Tunneling Beneath the 4He Fragmentation Energy

J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 4 (2011) pages 241–255 ^ | February 2011 | K P Sinha

[citizen]

“Dang, could someone condense this a bit?”

Ditto that! I am interested in the subject but I don’t have the background to digest all that.

What are some bullet points from the article as it relates to Rossi’s process?

[Kevmo]

Theoretically possible doesn’t bring us any closer to doable.
***It’s in the process of becoming “doable”. The excess heat from LENR has been replicated 14,000 times according to Jed Rothwell. This theory is attempting to explain the given OBSERVATIONS of what has been DONE.

[TXnMA]

I followed the authors' logic pretty well (and detected relatively little double-talk BS) -- including the premise that the lochon's lowering effect on the Coulomb barrier supposedly enables not only deuterium-deuterium, but also proton-proton interaction. And, I follow their claim that, since no resulting gamma radiation is detected, the released energy is emitted as heat (as observed).

But, they lost me at their "one equals zero" statement, below:

"The key to the mechanism is the lochon, which during the collision process attains significant energy (keV to MeV range); but,

being tightly bound in an l = 0 ground state,

it does not radiate. "

Either that is some "quantum believability" bit that I have not encountered, or these guys are -- very skillfully -- pulling our collective legs...

If, however, they are correct, it is encouraging, since protons (H nuclei) are far more abundant than Deuterium nuclei...

~~~~~

<DISCLAIMER> It was well after I left academia for industry that quantum physics knowledge really flourished -- so, like most of you fellow FReepers -- I find this stuff to be "fairly deep wading"...

[TXnMA]

I followed the authors' logic pretty well (and detected relatively little double-talk BS) -- including the premise that the lochon's lowering effect on the Coulomb barrier supposedly enables not only deuterium-deuterium, but also proton-proton interaction. And, I follow their claim that, since no resulting gamma radiation is detected, the released energy is emitted as heat (as observed).

But, they lost me at their "one equals zero" statement, below:

"The key to the mechanism is the lochon, which during the collision process attains significant energy (keV to MeV range); but,

being tightly bound in an l = 0 ground state,

it does not radiate. "

Either that is some "quantum believability" bit that I have not encountered, or these guys are -- very skillfully -- pulling our collective legs...

If, however, they are correct, it is encouraging, since protons (H nuclei) are far more abundant than Deuterium nuclei...

~~~~~

<DISCLAIMER> It was well after I left academia for industry that quantum physics knowledge really flourished -- so, like most of you fellow FReepers -- I find this stuff to be "fairly deep wading"...

[Kevmo]

Well, I don't have the background either, but I'll take a stab at it. The big problem with explaining how the observed excess heat from LENR experiments is that it doesn't follow conventional physicicists' view of things. Note that I don't say conventional physics, just conventional physicists. Those 3 problems are: 1. Ultra-low probability of reaction: 2. Fragmentation and fragmentation ratio: 3. Decay paths from excited states of 4He. Sinha's theory takes care of these. Here's a significant claim: This lochon-catalyzed-fusion mechanism, involving longitudinal optical phonons and local electric fields (internally or externally generated) in a crystal lattice that induce the formation of D− D+ pairs, increases the low-energy-tunneling probability by more than 100 orders of magnitude relative to that predicted from models based on multi-MeV deuteron-beam experiments . 100 order of magnitude is a huge, gigantic reduction. I daresay it is HUGH and SERIES. The author is basically extending his model introduced earlier, and expanding it. A model for enhanced fusion reaction in a solid matrix of metal deuterides Wednesday, June 08, 2011 10:14:09 PM · by Kevmo · 35 replies International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. 2008 ^ | July 2008 | K P Sinha http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2732072/posts It's basically classic physics, with a focus on paired electrons in the same state (i.e., s-orbit in a D−ion) becoming a local-charged Boson – the “lochon” – and the resulting D− D+ ion pairs being attractive rather than being repelled by the normal d–d Coulomb barrier. Lochons are cool. The electron’s kinetic-energy-increase and their movement deeper into the Coulomb well about the deuteron causes them and their orbit to “shrink” (Appendices B and A). This is something I have begun to notice about several theories on LENR. They basically do the same thing that Mills has been claiming for 20 years, find theoretical ways of squeezing the Hydrogen atom. The author gives direct credit to Mills. That's gutsy. The “slow” motion of the converging deuterons allows hundreds of electron orbital cycles to occur during each step and therefore allows the electrons time to experience and respond to the changing fields. Furthermore, nuclear physics experiments are unlikely to see any of this D−D+ pairing effect unless the target deuterons have a reasonable probability of being in the negative ion state at the moment of collision. On the other hand, under the influence of lattice opticalphonon motion, that moment may be precisely when this state is most likely. A deuteron-beam experiment would have only a low statistical probability of involving a negative deuterium ion. Also, the mathematical interpretation of nuclear physics experiments under its low-energy (e.g. ∼5 keV) collision conditions would only indicate a higher Coulomb screening [17]. This interpretation may be appropriate for a deuteron with bound electrons. However, there are aspects of the LENR experimental results and of this model that any nuclear physics experiment is unlikely to see. ***LENR Experimental results take place in circumstances that standard nuclear physics experiments are unlikely to see.

[TXnMA]

Hmmm -- been having problems with my satellite ISP, so, when I got a brower timeout on my first post attempt I blamed it on Wild Blue. Apparently, though, it was FR's delay in acknowledging receipt that was the problem -- hence the double post.

FWIW, I perceive this publication as nothing more than a bunch of "blackboard theorizing" -- with no experimental attempt by the authors to confirm their conjectures. IMH(engineer's)O, that makes it only slightly more valuable than the chalk dust now on the erasers... '-)

[Kevmo]

Trying some better formatting...

Well, I don't have the background either, but I'll take a stab at it. The big problem with explaining how the observed excess heat from LENR experiments is that it doesn't follow conventional physicicists' view of things. Note that I don't say conventional physics, just conventional physicists.
Those 3 problems are:
1. Ultra-low probability of reaction.
2. Fragmentation and fragmentation ratio,
3. Decay paths from excited states of 4He.
Sinha's theory takes care of these.

Here's a significant claim: This lochon-catalyzed-fusion mechanism, involving longitudinal optical phonons and local electric fields (internally or externally generated) in a crystal lattice that induce the formation of D− D+ pairs, increases the low-energy-tunneling probability by more than 100 orders of magnitude relative to that predicted from models based on multi-MeV deuteron-beam experiments . 100 order of magnitude is a huge, gigantic reduction. I daresay it is HUGH and SERIES.

The author is basically extending his model introduced earlier, and expanding it.
A model for enhanced fusion reaction in a solid matrix of metal deuterides
Wednesday, June 08, 2011 10:14:09 PM • by Kevmo • 35 replies
International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. 2008 ^ | July 2008 | K P Sinha

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2732072/posts

It's basically classic physics, with a focus on paired electrons in the same state (i.e., s-orbit in a D−ion) becoming a local-charged Boson – the “lochon” – and the resulting D− D+ ion pairs being attractive rather than being repelled by the normal d–d Coulomb barrier. Lochons are cool.

The electron’s kinetic-energy-increase and their movement deeper into the Coulomb well about the deuteron causes them and their orbit to “shrink” (Appendices B and A).
***This is something I have begun to notice about several theories on LENR. They basically do the same thing that Mills has been claiming for 20 years, find theoretical ways of squeezing the Hydrogen atom. The author gives direct credit to Mills. That's gutsy.

The “slow” motion of the converging deuterons allows hundreds of electron orbital cycles to occur during each step and therefore allows the electrons time to experience and respond to the changing fields. Furthermore, nuclear physics experiments are unlikely to see any of this D−D+ pairing effect unless the target deuterons have a reasonable probability of being in the negative ion state at the moment of collision. On the other hand, under the influence of lattice optical phonon motion, that moment may be precisely when this state is most likely. A deuteron-beam experiment would have only a low statistical probability of involving a negative deuterium ion. Also, the mathematical interpretation of nuclear physics experiments under its low-energy (e.g. ∼5 keV) collision conditions would only indicate a higher Coulomb screening [17]. This interpretation may be appropriate for a deuteron with bound electrons. However, there are aspects of the LENR experimental results and of this model that any nuclear physics experiment is unlikely to see.
***LENR Experimental results take place in circumstances that standard nuclear physics experiments are unlikely to see.

[Kevmo]

The key to the mechanism is the lochon, which during the collision process attains significant energy (keV to MeV
range); but, being tightly bound in an l = 0 ground state, it does not radiate.
***That’s not 1=0, it is “L”, l=0, when you copy from PDF there are tons of artifacts.

[cookcounty]

Duh,.....is this sumpin’ important or sumpin’?

[Kevmo]

Experimentalists are always criticized for not having the theory, and theorists are always criticized for not doing experiments. That naysaying criticism is as old and useless as the chalk on your eraser.

[Kevmo]

posted on a different thread...

To: Kevmo
First, despite the claims, this is not what is normally referred to as a “peer reviewed journal.” The editorial board of Hagelstein, Miley, McKubre, Storms, etc. is a board of insiders, not an editorial board made up of a broad spectrum of established physicists and engineers with diverse backgrounds and stellar credentials. It is a board of insiders, just like what happened in global climate change.
But putting that aside for the nonce and getting to substance (not that the above fraud is not substantial), this paper fixes none of the problems that I pointed out with the previous one, namely the extension of models far beyond their range of validity to “explain” a violation of the Heisenber uncertainty principle.

It adds to that a fairy tale of nuclear physics, that somehow the deuterons can “tunnel” under the “fragmentation” energy. When two deuterons fuse, assuming they could do so at near 0 relative kinetic energy, the mass defect is 2.4Mev, which is the energy that must be releassed. There is no way that the electromagnetic moments of the nucleus (electric dipole or quadrupole or magnetic dipole) can couple to the lattice because of the incommensurability of resulting scales, wavelengths, photon frequencies, energies, screening lengths, etc). Moreover, nothing about this so-called tunneling would affect significantly the normal branching ratios because the initial kinetic energy of the reacting deuterons is actually irrelevantly little different in either hot fusion or cold fusion. There is plenty of energy around (mass defect energy) for any of the normally observed branches and there is no energy threshhold for the initially reacting particles as the nuclear physics community refers to such things normally. Hot fusion relies upon exactly the same tunneling that cold fusion depends upon. It is just that the barrier penetration rate is exponentially low, and small differences in initial energy make enormous differences is barrier penetration rates.

66 posted on Saturday, July 02, 2011 5:58:33 AM by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

[Kevmo]

First, despite the claims, this is not what is normally referred to as a “peer reviewed journal.”
***Nothing will satisfy the naysayers when it comes to this peer review baloney. But at least you have some substance to your criticism of the science, as far as I can tell.

[citizen]

Thank you, Kevmo. The formatting will help a lot when I get back to this thread later today or tonight.

[geezerwheezer]

For a fat guy, I am really fast at running when she gets one of her negative charges going. Talk about splitting atoms and stuff, she will split my head open at any given moment!

[fabian]

Yeah, I knew that...what else is new??

[geezerwheezer]

Naw, just negative as a general matter. She’s a wife you know, and they are like that at times, but her times are 20 hours a day!

[TXnMA]

"***That’s not 1=0, it is “L”, l=0, when you copy from PDF there are tons of artifacts."

I was concerned about that possible ("ell" vs "one") single-character discrepancy; that 's why I posted the quotation in the (supposedly less-ambiguous) Courier font.

Here, using the genuinely unambiguous "Geneva" font, the discrepancy is obvious:

<SNIP>

being tightly bound in an l [not "1"] = 0 ground state,

<SNIP>

FWIW, that makes the authors' use of "an (ell)" grammatically correct, as well.

~~~~~~~~~~

BTW, I don't see why you act so da*ned defensive on this subject; I basically said I agreed with the article -- except for that single-character anomaly. Now that I admit to my misreading of that single character, what is your beef?

~~~~~~~~~~

I never feared to leave my lab and "go to the blackboard" with my theoretician colleagues -- but, then, I always dragged them to the lab to test what we had derived. (That is how we spent Friday afternoons in the summer -- when most MA folks had taken off for the cape...)

What is your problem with rational discussion? Is your name "Pons" or "Fleischman"? '-)

[Kevmo]

BTW, I don’t see why you act so da*ned defensive on this subject; I basically said I agreed with the article — except for that single-character anomaly. Now that I admit to my misreading of that single character, what is your beef?

***I have no beef, I was not defensive, and I wasn’t even sarcastic. It’s a straightforward sentence countering your criticism...
“That’s not 1=0, it is “L”, l=0, when you copy from PDF there are tons of artifacts.”

Perhaps you are targeting my other responses to other posts? Elsewhere I will admit to having beef, being defensive, engaging in sarcasm as well as promoting rational discussion, even all at the same time.

[AndyJackson]

this is not what is normally referred to as a “peer reviewed journal.”....***Nothing will satisfy the naysayers when it comes to this peer review baloney

There are supposed to be standards of independence, competence and intellectual honesty. What these guys are doing is similar to what the Global Climate Change guys did. They set up a peer review system of insiders with a point to prove and that is what they insure gets published. You may think that that is the general rule in the sciences, but it is not. The American Physical Society maintains pretty high standards and when folks try to manipulate it, resignations happen, and resignations by people who have the respect of the general physics community.

None of the guys on the editorial board are folks that anyone would regard as just good solid capable physicists.

[TXnMA]

See your #30 -- also addressed to me...

"Naysaying criticism" -- not exactly conducive to further discussion...