direct contradiction will directly contradict some current holding of modern physics.
You are the charlatan here.
Yes, I was just adding a little embellishment to the earlier point, something I am prone to do...
Violation of charge conservation, violation of conservation of energy, violation of detailed balance, violation of Maxwell's equations and principles of quantum mechanics. And you believe it all without doing the experiment yourself and all the follow up experiments.
Just do one piece of one of those experiments that demonstrates just one of those violations and come up with a reasonable explanation and you will have a Nobel Prize on your hands.
Continue arguing in this conspiratorial vein and you will be called a fool, a dupe and a goddamned liar by the entire professional scientific community.
Despite claiming to be an engineer you obviously aren't one of those either. Even a sanitary engineer knows that shit flowing through a pipe is conserved, but you don't understand shit to put it in a nutshell.
Nuke ping!
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how you wave 13,900 orders of magnitude away with just a few words and some invective. Of course, the principle that is being considered is within 100 orders of magnitude of what is considered reality, so that would mean we should expect 145 more times invective to counteract what is being waved off. This is a perfect example of what Christ meant when he said that such Pharisees strain at a gnat but swallow a camel.
Somewhat damning...
you will have a Nobel Prize on your hands.
***Pons and Fleischmann will have that Nobel prize, as long as they are still alive.
Best of luck explaining away 13,900 orders of magnitude.
As seen here, most fonts don’t make a good distinction between l (’el’) and 1 (one). I chose an italicized l (el) for ang.mon.(angular momentum). It did not translate well.
In text, s-orbital electron-pair ang. mom. = spin up + spin down = 1/2 + (-1/2) = 0, thus, l = 0. Sorry about that.
A cleaner version & new material will show up in JCMNS soon.
You are correct about the applicability to H-H as well as D-D interactions. The consequence gives a clear picture of a Rossi-like generator that utilizes the transmutation energy.
I have been asked before to produce a simplified version of the papers. However, things are moving so fast that new papers seem more important at the moment. I’ll try do do the difficult task sometime in the future.
AM
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.