Posted on 08/20/2011 11:32:06 AM PDT by Kevmo
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/coldfusion/index?tab=articles
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510#more-510
The Cold Fusion Ping List
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/coldfusion/index?tab=articles
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510#more-510
This hypothesis seems to be the starting point of this theory:
The problem of “nonradiative” release of nuclear fusion energy
As we have already noted, the virtual absence of conventional nuclear decay products of the compound nucleus was widely regarded as one of the paradoxes of DD fusion with the formation of 4He in the experiments [2]. We proposed the explanation of this paradox in [4]. We believe that after penetration through the Coulomb barrier at low energies and the materialization of the two deuterons in a potential well, these deuterons retain their identity for some time. This time defines the frequency of further nuclear reactions.
Until we have a good theory, it does not at all surprise me that experiments seems to be not repeatable.
Even something as the temperatures that a metal is forged in and allowed to cool might be enough to make or break the ability for the reactions to occur.
But I have little doubt now - very little, in fact, - that something is going on.
Pons and Fleischman may not have been the greatest theoretical nuclear physicists, but they were thermodynamic chemists par excellence!
That's the essence of Good Science. It must be repeatable and testable. If it doesn't hold up to these, it's only a unverified theorem.
Well thats what I been trying to tell you all along.
Of course I understand that, but what I am saying is that it MIGHT be that until we get a good theory, we will not understand the needed conditions to make it consistently repeatable.
We could have put together mounds and mounds of U-238 and piled it as high as Mt. Everest and never got a bomb out of it.
But the theory - and knowing that U-235 was much more fissile than U-238 - allowed the first bomb to be built.
I predict that the ``cold fusion`` experiment will, indeed, be successfully effected, producing massive amounts of uncontrolled energy resulting in a huge fused pile of Bologna.
Well, at least your naysaying prediction was fun to read.
"It is assumed that after an exchange of multiple virtual photons with the electrons of the environment the relatively small excitation energy of compound nucleus 4He* vanishes,"
"In this case, the serial exchange of virtual photons with the electrons of the environment "
This sounds more like a magic act. I had a debate a week or so ago with a poster who assured me that things cannot just 'materialize' or 'vanish'. That matter cannot be created or destroyed. I am sure my lack of experience in nuclear physics has led to misunderstanding of the 'terminology' in use in this article, but it seems that the verbs and adjectives they used are rather 'sketchy'.
Then again, We do not really understand gravity nor magnetism, so...
In fact particles come into existence and vanish all the time. This is part of the essence of quantum mechanics.
It is virtual particles that come into existence in the nucleus that create the force called the strong force that keeps the nucleus from flying apart at near light speeds.
These are the works of Dirac and de Broglie.
It is important to realize that while we typically think in Newtonian terms at our own scale, and more recently in Quantum terms, at the extremely small scale, there is also a “very small” scale that can produce some very exotic and counterintuitive effects.
For example, there is a variety of shrimp called a snapping shrimp, that has the remarkable ability to cause a tiny cavitation bubble that it uses to attack its prey. A tiny bubble that in a very small area creates an immense force, equal to 80 kilo-Pascal that can kill a small fish 4 cm away.
And that cavitation bubble, in a very small area, contains a temperature of over 4,700 C for a very brief moment. By comparison, the surface of the Sun is about 5,500 C.
I mention this as these oddities of the very small scale come into play when something like cold fusion is considered. This is because while we might be unaware of potent forces at the very small scale, they might be in play, bringing about very peculiar effects.
You should include the disclaimer that this (Journal of Nuclear Physics) is Andrea Rossi’s blog.
Virtual particles are simply a way of describing energy without a particle to carry it. Hence around an electron there are a cloud of virtual particles that make the electron seem fuzzy until one attempts to penetrate deeper.
Or the magnetic field would be another example of energy without particles moving about carrying the energy.
It’s not magic, it’s more a limitation of an ability to describe a phenomenon with everyday day terms.
In fact particles come into existence and vanish all the time. This is part of the essence of quantum mechanics.
Which is not really 'science', is it?
Our use of quantum 'theory' is to explain how it appears to us that when we observe the state of a particle, it is not there (really meaning it is not where we 'predicted' it would be), and therefore we conjecture that it is in exactly a 180 degree rotation away. Maybe the problem is that we assume the orbits of these particles are perfect circles. A look at the examples in our solar system, galaxy, and the rest of the Universe say that perfect circular orbits rarely exist.
It is virtual particles that come into existence in the nucleus that create the force called the strong force that keeps the nucleus from flying apart at near light speeds.
OK, 'virtual' (meaning not exactly 'real'?) magically wink into existence, because we need them to explain what it is that holds the Nucleus together. Much like the need for Black Holes at the center of galaxies. We can't explain why the stars in a galaxy stick together instead of spreading out and depopulating the galaxy. Since we 'misunderstand' gravity, and our 'understanding' of it says that you have to have X amount of matter to create the gravity needed, then we postulated the theory called 'black holes' to explain the fact that they do indeed stay formed as galaxies. What is at the center of a tornado, that keeps the moisture and dirt spinning round it at such high speeds, without instantly coming 'apart'?
Perhaps the reason they stick together is not due to black holes, but due to the same force that we call gravity, magnetism, and the strong/weak nuclear forces.
It all boils down to what the ancients understood. Balance. In this case, balance of electrical potentials. The Yin and Yang Symbol. The attempt by all particles to establish a balanced electrical field.
A battery with a positive charge will send that 'potential' to a negative ground (or does it go the other way?) because of the NEED to balance that potential back to zero. A balloon quickly rubbed will attract oppositely charged material. Same reason. Balance. That process of the attraction or repulsion is a force.
All things (particles) in the Universe, and the matter that they comprise,,, attempt to achieve balance. If they all did, I don't think the Universe (matter) would exist. It is the energy (force) created by this need to attain balance that powers the Universe. Due to the chaotic nature of the Universe, and constant 'change', nothing achieves that balance (perfection).
Why is it that we say gravity keeps the Moon orbiting round the Earth, but that it is not gravity that keeps the nucleus together, or the electrons in orbit?
True. It also may be a limitation of 'our' ability to describe a phenomenon that is still outside our scientists' understanding.
Virtual particles are simply a way of describing energy without a particle to carry it. Hence around an electron there are a cloud of virtual particles that make the electron seem fuzzy until one attempts to penetrate deeper.
Hmmmm... Like photons being particles and waves? If the virtual particles are just energy with no particle to carry them, how do they cause a fuzziness? When you go deeper, what do you find?
Or the magnetic field would be another example of energy without particles moving about carrying the energy.
Are not all emissions of the electromagnetic spectrum 'energy' without particles?
They come into existence and act like a particle until they disappear. What is at the heart of an electron? who knows?
“Are not all emissions of the electromagnetic spectrum ‘energy’ without particles?”
I'm not an expert (you could tell couldn't you?)but I suggest the photons act as particles.
There are many articles online that might be helpful to you, more so than I certainly.
Why is it that we say gravity keeps the Moon orbiting round the Earth, but that it is not gravity that keeps the nucleus together, or the electrons in orbit?
***Because the moon has a measurable mass, and the stuff orbiting around atoms does not have enough mass to be attracted by gravity. At such a small scale, other forces predominate.
later
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.