last417

Subpage of Kowalski/cf recovered from archive

417) Last Updating ? (7/20/2014)

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)Department of Mathematical SciencesMontclair State University, Montclair, NJ, 07043

This might be my last item here. I am still reading what CMNS researchers have to say. But penetrating the content conceptually becomes more and more difficult, due to my old-age limitations.In the item 408 I asked “is the device constructed by Andrea Rossi reality or fiction?” Unfortunately, no convincing evidence of realty has been reported on the CMNS website. Neither am I aware of new experimental results. But interpretational debates among highly qualified researchers, from several countries, are going on, as illustrated below.

1) The most significant event was the recent publication of a new book devoted to Cold Fusion. Here How this event was announced by the author, Ed Storms, on July 3, 2014: “My new book will be available shortly from Infinite Energy. To provide a place where discussion can take place, a new website “www.LENRexplained.com

has been created and is operational thanks to Ruby Carat. Please go to BLOG to make comments. The comments will be moderated in order to keep the level of debate high. This is not be the place to vent anger, frustration, or to make snide remarks. I hope this discussion can help expand everyone’s understanding of LENR, including mine.” The printed book is already available; the ebook version is expected to be available in August.

2) On July 18 X1 (who is from Rumania) wrote: “I have just now published:

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/07/the-vuca-world-of-lenr-how-long-it-will.html

History of LENR will decide if i was too optimist or, on the contrary…
However I have decided to tell you sincerely everything I think, taking all the risks.
We all have to develop active VUCA awareness.

yours faithfully,

3) On July 19, X3 (who is from Ukraine) wrote: “Dear Colleagues. In our new article “Correlated States and Transparency of a Barrier for Low-Energy Particles at Monotonic Deformation of a Potential Well with Dissipation and a Stochastic Force”

(Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics, 2014, Vol. 118, No. 4, pp. 534-549.)

the features of the formation of correlated coherent states of a particle at monotonic deformation (EXPANSION or COMPRESSION) of potential well in finite limits have been considered in the presence of dissipation and a stochastic force.

It has been shown that, in both deformation regimes, a correlated coherent state is rapidly formed with a large correlation coefficient r~1, which corresponds at a low energy of the particle to a very significant (by a factor of 10^50…10^100 or larger) increase in the transparency of the potential barrier at its interaction with atoms (nuclei) forming the “walls” of the potential well or other atoms located in the same well. The efficiency of the formation of correlated coherent states, as well as, increases with an increase in the deformation interval and with a decrease in the deformation time.
The presence of the stochastic force acting on the particle can significantly reduce the maximum value and result in the fast relaxation of correlated coherent states with r~0. The effect of dissipation in real systems is weaker than the action of the stochastic force. It has been shown that the formation of correlated coherent states at the fast expansion of the well can underlie the mechanism of nuclear reactions at a low energy, e.g., in MICROCRACKS developing in the bulk of metal hydrides loaded with hydrogen or deuterium, as well as in a low-pressure plasma in a VARIABLE MAGNETIC FIELD in which the motion of ions is similar to a harmonic oscillator with a variable frequency.

PS. This article is in Attachment.

4) On July 20 X4 (who is from Malesia) wrote: “As an experimental physicist, I find models to be very useful for building concepts. As a theoretician, I do as well. However, I don’t have my lab set up; so, I just have to think about them.

The multi-atom, linear, hydrogen molecule does not naturally exist. However, if it were ‘induced’ to form, it might have some interesting properties. One of these could be Rocha’s metallic hydrogen (see the PS below). In 1999, Sinha proposed such a molecule in lattice defects as a potential source of CF. More recently Storms proposed the linear-H model as the ‘only’ possibility for CF. Is there a simple experiment that can convey some of the concepts involved in this structure?

Metallic H requires extremely high pressures to form (maybe! I do not know that it has actually been proven to exist.) Electrolytic loading can provide extremely high pressures for H into a lattice. Is it sufficient? If so, under what circumstances? Under high loading, protons can be inserted into sites that are not ‘natural’ for them, or proton pairs can even be crammed into a single site. Nevertheless, they would not form a linear molecule (at least not of the type we are seeking).

I suggest that the balloon analogy might be useful. The electron ‘cloud’ about a proton has an isotropic distribution. However, in the H ground state, the electron has zero angular momentum (L = ~0). If it had ang mom. it would have a ‘fixed’ vector associated (perhaps nutating and/ or precessing). QM states that it is a ‘probability cloud’. Either way, this distribution, when overlapping with a similar one, does not provide sufficient screening to allow the protons to get close together. Sinha’s Lochon model (paired electrons) and Takahashi’s Tetrahedral model provided possible ways around this problem without requiring a linear structure. (However, Sinha’s model also worked preferentially in such a structure.) The linear lattice is the preferred structure and could exist in special lattices. It might be able form in a crevice (this is not assured). How does a balloon help explain this picture of the linear molecule in a lattice and its consequences?

Consider the balloon:

Actually, we’ll consider two sets of balloons. But first we need to define the nature of the balloon .and the distinction between force F and pressure (P=F/A).
1. When you blow up a balloon, it is necessary to exceed a given pressure before it will expand easily.
2. After that critical pressure is exceeded, the balloon will expand at a lower pressure (see figure, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-balloon_experiment ).

I am skipping the illustration (Dependence of pressure on r/r0)
Why?
1. It takes a given force to stretch the balloon
2. the stretch is proportional to the force
3. as the balloon expands, the area A increases; so that, the force available to stretch the balloon (F = P A) for a given pressure increases.
4. this reduced-pressure regime is maintained (extended to the right in the figure) until the elastic limit is approached (not shown in figure).
In most balloons, e.g. 1/2 inch across by 5 inches long (uninflated):
1. the end never expands (until the balloon is blown up very full, perhaps to beyond a 10 inch diameter)
2. it is possible to push a needle thru the end without bursting the balloon or allowing air to leak out. (It is more difficult to get the needle out again, but it can be done.)
In a second set of balloons (e.g. 3/8 by 5 inches uninflated – I may be wrong about the diameters):
1. the diameter never expands much, the balloon stretches out longer until it is blown up very full, perhaps to beyond a 20 inch length; or,
2. unless the balloon is pinched off at some point and the air pressure is raised sufficiently to cause the early section to ‘balloon’
What is the difference?
1. The pressure peak in the figure is different for the sidewalls of the balloons and the ends.
2. the forces needed to stretch the balloons differ in the various directions.
3. for a given pressure, decreasing the diameter of the balloon decreases the force available to expand the balloon diameter
4. increasing the pressure, until the force on the end is sufficient to elongate the balloon rather than to expand its diameter, may result in different local forces from the different geometries
5. this is similar to the effect seen in the coupling of two balloons (see “two balloon” ref above).
How does this all relate to the linear-H molecule? Consider the inflated balloon to be like the Coulomb repulsion field of a proton. It is possible to push your finger into the center of the balloon. (Is this like tunneling?) However, it is much more difficult to press two balloons together to the same depth. Again, the difference is in force vs pressure. The finger has small area, the balloons are large; so for the same force in pushing a finger vs a balloon, the pressure is quite different.
An electron in orbit about a proton acts to reduce the ‘inflation’ of the balloon. It allows two H atoms to come closer together, but only so far. (We can’t simulate the effects of spin coupling.) If a normal balloon were greased and inserted into a tube (e.g., the tube of a vacuum cleaner), then it could only elongate on inflation. If a pressure sensor were placed in the balloon, and pressures were compared for a ‘free’ and confined balloon, the results would not be dramatically different (but, they would depend on the balloon and tube geometries). If another pressure sensor were placed between the balloon and tube, the pressure difference needed to confine the balloon would not be that large. It would be limited to that needed to expand the balloon toward the end of the tube. Thus we have the condition of the multi-H molecule.
For H2, the external forces needed to reduce the diameter of the molecules is not large, but the effect of reducing the electron’s 3-D degrees of freedom to 1 is dramatic (see fig. attached). An order of magnitude decrease in equilibrium spacing between two H atoms will bring the atoms close to a self-sustaining 1-D configuration (meaning that the electrons are no longer isotropically distributed about the proton(s), they more closely align themselves along the potential minimum of the proton axis). There may be a stable or metastable 1-D configuration for H2, if it can be formed. Many balloons, such as the long balloons used to make toy animals, have such a bistable mode.
The 3-D H2 molecule has little attraction for a lone H atom or another H2 molecule. However, a 1-D H2 molecule would likely have more attraction if the atom or molecule were at the end of the line. The added component could then become an addition to the linear molecule and even join the 1-D state with shrunken electron orbital(s) and closer molecular bonds. It is often observed that blowing up longer balloons will fill up one section while leaving the remainder in an unexpanded state. Thus, the growth of multi-H linear molecules, under the proper circumstances, could become an expected event. CF would be a likely consequence and the bistable mode in balloons could represent the configuration changes that lead to cold fusion.
I had an excellent demonstration (in my apartment in Malaysia) of how resonance can overcome very strong barriers. Unfortunately, I did not ‘notice’ it until I was about to leave there for good and did not have time to record it. I had been annoyed by the effect on many occasions, but did not recognize it as the example it was of overcoming the Coulomb barrier.
PS The paired electrons in the ground state of an atom (or molecule) are a boson. If two H2 molecules, each with such a paired boson are combined, then would the bosons not want to share the common H4 molecular orbital? The multi-H linear molecule in a proper lattice or defect would provide such an example and thus would be metallic H at room temperatures and internal lattice pressures. Furthermore, it might even be a high-temperature superconductor. However, it might also lead to CF and ‘spoil’ the whole concept. What a shame!

5) Responding to X4, X5 (who is from the US) wrote (also July 20):
“I like your analogy. I agree, the process needs to be made simple enough for it to be understood by anyone. Being of chemical persuasion, I would like to offer a different description and analogy. The Hydroton is a chemical structure. Therefore, it has to follow the rules that apply to all chemical structures. All chemical structures are held together by bonds that involve electrons. These bonds have certain well defined energies and configurations. In the case of H, two basic electron configurations exist that are designated s and p. The s level is the most stable and normally forms between other H to make the molecule H2. To allow a larger structure to form, the electrons must occupy an energy level that allows electrons to be shared between all H atoms in the structure. In other words, a metallic-type* bond must form. This electron level requires energy to form, hence is not stable under normal conditions. In 1935, Wigner and Huntington proposed using high pressure to force the electron into the required energy level, thereby creating what they called metallic hydrogen (MH). Because the electron would be then able to move freely between nuclei, the structure was proposed to be superconducting. In 1991, Horowitz proposed that this structure would fuse, thereby explaining the extra heat produced in Jupiter. I then took the logic one step further and proposed that LENR was initiated by formation of MH, I call the Hydroton, which initiated the fusion reaction in certain cracks.

The question is, “What is present in the crack that can force the electron into the required metallic state?” I suggest the high concentration of electrons associated with the Pd or Ni atoms in the wall of the gap force the electron associated with H to move to a new energy state in order to avoid the high negative potential in the gap.

A boat can be used as an analogy. The level of the negative sea has been raised by the electrons in the wall, thereby raising the boat, which is the electron associated with hydrogen. The boat is forced to move up the energy scale and into a configuration that is normally not available. This configuration allows the boat to now move from port to port rather than being trapped in a single port by energy barriers, i.e. rocks. This configuration allows the hydrogen nuclei to resonate, thereby acquiring enough energy to periodically and partially overcome the Coulomb barrier. The same process would occur in metallic hydrogen regardless of how it is formed. Therefore, I suggest in the book that the failure to make MH results because it discomposes by fusion immediately upon formation. Looking for the resulting radiation would be one way to test this prediction.

*The three known bond types are designed as ionic, covalent and metallic. The bond in H2 is covalent.”

6) On July 19, X6 (who is from Japan) wrote: (responding to X4 and to another researcher): “Every particle in nature stays only in the 3-dimesional space, and HUP (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle) rules its special distribution. Therefore, any PURE linear molecule for p-e-p, p-e-p-e-p, e-p-e-p-e-p-e, etc. systems in 1-dimensional alignment cannot exist. However, LINEAR-LIKE molecule as elongated di-cone or elliptic rotator can exist if the freedom of electron motion in other two dimensions were extremely constrained by surrounding Coulombic (or Electro-Magnetic) interactions of many particles charge-field. (I do not know how it is possible in nano-cracks.)

In such an extremely ‘vertically constrained’ linear-like molecule as p-e-p one, supposing it to be treated adiabatically separated from surrounding many charged particles which made constrained field (namely supposing Born-Oppenheimer wave function separation and Variational Principle for minimum energy system: the principle of electron Density Functional Theory), the constrained condition for the vertical two-dimensional space other than the one-dimensional line of linear-like molecule can be realized by requiring the high kinetic energy rotation motion of the QM center of electron moving around the center-of-mass point of the p-e-p system. The required electron kinetic rotation energy will be more than 1 MeV, really in relativity motion. When the electron kinetic rotation energy would become infinite, it approaches to an ideal linear p-e-p molecule (Hydroton?) with very diminished p-p inter-nuclear distance (to make weak-boson interaction between proton and electron efficiently, 2.5 am i.e. 2.5E-18 m is the considering scale). I do not know if some bodies made Time-Dependent Density Functional calculation by using coupled Dirac equations for such cases.

I hope, Andrew and Daniel will get to some rational solutions. How much the nuclear reaction rates are is to be answered for making a theory rational, in any way.”

7) On July 22, X7 (who is from the US) wrote:

Also, if anybody does not yet have the book, but would like to read a thorough treatment of the theory, the JCMNS included a lengthy article from Ed on the theory last year:

http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol11.pdf

8) Responding to a comment of X5, X8 (myself) wrote (July 23):

To most physicists the term logical approach can mean two things:

a) formal logical, which they associate with mathematics,

b) informal logical, which they associate with intuition.

Both play an equally important role in science, as we all know.

9) Responding to X8, X5 wrote (also July 23)

Which of these would you say I use, Ludwik? My model is built on finding a logical structure that explains all observations without violating any law. Yes, intuition is used, but that is not the only feature.

All theory is based on assumptions. These assumptions are used to guide the math, frequently without being acknowledged. I acknowledge all my assumptions and apply them using cause and effect. How does this differ from using mathematical equations? The only difference is that I use words instead of equations. Of course, I make no effect to calculate values. But what good are such calculated values without agreement that the basic model on which the values are based is correct? In other words, the values to not prove the model. Instead the model determines the values. The theoreticians insist that the cart be placed in front of the horse.

The problem is that I do not use the assumptions required by QM. Therefore, my arguments are not acceptable to modern physics. I suggest this conflict between my approach and that used by the various theoreticians has revealed a flaw in the way modern physics explains reality. Mathematical equations based on QM is their god. No explanation that does not use these tools can be accepted. Do you agree?

10) Another post from X5, addressing X8 (July 24):

Ludwik, I suggest philosophers of science such as you might want to address the issue of how physics evaluates reality compared to the other sciences. What criteria should be used to test a theory? The conventional requirements state that a theory must be tested. If so, what role do calculated values have when the values cannot be compared to any measurement? What role does logical consistently with a large data set have in evaluating a theory? Does such consistency not represent a test based on known behavior? Must all tests be made after the theory is proposed rather than before? Something worth discussing?

11) Another post from X8, (July 24):

Yes, the topic is worth discussing. But I am not a philosopher. Let me say this:

Scientific theories are finally accepted or rejected on the basis of laboratory work and observations of our material world. But intuition, inspiration and emotion also play an important role in scientific research, especially at earlier stages of scientific theoretical investigations. Mathematical theories, on the other hand, are rejected only when logical (mathematical) errors are found in derivations.

12) Another post from X5, (July 24):

With what you say being true, how should the theories describing LENR be evaluated? What criteria should be applied to decide which are flawed and which are worth exploring. All the theories at the present time conflict with each other and with observed behavior. Each is justified by a different mathematical analysis. They all conflict with one or more basic natural laws. How can a person who wants to understand LENR decide which theories to use to design future studies and to interpret what is observed. That is the problem I’m trying to address. This is a serious issue. Ed

13) Another post from X8, (July 24):

Ed asked: “how should the theories describing LENR be evaluated?”

1) LENR are physical phenomena; scientific theories describing these phenomena should be evaluated in the same way as other scientific theories. Predictions of all such theories should be tested in laboratories. A theory whose predictions are verified is usually accepted. Confidence in a theory increases when additional predictions are verified. That is what most of us learned in school, long ago.

2) A theory, according to Karl Popper, is not scientific unless it is falsifiable. In other words, a theory is not scientific unless it makes predictions, which can be tested experimentally.

3) In talking about science I often say that falsifiability is a necessary requirement for a scientific theory but not for a scientific hypothesis. That is why a theory is more difficult to formulate than a hypothesis. Yes, I know that nonscientists often identify theories as unreliable guesses.

14) Another post from X5, (July 24)

After quoting my point 1 (see 13 above):

1) Yes Ludwik, that is what I learned as well. However, testing a theory takes time and money. If the test is complex, the interpretation can be ambiguous, requiring many different tests. If only one theory is involved, the tests can be focused on that one idea. But suppose we have a dozen proposed theories? How do we start to decide which deserves the expense and time?

After quoting my point 2 (see 13 above):

2) The test has to be such that the theory is actually tested. Frequently the behavior can be explained several different ways. This is the present situation with LENR where the observed behavior is claimed to support a particular theory, yet the behavior can be explained equally well several different ways. When this happens, which “theory” is tested? What does the test mean?

After quoting my point 3 (see 13 above):

What does “falsify” mean with respect to a theory describing behavior? If an experiment fails to give the predicted result, is this a falsified result or just a failure to do the experiment properly? For example, most efforts to produce LENR fail. Does this failure mean that LENR is not real, as claimed by the skeptics?

I think this idea for the need to “falsify” actually applies to a mathematical theory, not one that describes physical behavior. Confusion has resulted from the mixing of these different concepts.

15) Another post from X8, (July 25)

1) Yes, some projects might not be possible without big money. But the scientific methodology of validation for expensive projects should be the same as for those, which are less expensive. And yes, the problem of initial irreproducibility should be addressed, for each part of a project.

2) Practical considerations, such as costs of experiments, clarity of publications, reputation of authors, etc., will probably determine how to deal with competing theories.

3) All scientific theories describe physical behavior. The “falsibility” requirement–which I would have named the “confirmation” requirement– was introduced to deal with scientific theories, not with mathematical theories. Mathematicians do not perform experiments to validate theorems.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

WordPress Anti Spam by WP-SpamShield