Tunneling Beneath the 4He Fragmentation Energy

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

[AndyJackson]

being tightly bound in an l = 0 ground state,

"l" is not the number one but the letter lower case "l" attempting to refer to quantum mechanical angular momentum state. Now this is nonsense because l is not a quantum mechanical observable. The QM observables are Jz or J^2=j*(j+1), and since we are talking about an electron with spin 1/2 there is no l=0 state. The lowest angular momentum state can be j=1/2 corresponding to a linear combination of l=0 and l=1 states with the spin 1/2 of the electron.

So even where they lost you this is nonsense, but that is not really the point, here.

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

But this is all BS. The lochon cannot exist because its properties (tightly localized electron density providing effective charge screening) violates the Heisenburg uncertainty principle. It also violates the Pauli principle (Fermi-Dirac statistics) since only electrons with energies above the Fermi energy can participate in this kind of screening. We already have an example of electron phonon interactions producing localized states. It is called the cooper pairing of superconductors. Properly taking account of the strength of electron phonon coupling and the fact that the pairing can only occur among electrons with energies near the Fermi-edge produces coherence lengths of the order of 3000 Angstroms (1000 lattice spaces not 1/10th of a lattice space as this lochon theory requires). [See Mourakchine http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cond-mat/pdf/0405/0405602v1.pdf].

Now you might argue well who is to be believed. The theory of superconductivity is well established, experimentally well studied and theoretically well explained. It has all been worked out in very great detail using physical laws and principles that are broadly accepted.

None of the gibberish that he writes is accepted by any competent physicist.

And there was no peer review, since any competent solid state physicist, and I am not a solid state physicist, would have pointed out these issues and many many more.

Then there is all the nuclear physics nonsense,since no resulting gamma radiation is detected, the released energy is emitted as heat

But there is no way that nuclear processes (scale lengths of a fermi - 10-15cm couples to lattice phonons directly - scale lengths of 10-8 cm). It is like rocking a battleship with pond ripples. The frequencies are incommensurate by the same number of orders of magnitude, and the energy does not work either. You cannot put 2Mev of energy into a phonon or any finite number of phonons.

And then there is the fact that you cannot even get such a nuclear transition in the first place because of the laws of nuclear physics.

The simple underlying problem is that these guys are trying to explain a phenomenon that have never been consistently and repeatedly demonstrated with a claimed set of processes that violate every principle of physics known. These are, as another critic stated, extraordinary claims. Acceptance will require extraordinary proof. Such extraordinary, convincing proof has not been forthcoming.

Naysayers are allowed to remain skeptical until there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

[Kevmo]

There are supposed to be standards of independence, competence and intellectual honesty.
***01101000 01101111 01110010 01110011 01100101 00100000 01110011 01101000 01101001 01110100 00001101 00001010
Fun Binary Converter < http://www.paulschou.com/tools/xlate/ >
Loads and loads of it. The Peer Review process was corrupted by the hot fusion boys, and the intellectually and dishonestly drove Pons & Fleischmann out of town.

What these guys are doing is similar to what the Global Climate Change guys did.
***And the hot fusion boys. You can thank them for the current state of “science” — spending $billions on 6MJoules of energy while this technology has generated hundreds of times that at a fraction of the cost.

They set up a peer review system of insiders with a point to prove and that is what they insure gets published.
***You’re the one hung up on peer review. These guys are their peers. There is no such thing as a peer review when the science is new, we have all seen that happen with the hot fusion boys.

You may think that that is the general rule in the sciences, but it is not.
***It is the general rule in this science. Due to the hot fusion boys having someone invade their turf.

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.
***Then read up on the American Chemical Society compendiums in LENR.

None of the guys on the editorial board are folks that anyone would regard as just good solid capable physicists.
***I regard them as that. I regard the author as a solid capable physicist. Basically, the author and the peers engaged in review of this document all have higher capability as physicists than me or you.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Long cut-n-paste article.

Will read later tonight with adult beverage in hand. 8<)

[Kevmo]

See your post #26. The tone & language of my response match yours.

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... ‘-)
***not exactly conducive to further discussion...

[Kevmo]

See your post #26. The tone & language of my response match yours.

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... ‘-)
***not exactly conducive to further discussion...

[aNYCguy]

You'll find that Kevmo is a petulant conspiracy theorist with an overwhelming sense of persecution by the "hot fusion boys" whom he referenced four times in that last post.

Any thread he posts will be 95% nonsense, so I appreciate your bringing a little real physical expertise to this one.

[Right Wing Assault]

Thanks for the short version.
Will dig into it.

[Right Wing Assault]

It didn’t sound defensive to me, either, guys. I guess it’s the problem with reading and writing vs. talking.

[AndyJackson]

I regard them as that. I regard the author as a solid capable physicist.

Well, he has written down theoretical claims that violate most of the known laws of electrodynamics, quantum mechanics and nuclear phenomonology with no stated justification. That does not make him a solid and capable scientist. I have no problem with someone claiming to discover a new principle of physics. It just has to be based upon a sound understanding of sound experimental evidence. For instance, if Sinha wants to disprove the Heisenberg uncertainty principle he is welcome to try. Show some data and explain why this data is at variance with all the other data on the subject. But you don't just trip over it ignorant of the fact that it is even there and claim you are doing physics.

And the hot fusion boys. You can thank them for the current state of “science” — spending $billions on 6MJoules of energy while this technology has generated hundreds of times that at a fraction of the cost

You have not been paying attention, have you. Your guys have not generated gigajoules of energy. A gigajoule is the equivalent of a ton of TNT. These guys have not individually or collectively detonated a ton of TNT. They have not even released a pound of it. We would all know it if they did.

Second, hot fusion does work. We have a picture of it working. It is called Operation Greenhouse George.

And by the way, they are not claiming that the laws of physics stopped working and that you cannot detect the heat or light or radiation. Nor has anyone accused them of making claims that violate laws of physics.

[dangerdoc]

In defense of the hot fusion guys as opposed to the GW croud. The hot fusion guys are advancing several areas of science and engineering as they build their test devices, all the GW scientists are doing is advancing the left wing agenda.

[Kevmo]

And you’ll find NYCGuy finds comspiracy theories where there are none. Like what was written to him on the previous thread.

What you have is essentially a conspiracy theory.
***Again, 01100010 01110101 01101100 01101100 01110011 01101000 01101001 01110100
The “story” relies upon human nature, humans being selfish bass turds. No conspiracy required.

[Wonder Warthog]

"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.."

They have plenty of experimental data to work with. There is quite a large amount of peer-reviewed publications on experimental work on LANR, by many different approaches. And you can bet that, now that this theory has been published, some of those guys who did the peer-reviewed work will be looking specifically for the signatures of this theoretical model.

[Wonder Warthog]

"The hot fusion guys are advancing several areas of science and engineering as they build their test devices, all the GW scientists are doing is advancing the left wing agenda."

Most of the GW "scientists" ARE physicists (as opposed to real experts on atmospheric science and other areas that the physicists have muscled into). And contrary to "Andy Jackson's" assertion, the American Physical Society has been right in the thick of promoting AGW and diddling the peer review process.

[William Tell]

AndyJackson said: "The simple underlying problem is that these guys are trying to explain phenomenon that have never been consistently and repeatedly demonstrated ..."

That's my view. Couldn't say it better.

Those who have convinced themselves that "cold fusion" exists have done so, I believe, because it might conceivably change dramatically the dependence of the U.S. on conventional sources of energy.

Similarly, those who convince themselves that man is contributing to harmful global warming do so because it justifies massive intrusion into our economy.

Neither of these efforts has much to do with science, except to cast science and scientists in a poor light.

[citizen]

Ah, thank you again, Kevmo. I have some idea of what you are talking about. I am in civil engineering where the closest we get to this sort of thing (not close at all) is some exotic formulations for a particular concrete or the new asphalt mixtures.

[AndyJackson]

the American Physical Society has been right in the thick of promoting AGW and diddling the peer review process.

This is exactly backwards. A former president of the APS, Cherry Murray along with some members have tried to do this. It led to a rebellion of a very distinguished cadre of members of the APS who pointed out, quite publicly, the fraud that was being committed. Murray's response was to try to investigate who had leaked the email list. Her year's term ended with her being regarded as something of a disgrace.

Most members of the APS are agnostic on the subject of GCC, believing that the issue is certainly worth study, meaning developing better physical models and computer simulations and integrating all the available sensors (land based, oceanographic, satellites, etc) to see if we can figure out if anything is going on at all.

[AndyJackson]

The Peer Review process was corrupted by the hot fusion boys, and the intellectually and dishonestly drove Pons & Fleischmann out of town.

The biggest critics are not the hot fusion community, whose principle issues are trying to confine hot plasmas for long enough to get fusion to work at laboratory scales. What the cold fusion guys do or claim to do is simply irrelevant. The biggest critics are in the nuclear physics community because the LENR guys have made claims that counter everything that the nuclear physics community knows from theory and experiment, but the LENR crowd have measured nothing and written no explanation that suggests that what the nuclear physicists understand is in error. All the cold fusion guys do is accuse the nuclear physics guys of being closed minded.

But with folks like Sinha the biggest critics are about to become the solid state physicists. As I have already indicated this stuff is complete and utter nonsense.

If it all worked so well as its advocates claim, then put one of these power producing cold fusion cells in an electric car and take a few turns around the block. It will convince everyone.

[Kevmo]

True enough.

[Kevmo]

Well, he has written down theoretical claims that violate most of the known laws of electrodynamics, quantum mechanics and nuclear phenomonology with no stated justification.
***The justification is the 14,000 times the excess heat Pons-Fleishmann effect has been replicated. If you do not accept that as an observational point, then you have no need to bother with digging down into the physics as KP Sinha does.

That does not make him a solid and capable scientist.
***What does make him a solid and capable scientist is all the other peer reviewed publications and what he does for a living.

I have no problem with someone claiming to discover a new principle of physics. It just has to be based upon a sound understanding of sound experimental evidence.
***Like I said, the PF effect is replicated 14,000 times. That is the experimental evidence. Sinha’s theory explains the evidence.

For instance, if Sinha wants to disprove the Heisenberg uncertainty principle he is welcome to try.
***If there is some observation that disproves it then it is legitimate to use it in a theoretical approach. The way Richard Feynman won his Nobel prize was by disregarding an accepted principle, and later on he was vindicated.

Show some data and explain why this data is at variance with all the other data on the subject.
***Start here for the data.
http://www.lenr-canr.org/FilesByDate.htm

But you don’t just trip over it ignorant of the fact that it is even there and claim you are doing physics.
***Good advice, that is, if you have been over the same data that Sinha has.

You have not been paying attention, have you. Your guys have not generated gigajoules of energy.
***http://www.pdfdocspace.com/docs/47627/cold-fusion-and-the-future.html

A typical cold fusion experiment using Seebeck calorimeter
costs roughly $50,000 including all equipment. Some have produced 50 to 300 megajoules in one run. They have achieved the two goals hot fusion has failed to reach for 60 years: breakeven and full ignition.

The Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) at the Princeton University Plasma Physics Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy cost “about a billion dollars” to construct and $70 million a year to operate. It produced 6 megajoules in one experiment, the world record run for hot fusion.

A gigajoule is the equivalent of a ton of TNT. These guys have not individually or collectively detonated a ton of TNT.
***Yes they have.

They have not even released a pound of it. We would all know it if they did.
***Your assumption seems to be that much energy being released in one instant. Your assumption is invalid.

Second, hot fusion does work. We have a picture of it working. It is called Operation Greenhouse George.
***It works as a bomb, an uncontrolled release of energy. For the last 60 years we have tried to harness that huge release of energy, and the best controlled run that a $10B Tokomak reactor has attained is 6MJoules. What else have we gotten for all that effort, do we have hot-fusion cars or airplanes or water heaters? No. Your analogy of saying that fusion works because we have a fusion bomb is like saying that there’s plenty of water to drink because we have oceans.

[Kevmo]

Those who have convinced themselves that “cold fusion” exists have done so, I believe, because it might conceivably change dramatically the dependence of the U.S. on conventional sources of energy.
***I have money in my pocket due to the fact that Arata’s cold fusion experiment was replicated.

How I Made Money from Cold Fusion
Saturday, January 23, 2010 12:28:49 PM · by Kevmo · 28 replies · 1,013+ views
Exclusive Article for Free Republic | 1/23/10 | Kevmo
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2435697/posts