Posted on 07/01/2011 10:45:05 PM PDT by Kevmo
The trouble is that you don’t understand what a law is. It is simply a mathematically rigorous observation.
What you call here a “model” is more in line with what KP Sinha is discarding because the observations do not support the model.
When you say, “. And the rule that is being discussed is whether or not parity conservation in weak interaction was a good LAW, and it is now well-known that parity is maximally violated in weak interactions”, you reinforce the point I made earlier. He disregarded an accepted principle. His “model” fit the observations better than the current “model”, and the same is true of KP Sinha.
There was more to the post but it got erased.
It would appear that another Physicist, this time from Brown University, is proceeding along similar lines of theory. I would gather you don’t consider this guy a respectable physicist, either.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2743353/posts
Interactions of charged particles on surfaces
LENR-CANR.org ^ | 7 December 2009 | Nabil M. Lawandya
Posted on Saturday, July 02, 2011 10:27:03 PM by Kevmo
Interactions of charged particles on surfaces
Nabil M. Lawandya_
Department of Physics and Division of Engineering, Brown University, Providence,
Rhode Island 02903, USA
when the larger ensembles of
charges are present, the long-range nature of the attractive
image forces results in compressions of the interparticle
spacing leading to high local surface charge densities and to
separations where light nuclei are expected to exhibit high
fusion rates even in the presence of other neutral species.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the gentleman is a chemist and not a physicist. This should be a small matter, but in the end, this guy makes the same errors as did Sinha. In this case, he assues that the dielectric function providing mirror charges scales down to sub-lattice spacings, however, the dielectric function is a many body crystal average response function. It only has meaning on the scale of many lattice periods and can no more be extrapolated down to sub lattice levels than can the Wannier function that Sinha relies upon.
There you are quite wrong. A physical law is a general rule or principle that holds broadly across a The trouble is that you don’t understand what a law is. It is simply a mathematically rigorous observation. The trouble is that you don’t understand what a law is. It is simply a mathematically rigorous observation range of parameters and phenomenon and has been demonstrated to hold without exception through multiple observations by multiple observers over a significant period of time. Conservation of energy and conservation of momentum are laws of physics. The Pauli principle is a law of physics.
The work done reduces the nuclear-mass deficit (transferring it to electron kinetic and field energy) and that, along with the reduced Coulomb repulsion of the nuclear protons, brings down the helium nuclear-energy levels of the fusing pair and raises the 4He fragmentation level.My understanding is that the deuteron has a binding energy of 2.2245 +/- 0.0002 MeV and has no stable excited states. So what electron kinetic energy is referred to here? Is it possible for a 1s orbital to have more or less kinetic energy than the angular momentum defined by an arbitrary electron orbital?
Or has Bohr's model explaining absorption and emissivity been refuted somehow?
Furthermore, work increases field energy? An atom's Chi increases?
Hipwaders all around for everyone again?
Physics is not one grand conspiracy. It is a way of looking at the world and explaining it. It involves making detailed measurements (not observations, but real quantitative detailed measurements in a manner that can be replicated by any competent experimentalist and the measures the important things so that one can understand how the whole thing is working). It then involves explaining the measurements in terms of basic principles (physical laws, starting with Newton's laws, or the Shrodinger equation or Maxwell's equations or the Dirac Equation, or some such accepted starting point). If a physical law breaks down or appears to be violated, then it is incumbant upon the claimant to explain the facts and measurements surrounding the violation in great detail. You then isolate the phenomenon that appears to be violating physical law and reduce it to its irreducible essentials. You then present this isolated specific thing as a problem to be solved. With all the facts and all the measurements. You ask others to review your work and if it is important to replicate your work to see if they can repeat the violation. When others make suggestions about further measurements to make to help illuminate the problem you go out and make those measurements and you involve others in observing reviewing and assisting with your work.
But that is not what any of the LENR crowd have done. Instead they engage in special pleading, explaining why what they claim to see and no one else sees would actually be hard to see, and why additional questions are nothing but the hostile reaction of the entrenched "hot-fusion" crowd. You have invoked that argument too many times.
If you want to argue science you have to argue like a scientist and not like a fascist.
I am not going to debate this point with you any more. You have not yourself invoked a single argument or explanation for LENR. You instead simply argue through attempting to heap paper upon paper until your interlocutor is crushed under them. That is not science. That is how marxists argue.
11. a general principle, formula, or rule describing a phenomenon in mathematics, science, philosophy, etc: the laws of thermodynamics
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/law?
Science Dictionary
law (lô) Pronunciation Key
A statement that describes invariable relationships among phenomena under a specified set of conditions. Boyle’s law, for instance, describes what will happen to the volume of an ideal gas if its pressure changes and its temperature remains the same. The conditions under which some physical laws hold are idealized (for example, there are no ideal gases in the real world), thus some physical laws apply universally but only approximately. See Note at hypothesis.
The American Heritage® Science Dictionary
Copyright © 2002. Published by Houghton Mifflin. All rights reserved.
Cite This Source
From dictionary.com, science dictionary entry:
A statement that describes invariable relationships among phenomena under a specified set of conditions.
***The specified set of conditions for LENR are when hydrogen/deuterium are absorbed into a lattice of palladium or nickel. The observed phenomena for this set of conditions, over 22 years and 14,000 replications, is that there is excess heat produced that probably cannot be accounted for with current knowledge of chemistry.
As I have posted to you in the past, if you do not accept the observations, then there is little for us discuss about “A statement that describes invariable relationships among phenomena under a specified set of conditions”.
If a physical law breaks down or appears to be violated, then it is incumbant upon the claimant to explain the facts and measurements surrounding the violation in great detail. You then isolate the phenomenon that appears to be violating physical law and reduce it to its irreducible essentials.
***Dude... that’s exactly what the LENR folks have been doing.
You have no professional knowledge or experience or training or education in the physical sciences. You argue like a conspiracy theorist and not like a scientist or engineer. You simply have nothing technically useful to say on this subject.
***I’m an engineer. I got an A in nuclear physics. Admittedly, I have never used the information professionally. You argue like someone who has never taken a critical thinking class.
Come on, in one post you claim that the H-bomb backs up your claim and then in another post you say exactly what I’ve been saying, that “No one is claiming that hot fusion has demonstrated that it is or that it can be a viable controlled source of energy”.
I have one question for you:
Do you accept the observation that excess heat has been generated in these LENR Experiments?
http://www.lenr-canr.org/LibFrame1.html
If not, then it is useless to discuss with you that some “law” is violated because it is obvious that these experimental observations are in direct contrast with what a bunch of phycisists think.
If yes, then why do you make such a big deal about a “law” being contradicted. The “law” is just a work of man, the statement that describes relationships among phenomena, which needs to be updated similar to how Einstein updated Newtonian Physics because the observations of the day were contradicting the “laws” as they knew them.
As you point out, this is hipwader time. The lowest nuclear energy levels of the fusing pair of D nuclei is their rest mass energy. There is no lower energy state. Now, the D+D reaction produces three outcomes:
(a) D + D -->3He (0.82 MeV) + n (2.45 MeV)
(b) D + D -->T (1.01 MeV) + p (3.02 MeV)
(c) D + D -->4He + gamma (23.85 MeV)
Reaction c occurs about 10 million times less frequently than the first two which are approximately equal. The energy differences have to do with the lower biding energy of He3 vs T and the much increased binding energy of He4. Now the cold fusionistas argue that the first two reactions don't occur because the energy of the fusing deuterons is somehow well below their rest mass energy because of lattice interations. But the latter are chemical interactions (with energies of a few eV at most, and that cannot make up for a 4 MeV reduction in rest energy required to suppress reactions 1 and 2 as the proponents claim.
But if that were not BS enough, they then argue that because a and b are suppressed through this impossible arrangement of chemical binding, reaction (c) which is a 1 in 10 million chance is the only one that can occur. Now, because it is electromagnetic rather than a strong force transition the interaction rate is now also suppressed by the same 1 in 10 million factor so a rate that they need to explain as being unbelievably high already even for nomral fusion must be further ampliefied by another 10 million times.
But that is not the worst of it. The 23Mev gamma from reaction c would stand out like a sore thumb. You would not be able to miss it. And so they have to explain that away too. And they do. They explain that the 23 MeV is transferred directly to (an) electron(s), skipping the inermediate gamma. Now that is a real trick, because they have to couple a very fast nuclear transition to an electron. And here I would ask Kevmo to refer back to his Feynman diagrams to see the error. The only way for the nuclear transition to couple to the electron is through an "electrostatic" interaction, ie through a virtual photon. But, if one examines the propagator in the Feynman diagram one would discover that with 23 MeV available, the virtual photon intermediating the interaction is actually a very real photon, which will propagate through the entire experiment and the laboratory and cannot be missed by the DHS truck hanging around outside looking for evidence of nuclear terrorism.
IOW the nuclear physics arguments are every bit as much HS as are the solid state physics arguments
But that is not what any of the LENR crowd have done.
***Yes it IS what the LENR crowd have done.
Instead they engage in special pleading, explaining why what they claim to see and no one else sees would actually be hard to see,
***Horse Hockey. There are 150 peer reviewed papers at LENR-CANR.
That’s the thing about cold fusion — the bar keeps getting raised for it while the bar for plasma fusion gets lowered.
According to Jed Rothwell, the excess heat experiment has been repeated worldwide roughly 14,000 times successfully according to an estimate by J. He (Front. Phys. China, 2007). There are 4,700 authors in his database. He says at least 2,000 have authored or co-authored experimental papers. He has counted major journal peer-reviewed papers reporting excess heat — more than 150 papers with more than 300 authors and co-authors in 50 publications. There are about 150 other papers describing other nuclear effects such as tritium and neutrons. They far outnumber the negative reports. In 1989 there were 20 negative peer-reviewed papers with 135 authors and coauthors. The reasons these early efforts failed are now well understood. There are also roughly 2,500 non peer reviewed papers including some excellent papers published by the U.S. Navy, Mitsubishi, Amoco, the Japanese Nat. Synchrotron Lab., Los Alamos, BARC and others that are much better than most peer-reviewed papers, in his opinion. You can read ~500 papers at LENR-CANR.org or at a university or national laboratory library. Most of the papers at LENR-CANR.org are copied from conference proceedings and from the libraries at Los Alamos and Georgia Tech, with permission. Plus he has copies of an additional 1,100 peer-reviewed papers that he cannot get permission to upload, regrettably.
http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_rel...e_if_you_say_so
and why additional questions are nothing but the hostile reaction of the entrenched “hot-fusion” crowd.
***Again, horse hockey.
You have invoked that argument too many times.
***So, are you some kind of authority on how many times an argument can be invoked?
If you want to argue science you have to argue like a scientist and not like a fascist.
***I have argued with scientists, especially on the crevo threads. This is how they argue. You can thank your colleagues for the level of discourse. I have noticed that many of them turned out not to be very conservative and were kicked off FR, just couldn’t tone down the invective when it came to inductive subjects.
I am not going to debate this point with you any more.
***If you can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
You have not yourself invoked a single argument or explanation for LENR.
***Well, ETFOOM. This paper and others like it that I have posted are far more than a single argument and explanation for LENR.
You instead simply argue through attempting to heap paper upon paper until your interlocutor is crushed under them.
***There aren’t that many papers to read. If I can read them, then someone with “professional” knowledge of the material should be able to get through them. Here is what I do not understand. You obviously have elevated knowledge of physics, so what prevents you from educating those of us who would like to know about this subject? Why don’t you log onto Vortex-L or some physics blog and let the world see the supposed scientific problems that you are bringing up?
That is not science. That is how marxists argue.
***Bullstuff. You have a claim to professional exposure to nuclear knowledge or whatever, then you can explain the science to us. It’s easy enough to avoid logical fallacies, since you’re so logical. If someone as pedestrian as I am catches you in logical fallacies, then you are the one who needs to learn. Thanks for the marxist insult, which is basically Godwin’s law for Free Republic.
And here I would ask Kevmo to refer back to his Feynman diagrams
***I never made it that far in Nuke Physics. EE degree only required one semester of it.
Thank you. We are done. The laws of physics are not just the work of man to be repealed at the next sitting of the legislature. These guys have "updated" no law. They are making specious claims in violation of every known physical principal. Einstein did not contradict Newton. He just showed that Newton's theory was a restricted case of a more general theory, relevant at small relative velocities. Einstein did not overturn conservation of energy or conservation of momentum. In fact he (and it had been demonstrated by Poincare before Einstein) showed that Maxwell's equations were self-consistent only if you invoked the special theory of relativity. The change was profound but it was not a wholesale reversal of a position.
Not only do you confuse law and models and explanations, but now you confuse fundamental processes and appliations in devices. And you are postulating that even though the device does not work, it actually does but you cannot measure anything showing that it works and the reason is that all the laws of physics require updating.
Reaction c occurs about 10 million times less frequently than the first two which are approximately equal.
***I have seen a claim that the branchings are be different when the particles are absorbed in a lattice. This claim is in direct contradiction to current “law” or description of nuclear branchings. The claim arises from the observations. If you do not accept the observations, the discussion of the law is obviously going to go against your grain.
Do you accept the observations?
With the force of that argumentum ad verecundum I retire.
Einstein did not contradict Newton. He just showed that Newton’s theory was a restricted case of a more general theory, relevant at small relative velocities.
***In other words, the “law” needed to be updated, because the observations were in contradiction to it — basically updated with a correction factor. There is a possibility that these LENR observations will lead to a correction factor in current Nuke Physics understanding in a similar fashion.
Einstein did not overturn conservation of energy or conservation of momentum.
***Then show how this theory contradicts fundamental principles such as those.
Not only do you confuse law and models and explanations, but now you confuse fundamental processes and appliations in devices.
***Here you are showing your inability to argue without simply falling into basic insults or fallacious reasoning.
And you are postulating that even though the device does not work, it actually does but you cannot measure anything showing that it works and the reason is that all the laws of physics require updating.
***WTF? If your reading comprehension skills are this nonlinear, there could be reason to suspect that you don’t know what you are talking about.
It’s those yes-or-no questions that are the toughest. You cannot answer whether you accept the LENR observations.
With the force of that argumentum ad verecundum I retire.
***Wow, you really are nonlinear in your reading skills.
Argumentum ad Verecundiam: (authority) the fallacy of appealing to the testimony of an authority outside his special field. Anyone can give opinions or advice; the fallacy only occurs when the reason for assenting to the conclusion is based on following the improper authority.
A. Occasionally, this argument is called the “argument from prestige” and is based on the belief that prestigious people cannot be wrong.
Jed Rothwell is being cited as an authority of essentially a librarian, a cataloguer of claims. If you cannot accept that someone can count to 14,000, there is no wonder why you retire from such argumentation.
I already did, and I will repeat it for you since you fail to comprehend it despite saying it for about the 5th time now. 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. 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). (Trying to invoke Wannier functions in one case or the dielectric response function in the other case). In the process they also violate the Pauli exclusion principle which strictly limits the number of electrons that can interact at all.
And as I just explained they violate conservation of energy laws and invoke processes that can be intermediated by none of the four known forces.
Other than that they are good to go.
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.