Tunneling Beneath the 4He Fragmentation Energy

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

[AndyJackson]

Jed Rothwell is being cited as an authority of essentially a librarian, a cataloguer of claims

Touche you cry as you impale yourself with your own deadly argument.

[Kevmo]

You seem to have an argument with J. He, not even Jed Rothwell. It would seem that you do not trust others to count.

J. He of the Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences estimates that the effect has been observed in roughly 14,000 experimental runs (Front. Phys. China (2007) 1: 96 102).

[Kevmo]

AJ: Sinha's and this other guys models for screening or shielding violate the Heisenberg uncertainty principle by suggesting that electrons be localized to volumes that are impossibly small. Sinha: The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, as applied to the tightly bound electrons(s), will be modified by the proximate presence of the proton(s) so that the kinetic energies required to shrink free electrons to nuclear sizes are no longer in the 100 MeV range. The additional kinetic energy of tightly bound electrons e# means that an electron “size,” based on the deBroglie radius (λdB/2π), shrinks as λdB = h/mv. While this is actually related to the time-averaged electron-charge distribution in an orbit, not any actual electron size itself, there is still a frequency associated with the orbit and thus the deBroglie wavelength. Since frequency is related to energy and energies are additive, the deBroglie frequency (related to the deBroglie wavelength, νdB = v/λdB) is added to the Compton frequency (related to the Compton wavelength, νC = c/λC) and the summation provides a higher frequency (hence energy: Et = h(ν1 + ν2)) that gives a smaller electron radius. (This shrinking is a basis for association with the momentum/size relationship of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.) ***In your post #49 you said he is welcome to demonstrate the violation of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle by producing data. The data is the replication of LENR Experiments. Do you accept the data?

[Kevmo]

[They] violate the Heisenberg uncertainty principle by suggesting that electrons be localized to volumes that are impossibly small. They fall into this error through the same mechanism, extrapolating models from where they are justified approximations (1000’s of lattice spacings) to situations where they are not (1/20th of a lattice spacing).
***I have seen postulations that the effect takes place where there are breaks in the lattice structure. I see now why such breaks would be necessary. So, for the sake of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, let’s say that the lattice breaks in such a fashion that there are thousands of lattice spacings... then this would not be a violation of the principle, correct?

[ARepublicanForAllReasons]

What I meant by 'doable' is to get significant energy in a cost-effective manner. Wind power, solar power, geothermal power, all yield energy, but how much energy, and at what price? Meanwhile, I am still waiting for the nuclear energy that will be so cheap they won't even meter your usage, LOL.

However, that's exactly what was being told (sold?) to the public back in the 1950's by nuclear energy advocates. So I remain skeptical of any 'free energy' talk.

[chimera]

Meanwhile, I am still waiting for the nuclear energy that will be so cheap they won't even meter your usage, LOL.

However, that's exactly what was being told (sold?) to the public back in the 1950's by nuclear energy advocates. So I remain skeptical of any 'free energy' talk.

This was never said by "nuclear energy advocates". It was said by one man, one time. That man was Lewis Strauss, then Chairman of the old Atomic Energy Commission, and it was stated in a speech given in New York City on September 16th, 1954, to the National Association of Science Writers. And, like the children's game of "telephone", the statement has been distorted and morphed over the years into something never intended.

First, what Strauss was referring to is the bulk-delivery concept of a flat rate independent of usage. He never implied that nuclear-generated electricity would be free of cost to the consumer, simply that metering as a measure of usage and cost would under some circumstances not be needed. Here is the context of his speech:

“It is not too much to expect that our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter, will know of great periodic regional famines in the world only as matters of history, will travel effortlessly over the seas and under them and through the air with a minimum of danger and at great speeds, and will experience a lifespan far longer than ours as disease yields and man comes to understand what causes him to age.”

Second, and this is something people who carelessly throw this phrase around out of context as a condemnation of the nuclear industry today don't know, and that is that Strauss was not even referring to nuclear fission. He was alluding to a then-secret program, Project Sherwood, which dealt with controlled nuclear fusion.

So, LOL, indeed.

[AndyJackson]

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, as applied to the tightly bound electrons(s), will be modified by the proximate presence of the proton(s) so that the kinetic energies required to shrink free electrons to nuclear sizes are no longer in the 100 MeV range.

Hipwader time. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle isn't modified by anything.

the deBroglie frequency (related to the deBroglie wavelength, νdB = v/λdB) is added to the Compton frequency

What is the size of the universe in Parsecs multiplied by the number of chickens in Jed Clampett's yard. He is up to his armpits in it.

let’s say that the lattice breaks in such a fashion that there are thousands of lattice spacings... then this would not be a violation of the principle, correct?

The main sewer broke and is flooding the entire town.

[Kevmo]

It was said by one man, one time.
***2 [ BINARY ]
01011001 01100101 01100001 01101000 00101110 00100000 00100000 01000010 01110101 01101100 01101100 01110011 01101000 01101001 01110100 00101110
Fun Binary Converter < http://www.paulschou.com/tools/xlate/ >

[Kevmo]

Meanwhile, I am still waiting for the nuclear energy that will be so cheap they won’t even meter your usage, LOL.
However, that’s exactly what was being told (sold?) to the public back in the 1950’s by nuclear energy advocates. So I remain skeptical of any ‘free energy’ talk.
***I remain skeptical as well. However, the nuclear energy advocacy remains from the h0t fusion guys.

[Kevmo]

“too cheap to meter”

I remember that bs.

[Kevmo]

So I remain skeptical of any ‘free energy’ talk.
***So do I, for the most part.

[Kevmo]

Hey, answer the question and

01110011 01110100 01100110 01110101
Fun Binary Converter < http://www.paulschou.com/tools/xlate/ >

[chimera]

Such a mature, thoughtful response. Typical neotrog Luddite.

[raygun]

Why is this not a valid reaction?

²H + ²H → ³H + ¹H + 4.03 Mev

I found this buried in DEFLATION FUSION (from Journal of Nuclear Physics blog)

Deflation fusion is a process whereby a ground state electron bound close to a hydrogen nucleus for attosecond periods, but with small wavelength, the deflated state hydrogen, makes breaking the Coulomb barrier feasible. Though the deflated state of hydrogen exists briefly, it exists frequently. The electron kinetic plus potential energy remains at the energy of the electron in the chemical environment in which the hydrogen resides, i.e. the sum of kinetic plus potential energy is the same in both the deflated and chemical states, as they are degenerate forms of the same state.

[Kevmo]

DEFLATION FUSION
Journal of Nuclear Physics ^ | December 10, 2010 | Horace Heffner
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2650125/posts

Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2011 3:40:33 AM by Kevmo

Cold Fusion Nuclear Reactions by Horace Heffner

[Kevmo]

Neotrog. What a fascinating word.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/connett/2275996881/

I have no idea why you’d think I’m a Luddite from that response.

[PapaBear3625]

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

I think he's talking about (lower-case L) equals 0, where (lower case l) refers to the quantum number indicating which electron shell an electron is in (0 means the lowest shell, closest to the nucleus).

[chimera]

Because I posted hard, verifiable, irrefutable evidence that debunked an urban myth, and you responded with a somewhat juvenile post that added no further information or substance to the discussion. I have found over the years that these are very often tactics that Luddites use in debates about energy policy in general, nuclear energy in particular. I'll stipulate that it is a generalization based on experience, so you are free to challenge/criticize me on that point.

[TXnMA]

Correct.

Some fonts hardly distinguish between "ell" and "one" characters at all; hence my misinterpretation of the character. In my #37, above, I used the "Geneva" font to show that what you claim is actually the case...

[AndyJackson]

Deflation fusion is a process whereby a ground state electron bound close to a hydrogen nucleus for attosecond periods,with small wavelength, ... {but] [t]he electron kinetic plus potential energy remains at the energy of the electron in the chemical environment i.e. the sum of kinetic plus potential energy is the same in both the deflated and chemical states, as they are degenerate forms of the same state.

The entire article is BS and sets forth as established facts things that are pure fantasy and fallacy. This "new" state does not exist and cannot exist as described. If an electron's total kinetic + potential energy is not changed, then its "wavelength" cannot be different from, i.e. much shorter than the electron wavepacket of the [quasi-]electron in the chemical bond.

He then tries to claim that in this deflated state an electron proceeds the deutron nucleus thereby enabling much easier tunneling and thereby lowering the energy of the state so that nuclear scale heating is avoided at the scales one would expect from nuclear fusion. This all violates conservation of energy, of course. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle allows tunneling which strictly violates conservation of energy for a very brief period of time, h/(2*pi*energy deficit required for tunneling). But the energy must eventually (within attaseconds) be put back, and the sum of the electron and deuteron masses pre fusion minus the he4 mass post fusion must show up as particle or radiation energy.

Why is this not a valid reaction? 2H + 2H → 3H + 1H + 4.03 Mev

It is a perfectly valid reaction as is its mirror reaction producing He3 and a neutron, and it is 10 million times more likely than the particle-less transition. But this is a standard "hot fusion" reaction and the LENR crowd deny that this process happens in cold fusion because they have to explain why they cannot see the neutron or triton at the levels that would match the heat they claim to be released. Detection of these energy levels would be not be subtle. You would just count the bodies of the dead LENR researchers in the vicinity of their successful experiment and estimate the neutron yield.

Now that you are asking the questions that the skeptics are asking just which side are you on?