I thank Dr. Storms for his permission to forward
this interchange to the Vortex list. I've
eliminated some comments of mine and his that are
personal, and I again thank him for kind words said in that.
At 11:47 AM 4/5/2010, Edmund Storms wrote:
At 02:39 PM 4/4/2010, Edmund Storms wrote:
The issue is not whether the math is correct, Abd. The math is always
correct. Even the W-L math is correct. The question is, "are the
assumptions consistent with reality and does the math extrapolate the
assumptions to a conclusion that is consistent with reality"?
Takahashi starts by assuming that a cluster of deuterons can form in
the Pd lattice. His mathematical analysis is based on this
assumption
and it does not prove the assumption is correct.
Yes. Of course. Nor have I thought that it has been proven; the only
evidence is that multibody fusion is known to take place (from
Takahashi's experimental work), and that cold fusion takes place.
This [Takahashi's theory) is a conjecture. The
math is, as I understand it, extremely
complex and difficult, and when that is the case, there is the
possibility of error. I am not aware of any expert confirmation that
the math is correct. Assuming that it is, however, what is
remarkable is that this is, to my knowledge, the first time that a
specific physical configuration, which is *not far* from what would
be expected to occur at some (very low) frequency, is predicted to
fuse. Always before, applying classical quantum mechanics, fusion
was considered to be far, far from possibility, *no matter what
physical configuration presents, other than very high energy
collisions.*
Because the math is complex, it can be used in creative ways.
Therefore, it is impossible to say if it is right or wrong. Other
mathematicians might follow the same logic paths using different
methods or apply the same method to different logic paths.
That's true. But Takahashi, in his papers,
particularly the one in the Sourcebook, is
analyzing a particular physical configuration. As
I'd state it, subject to correction, this is a
tetrahedral arrangement of two deuterium
molecules. When I ask if the math is correct, I'm
asking if his analysis, using quantum field
theory and other accepted approaches (as I
understand it), is confirmed by other
theoreticians also skilled in the techniques, or
if they would predict, given that initial
configuration, a different outcome. He predicts
100% fusion under the stated condition.
In
general, the people using the math are professional mathematicians who
have used this kind of math for many kinds of problems outside of cold
fusion. They are not going to make stupid mistakes in the form of the
equation. The "stupid" mistakes are in the assumptions.
I'll disagree. First of all, Takahashi didn't
pull the assumption like a rabbit out of a hat.
Given his experimental results, considering
multibody fusion became a necessity. He
discovered that it was possible to predict fusion
if a particular physical configuration forms. So
there are two questions here, Dr. Storms, and
neither is a stupid question or stupid assumption.
(1) Is it possible for the Tetrahedral Symmetric
state to form? I won't say "Condensate" here
because condensation followed by fusion is what
he predicts theoretically will follow. I'll just
call it TS. Obviously, this is difficult to
create, there could be no high incidence of this,
for well-known reasons. But I also know no
theoretical reason why it could *not* form with
low frequency. Remember that whatever is causing
fusion in the cells, and because of the helium
and heat we must assume, at least as a starting
position, that there is fusion, does so at *very*
low rate. What I'd say would be a reasonably
hypothesis to start with is that it's possible.
How would we know if it forms or not? What is the
precursor? Does it form? The obvious precursor is
single deuterium molecular confinement. Do we
know the incidence of this? "Confinement" means
that the freedom of motion of the molecule has been constricted.
(2) If the TS forms, what happens to it? This is
what TS has studied in his Sourcebook paper and
elsewhere. I want to know if his analysis is
clear and supported by other mathematicians and
physicists and whoever is competent to do a study
like this, or if it is weak, perhaps replete with
unsupported assumptions. If the only "stupid
assumption" is that TS has formed, if the math is
otherwise correct (as you imply!), it is not
stupid at all, it's brilliant. It might still be
irrelevant, because TS might not actually form.
Nevertheless, if Takahashi's analysis is correct,
it points to several important possibilities.
The possibilities I see are:
(1) TSC theory is an explanation of cold fusion.
We are not there yet, there are too many gaps.
Nevertheless, as you know, no theory as yet fully
explains the phenomena we refer to, shorthand, as
"cold fusion." Every theory requires some kind of
hand-waving, a "miracle," sometimes more than
one. I'd suggest that a theory with only one pass
of the magician's wand should take priority over
ones with several such, and TSC theory seems to
require only one magic incantation. (TS exists!)
And I remain unconvinced that the TS is
impossible as you seem to claim, because I have
seen no evidence that shows it is so absent that
it could not be the basic explanation for CF. I
have seen only argument that it is impossible,
with no "math" showing that the *rate* of
formation of TS is below the level of observable
effect, if the effect is fusion. The TS state is
obviously possible; it could form in free space,
given two deuterium molecules colliding in a very
narrow window of orientations and velocities. My
guess is that the frequency of formation of this
state would be so low that we may as well say
that the fusion cross-section is zero, below
observability. But that's the gaseous state. We
are talking about condensed matter. Wouldn't you
say that the conditions in condensed matter, as
to the possibility of enhanced mutual spatial
orientation of molecules, are different than the
gaseous state? Isn't the denial of the
possibility of TS quite similar to the denial of
the possibility of fusion itself?
(2) If TS does not form in CF experiments with
sufficient frequency to produce observable
fusion, could some way be found to form it in
another way? If so, there might be a totally new
and previously unconsidered path to fusion. It
might be possible to make it very efficient! If
it works, it would also be clean fusion, highly
controllable, quite likely. (But there might be
dangerous radiation, it would depend on how the
TS was formed and the decay mode of the Be-8,
under the new conditions which are, here, totally speculative.)
Also, the
method is in many ways a fraud. A person assumes a condition exists
that has never been observed in the real world and if it did occur in
the real world, a Noble Price would result from the correct
prediction.
Fraud should be a term avoided in this field, don't you think?
Hey, you are correct on the rest! However, "never
been observed in the real world" does conceal
some assumptions. Cold fusion could be exactly
that observation. We do not directly observe
interactions on this level, rather we infer them
from their effects. From here on, Dr. Storms, I
will assume that if TS forms, it will fuse and we
will be able to detect it from the fusion
product, specifically helium. We may also be able
to detect it by other means. TSC is probably
fusion-capable itself, if it encounters other
nuclei before fusing, or even after, I do not
have a clue as to how a BEC, if that's what this
is, will behave if the constituent atoms fuse.
But while it's a BEC, it is neutrally charged,
because it includes the electrons, and it is
small, that's "condensed," which means, to me, it
just might be able to sneak through the Coulomb
barrier, and engage, in toto, with a nucleus. But
given its initial position, central to
confinement, with no relative motion with respect
to the lattice, I'd expect this to be relatively
rare. It might become common under some
conditions, such as those of the Iwamura experiment.
They apply this amazing prediction to cold fusion because
this field is so unknown that the amazing prediction can't be
challenged.
Could it be possible that Takahashi applies the
prediction to cold fusion because he started with the following facts?
1. He had experimental evidence for multibody fusion.
2. Fusion is taking place in CF experiments.
3. Deuterium gas is present at the surface of the lattice.
4. Fusion appears to take place at the surface, not in the bulk.
So, what can happen with deuterium gas, i.e,
molecules? Everyone was thinking about deuterons,
because that's what is common inside the lattice,
the electrons being shared with the metal, so
there is, at 1:1 loading, single deuterons,
mostly, at each lattice site. Under those
conditions, even if we get multiple deuterons at
each lattice site, they repel each other and they
are not well confined within the site, and they
don't have their electrons to enable shielding of the Coulomb force.
The facts listed lead to a hypothesis: the fusion
begins with deuterium gas. Now, what can
deuterium gas do? Is there some way to arrange
deuterium gas so that it will fuse at low
temperature. And the answer, if I read this
correctly, is that close to absolute zero, and
probably under high pressure, yes, it will fuse.
And immmediately the knee-jerk answer is, "But
this is preposterous, cold fusion isn't taking
place at absolute zero, nor is the pressure
high." Which neglects that temperature, in this
case, only refers to the relative motion of two
molecules, not to the average energy in the bulk,
and that confinement pressure might be,
transiently, very high. I do not know the
necessary pressure, maybe Takahashi addresses
this. We badly need more analysis of his theory,
many aspects are obscure to me and, I'm sure, to many others.
In addition, the field is so desperate for a theory, we
will accept anything. Most people have no way to either understand
the math or evaluate the assumptions. As a result, the "theory" gains
traction. I admit that the various nooks and crannies of logic need
to be explored, but this process does not justify calling the effort a
theory.
Well, that's a linguistic quibble. Call it a
conjecture. "If unexpected condition X occurs, we
can predict fusion from standard quantum field
theory." The "conjecture" is that condition X
occurs. Dr. Storms, that, all by itself, is huge.
Theories begin with conjectures, often.
Previously, the predictions of quantum mechanics,
with the assumptions of vast relative
internuclear distances such that multibody
calculations were considered unnecessary, were
that fusion was impossible at low energies. Here
we have a prediction of fusion, from what seems
to be standard physics, close to absolute zero,
and all it takes is a special arrangement of the molecules.
That arrangement *could* be obtained by sheer
random collision, possibly at a critical energy.
You would have to accelerate the molecules
somehow, is there a way to do that? The critical
energy would be such that, if they were colliding
at the right orientation, they would, as they
encounter repulsive forces, come to a dead stop
at maximum approach, at the right distance from
each other for condensation to take over. The
rate could be enhanced if the spatial orientation
of the molecules was also preferentially
enhanced. I'll leave this now for those with far
more understanding of what might be possible.
What I see is a piece of a theory, a possible
track within a theory. It reduces the problem to
a single miracle. Okay, two miracles, we could
say. There is still the unsolved problem of what
may be energetic radiation predicted, but not
observed. However, the energy predicted by TSC
theory is much lower than that predicted from,
say, 2D fusion to helium, so there is *less* of a
problem with this theory than with 2D theories.
BEC theory, in general, as you have stated
before, may be a better solution. Or not. We
don't know enough about how TSC fusion would work, I'd say.
In fact, to me, the problem of missing radiation
is greater than the problem of the supposed
impossiblity of TS formation. I haven't seen one
piece of cogent evidence that shows it's
"impossible," only assertions that it is
impossible that really point, instead, to great rarity.
That's remarkable, and could be a clue.
As to W-L "math," what appear to me to be larger theoretical
problems arise. Most of the reactions he predicts, as I understand
it, involve at least two absorprtions. Normally, these absorptions
would be independent, I'd assume, so there would exist an
intermediate product which is not seen, whereas the intermediate
product would be expected to result at higher concentration, not
lower. In addition, the presence of cold neutrons, even supercold
neutrons, would be expected to result in all kinds of transmutation
reactions. Deuterium is very common, so one of the most common
products would be tritium. But it's rare. Maybe I don't get it. W-L
theory requires two miracles, as far as I can see, TSC theory
requires only one.
The W-L theory has logic flaws at every level. The electron needs to
acquire energy as mass in order to make a neutron. All the neutrons
need to enter only certain target nuclei before they decay and are
detected. The reactions claimed to produce helium generate the wrong
energy. The transmutation products that are claimed to be produced
simply cannot be created because the numbers of protons and neutrons
don't add up unless beta decay occurs, which is not detected. To make
matters worse, Larsen does not debate the issues, instead promotes the
theory as the only correct explanation.
That's what it looks like to me. If W-L actually
does provide the necessary explanations, they are
obscure, and someone should elucidate them. For
Krivit to go to Larsen and ask him the necessary
questions would be precisely what a good
investigative reporter would do, and he has not
apparently done it. Instead, he's become a
partisan, who only asks questions of the other side.
The biggest problem for TSC theory right now is the energy of the
reaction products, but that is pretty much a problem for all
theories, where is the expected radiation? Hagelstein sets a very
low value for the normal reaction product energies. If he's right,
this still does not rule out TSC theory. In particular, if the Be-8
is formed within a TSC, what happens? What does "fusion within a
Bose-Einstein Condensate" mean? How do the constituents "know" that
they have fused? Shows how little I know!
I think the Hagelstein energy limit is too low as demonstrated by
actual measurements. I agree, the observed energy will be lower than
the primary energy and this result needs to be explained. The TSC
theory explains this one way for fusion but does not explain how the
energy from transmutation is dissipated. A correct mechanism has to
address both reactions using the same mechanism. Rather than wasting
time trying to justify a wrong mechanism, would it not be better to
focus on an idea that explains both kinds of reactions?
It's better, in fact, to do more work with
predicting results from the various theories and
seeing if they can be confirmed. As to
Hagelstein, what's wrong with his analysis? If it
doesn't correspond with actual observation, then
his analysis is seriously defective. His approach
was to set an upper limit on energy based on
actual observation! If there are higher energies
observed, to a significant degree, it's clearly
off. But he might be right, as to the upper limit
for the *bulk of the reaction*.
If TSC is consistent with radiation observations,
as you seem to imply, then, that it doesn't (yet)
explain transmutation, which is, as you know, a
minor pathway, is not a reason to reject it, but
only to consider it, in itself, as yet
incomplete. If it is the source of the major
reaction, then, what other effects would take
place from secondary reactions? TSC at this point
is, for the most part, simply a possible
mechanism for the first reaction, starting with
the TS assumption and leading to fusion. I don't
see that it's elaborated, yet, as to the head and
tail of this beast, the formation of TS, and what
happens to the fused condensate. Or the
condensate before it fuses (like colliding with a palladium nucleus).
Perhaps the BEC simply evaporates as helium, with the energy shared
among the two nuclei and the four electrons, perhaps this trapped
BEC can, because of the trapping, directly share its energy with the
lattice. I dunno!
Of course, hand waving can arrive at any conclusion.
Absolutely. What we want to find is something
that requires a minimum of hand-waving, and then
see if the hand-waving is actually not, but
something that can be confirmed. Or not. I.e., if
I have to wave the magic wand of "TS forms" in
order to explain cold fusion, it must be asked
"Is this possible?" If it is not possible, we
still have a conundrum, we aren't closer, or if
we are a bit closer, not much. But I don't see it
as impossible, I remain unconvinced of that. It's
possible, as far as I can see. Just rare as hell.
That is the
problem with such "theories". The observations or the expected result
can always be justified. The model does not have within its structure
the ability to make clear predictions. I grant that this ability is
what is being sought in the theories, but so far most theories are
very far from this goal.
This is very true of W-L theory, as far as I can
see. TSC theory brings us closer to the goal. I
agree in one way, absolutely. When theories are
developed in response to anomalies perceived,
unexplained events, a theory could provide total
"explanation" but be quite incorrect. There are
two functions for theory: educational power and
predictive power. Educational power would refer
to a theory that allows the organization of
observed facts. An example would be epicycles in
planetary orbits. They allowed the organization
of observational data into patterns. But
epicycles did not actually exist, rather, those
patterns were produced by different realities
that merely caused resemblance to epicyclic orbits.
Predictive power is what, if massively confirmed,
causes what are simply hypothetical explanations
to become coherent and expected theory. Does TSC
theory make predictions that could be falsified (or confirmed)?
I think so. I described one. Cause TS to form and
see what happens! Fusion is predicted.
Is TS the cause of cold fusion? That's more
difficult, but, again, the theory would predict
enhanced multibody fusion rates with deuterium
bombardment of palladium deuteride, I think.
That, however, would be circular, since this was
a phenomenon that the theory was developed to
explain. So what other predictions does it make?
I think that what we should be looking for is
evidence of what should be characteristic photon
frequencies that would expected to result from
excited Be-8. There might be mechanisms that
suppress these, but I'd expect some leakage. Is
Be-8 forming, transiently, in CF experiments?
This is predicted by TSC theory, but is not known
to happen specifically. How could this be
examined? I'd guess there is a way. It might not be easy at all.
The basic problem is
that the reactants do not form in a pure Pd lattice.
The reactants are deuterium molecules. They do not ordinarily exist
in the lattice, for sure, for deuterium dissociates as it enters the
lattice, existing within it as deuterons, the electrons being shared
with the metal, i.e., this is why we call it palladium deuteride.
However, at the surface, there would be, I'd assume, some level of
deuterium gas in the process of being dissociated. It is possible
that the necessary sites are defects in the lattice. If Takahashi is
correct, there would be no observable frequency of double D2 in the
lattice, it would all fuse immediately.
We are still confronted by the great difference between the energy or
force that are available in a chemical environment and the energy or
force required to overcome a Coulomb barrier.
No. From this, Ed, I'm not getting that you
understand TSC theory. There is no force that is
involved in overcoming the "Coulomb barrier" if
the barrier is invisible to the reactants. This
is exactly what Takahashi has shown: starting
with two deuterium molecules in a particular
spatial and energetic relationship (i.e, relative
temperature of close to absolute zero, and a
particular orientation and spacing (distance
between centers being very small), he predicts
fusion. You can call that "overcoming the Coulomb
barrier" if you like, but it's not really
different from muon-catalyzed fusion, it's just
done with electrons. MCF also takes place at very low temperatures.
Nuclear reactions do
not occur in Nature except under very rare and hard to create chemical
conditions. If this were not so, the chemical industry in which a
huge variety of conditions are routinely made would be awash in
nuclear products. Simply having D2 stick to the surface of Pd occurs
on a large scale in every reaction involving normal hydrogen that
contains deuterium. A plausible mechanism must be one that is rare to
occur and the conditions for its formation must be clearly identified.
Also, the mechanism is known to gain strength as temperature is
increased, which totally rules out BEC.
I believe I've shown an analysis that would
contradict this. In order to reach the TS state,
the molecules must come closer to each other than
is normal, I would imagine. In the tetrahedral
configuration, the molecules have centers in the
same position, but they are orthagonal to each
other. To reach that position, I'm assuming,
would require some specific starting energy to
cause them to approach so closely. Below that
energy, TSC would not form. Above it, it would
probably not form, because the relative motion of
the molecules as they pass the central position
would not allow condensation, I'd think. My guess
is that this energy could be calculated with
*relative* ease. What is it? Isn't that an
interesting question? Then, how common would this
energy be in deuterium gas at a certain
temperature, given the normal energy
distribution? And, then, the much more difficult
question of predicting how often this interaction, leading to TS, would occur.
For example,
Iwamura showed that CaO had to be present.
For his experiment, and why is unknown. CaO is not present in the
palladium deuteride experiments, unless we were to assume some high
cross-section reaction. Come to think of it, that's interesting.
Iwamura effectively shows a high cross-section reaction, effectively
most of the nuclei that are present on the surface transmute. So
what if the reaction in an F-P cell is related to calcium oxide as
an impurity, and sites where there is enough calcium oxide to set up
the fusion conditions? Would calcium added to a cell, say doubling
the concentration, i.e., just a trace more, change the reaction
rate? Not a difficult experimental question, actually.
I don't think CaO is unique in having the ability to catalyze the CF
reaction. This must be one of several different chemical conditions
that have this ability. The problem is to identify what these
materials have in common.
Indeed. My personal goal is to make a particular
simple codeposition experiment standardized and
easily replicable, which then would allow the
exploration of the "parameter space," with
countless small variations possible. Once we have
a standard experiment that is known to "work,"
i.e., will reliably, for all experimenters except
those who spit in their cells, so to speak, it is
as if there are controls, of a kind, for every
unique experiment, a new kind of control. And if
an experimenter spits in his cell, and gets
anomalous and interesting results, rather than
failure to show NAE (or no apparent effect, but,
if what I'm told is likely, poisoning from the
light water in the spit), then it is a clue to
try it again, with multiple cells and real, local controls.
In addition, the surface of
an electrolyzing cathode is NOT pure Pd.
That isn't an objection, actually. He has diagrammed pure Pd, but
the reaction doesn't happen everywhere, and it's pretty clear that
deuterium does reach the palladium? Overcoatings may facilitate the
reaction in some way.
We know that a special chemical is important, i.e. CaO in one case.
Sure. In that case. Which is one of extremely
high cross-section in a very thin layer. A very,
very interesting case, and I'm not convinced by
the skeptical arguments, which seem to be ...
hand-waving. But in this field, we should be
very, very careful about forming firm, fixed
conclusions. Maybe Maxwell's demon is waving his hand.
Therefore, other similar chemicals are important, which are located in
the surface region of the cathode. Rather than focus on what might
happen in pure Pd, why not look at the real chemical environment and
try to identify which chemicals are acting like CaO?
Why, Dr. Storms, funny you should mention that?
Once I do the basic footwork, which keeps getting
put off because I prefer to write, it's easier,
this is exactly what I'd like to do. It's easy
and it will be cheap. I suspect, though, that
there is, for codeposition, no such chemical. But
that's just a suspicion. I think that the crucial
factor with codep is the fractal surface, with
extraordinarily high surface area and high loading ratio from the start.
In short, his assumption at
a very basic level does not describe reality.
Nothing at a basic level describes, in the sense of confines,
reality. The assumption is not an attempt to describe reality. It is
a hypothesis, a speculative one. *If* the TSC forms, i.e, if two
deuterium molecules are confined in a certain space, the tetrahedral
configuration is likely because of packing efficiency in what could
be a very tight space.
There is no such thing as a tight space in a lattice. Whenever an atom
enters a vacancy, the lattice expands to reduce the pressure on that
space. This is a known behavior that can't be ignored for the
convenience of a theory.
Yes. I assume that behavior. The problem with
using it here is that the expansion will take
time and TS only needs to exist for, what, a few
femtoseconds? Again, a general assumption is
being used that would greately reduce the
incidence of TS, but that would not reduce that
to zero. And, remember, it must be very rare, or else we'd have vaporized labs.
He shows that if it does form, it will fuse. I don't know how this
could be considered other than a very interesting theoretical
result, and given the difficulty of finding *anything* that actually
explains cold fusion, it should be on the table, not as anything
proven, but as a possibility to investigate.
Yes, and if I could find a theory that would show how to flap my arms
and fly, I would not need to spend time going through security at the
airport. In other words, if I make the right assumptions, I can gain
any benefit I want from a model. This does not mean the effort to
explore the possibilities are worthwhile.
Sure. Dr. Storms, aren't you going a bit too far
with this? Nobody is demanding that you
personally investigate TSC theory. I'm not
seeing, though, that your rejection of it is
based on a study of the problematic condition, the occurrence of TS.
You have substituted "impossible" for what is
surely "very rare." How rare? The opponents of
cold fusion, believing it to be impossible, at
least attempted to calculate reaction
cross-section, and the only problem, really, was
that they made simplifying assumptions that
neglected the special conditions inside the
lattice, and they assumed and calculated the
possibilities for D-D fusion. I don't see any
attempt here to calculate the cross-section for
TS formation, which is surely the question.
For lots of reasons, the first reaction to TSC theory is that it's
impossible for the TSC to form, for the reasons you state. A similar
argument is given that multibody fusiom must also be impossible,
for, surely, if the cross-section for two deuterons to fuse is very
low, the cross-section for three must be far, far lower, and for
four, how many universe-lifetimes are we expected to wait for one?
Yes, this is what would be expected. The answer must be that the
cluster has a unique cooperative electron structure that hides the
charge of the entire cluster enough so that it can get close enough to
another nucleus for the strong force to take over. The Iwamura work
shows that this unique structure, once formed, has the ability to
diffuse through a lattice and enter the target nucleus as a group of
deuterons. How this happens is still being explored.
Indeed.
But Takahashi shows theoretically that it could occur, much more
simply, and that, in fact, it takes four, he finds that 2D fusion
rate is very small. More is better!
The way I read this as being possible is that, at the surface, there
is presence of D2, and therefore I'd expect that at surface sites,
there is a possibility of confinement at some frequency of double
D2. Very low frequency.
The surface is not required but obviously can have the right
characteristics. The Iwamura work shows that the clusters do not form
at the surface but form at the CaO and diffuse to the surface. In
other words, we need to know what characteristics that a nano surface
might have that give it the right characteristics to cause nuclear
reactions of various kinds.
Sure. Makes sense. Problem here is that the
Iwamura mechanism may be quite different from
what happens in F-P cells. We don't know. This
much we do know: CaO is necessary for the Iwamura
effect. It is not necessary for the F-P effect.
So what happens with CaO could be a red herring.
It does show, though, at least as a first
impression, that 4D clusters, and maybe sometimes 6D, are forming.
Furthermore, the BEC is
known to result only from a very weak bond that cannot form except at
low temperature.
One would think. But I don't know what the temperature is of two
molecules. If they are confined in some way that they are not free
to move, they would still have some degree of vibrational freedom
within that, and the energy of the vibration would be their
temperature. But if it happens that at some moment they approach
vibration in the same direction and with the same velocity, their
temperature, relative to each other, their motion, approaches zero.
They would, for a moment, "freeze."
The nature of matter is to distribute energy and make it uniform on
average. The deviation from this average is small and can be
measured. The idea of local cold spots, I think, has no possibility
of explaining formation of BEC in ordinary matter.
"Cold spots" normally refers to regions, not to
molecular pairs. Those pairs can transiently have
-- must have! -- very low relative motion, which
is the only meaning of "temperature" for them. A
"spot" refers to a larger region. The argument
you are making, Dr. Storms, is valid for large
regions, but not for single molecules, which can
start out with high average energy and end up,
because of the dynamics of a particular
interaction, with very low relative velocity.
Transiently. This condition will not last long.
His assumption is like assuming that ice can form on
the sun simply because a high enough pressure might be present.
Do you really think that's a fair analogy?
Close to fair. The difference between 6000° and 20° is not much
different from the difference between 20° and a micro K where BEC forms.
Well, I'll ask a theoretical question that I
wouldn't expect you to answer off the top of your
head, unless you've done the math, and I'm not
going to do the math myself, I'd have less chance
of doing it right than of ice forming at 20
degrees centigrade, or at least, visible ice.
I'm saying that ice does form at 20 degrees, it
must. But the size of the "ice crystal" is very,
very small, and so it is immediately broken up
and might be very difficult to observe.
After all, to have ice, we have to have water, and to have water we
must have non-disocciated hydrogen and hydroxyl radicals, with their
electrons, the frequency of which at the high temperature and
pressure would be pretty rare, eh?
You got me there. But, are D4 clusters present in a lattice?
What seems to be a fact is that if they form,
they don't last long. Takahashi predicts that
they will fuse, if they have the particular
configuration, which, within the lattice, under
pressure, is what they would naturally tend to
assume, it's maximum packing efficiency.
Regardless, I would say, D4 clusters would likely
not be directly observable, they would be so
rare. They would be seen only if they fuse, that
produces a definite signal that could be detected.
More to the point would be an attempt to
determine the occurence of D2 molecules within
the lattice, but it's possible that they only
enter the lattice at the surface. I'd expect them
to be very unstable if they enter, I'd expect
that they would rapidly dissociate. But the
question is *how long* would they be confined as
D2?* And a molecule could be half-in and half-out
of a cubic site at the surface. That's possibly a precursor to 4D TS.
But imagine, more to the point, high-temperature steam, but below
the temperate which it's still (at least mostly) water. Can ice form
in that?
Of course it can, and I'm sure it does, if we define "ice" down to a
minimal "ice crystal," consisting of only two molecules, bonded
weakly to each other. The "temperature" of these two molecules would
be below freezing. And the ice would last until some collision or
radiation disrupted it.
I have to agree if you change the definition of ice. However, if we
keep the accepted definition of ice, it does not form. Also if we keep
the normal definition of BEC, they will not form either at room
temperature.
In other words, we can't have a BEC because
that's not how it is ordinarily defined? We are
not talking about a "normal" BEC, but one which
only involves two molecules. If two molecules of
water can form a single "ice crystal," meaning
that they have an energetic relationship that two
molecules have in visible ice, then we have an analogy to this TSC.
I've long been interested in how seed crystals
function. We can have supercooled water that
doesn't crystallize until a single piece of ice
is dropped in. What this means to me is that
below a certain size, the brownian motion breaks
up the ice, if a formed ice crystal, as will
surely form sometimes if the temperature is below
freezing. But above a certain size, the rate at
which the surface is broken up becomes lower than
the rate at which the surface grows by new crystallization.
Above freezing, though, as I understand it, ice
crystals still form, but they are broken up more
quickly, and a seed crystal that falls into the
water will melt faster than it grows. But it will
grow at the same time as it is melting. In other
words, some ice is being formed, but it is also
melting faster. We don't see the formation, at
all (if the ice is at the melting point) because
the process averages out over observable sizes to
simple melting. But if we were to look at the
surface on a scale where we'd see the randomness
of the process, we'd see some molecules of water
sticking and some being broken away. Ice
formation and melting. At the same time.
I.e., not for long! (And it would be rare, because the coincidence
that two molecules ended up on the same track with the same velocity
at the same time would be rare.)
In
the case of Pd, the pressure is assumed to be produced by the
lattice,
a condition that has never been observed to occur either in theory or
practice. So, the issue is not the math.
There are two issues. The math is one. The other is what is possible
in the material. I assume this:
At any temperature, free deuterium cannot assume the tetrahedral
configuration, closely enough to each other, because of repulsion.
If the temperature is high enough to overcome this, we don't have
deuterium gas any more.
However, at the temperatures of solids, in the presence of a
lattice, there is the possibility of at least transient confinement
of a deuterium molecule, still undissociated. What happens if, while
this state exists, a second deuterium molecule slips into the
confinement, at the right velocity that when slowed down and trapped
by the palladium and the other deuteron, they end up with very low
relative motion, in the right configuration? This state would never
be observed, probably, except by the consequence: fusion.
You model needs to also explain a reaction rate
in excess of 10^12/ second and how this cluster
can diffuse through 400 Å of Pd before
reacting. The explanation is easy if you eliminate inconvenient
observations.
What inconvenient observations? I'm asking a
question about the occurence of a physical
condition. And, in particular, I'm asking about
the conditions in palladium deuteride, as in F-P
experiments. I'm not at all sure about the
distribution of D2 in or stuck to the surface of
Pd under F-P conditions, how deep the D2
penetrates, and where the point of maximum
reactivity would be found. 10^12 per second
sounds like a big number. What experiments is
that from, and what was the surface area involved?
Dr. Storms, you seem to be assuming that the
necessary questions have been asked and the
results known through experimental analysis. You
must know the literature vastly more than I.
Where are these "inconvenient observations"?
The model, as stated, would predict a reaction
rate, if applied with sufficient diligence and
knowledge. I have no idea what that rate would
be. It would be the product, I'd assume, of the
incidence of the two conditions: first,
confinement of a single D2 molecule, then,
interaction with that confined molecule by
another D2 molecule in a particular way. These
are far from easy calculations, I'd say. Has
anyone undertaken them? The first condition
should be relatively common, what is the
incidence of it? I expect that the second step is
more rare, because it requires a very particular
approach, probably a very narrow range of
velocities. What incidence would be necesary to
explain the observed reaction rate? That
calculation should be relatively easy once the
incidence of the first step is found.
I'm starting to think that I might essay a
first-level approach to this, but there are
people here who could probably do it much better
and much faster than I. Damn! Thinking about it,
I'm getting an impression that the numbers work
very well. The first condition is very common, so
the second condition must be very rare, as would
be expected from the sensitivity of the required
energies. So this is a necessary question:
Let's assume that formation of a BEC requires the
temperature be below a certain threshold. What is
that? Then, what is the repulsive force that two
deuterium molecules will experience if pressed
together so that they have their centers located
at the same point, while they are orthagonal to
each other? This force will be, I assume, a
function of the distance between the centers, and
it will be an unstable equilibrium. That is,
there will be no force at center coincidence.
Rather, as the molecules approach this position,
the force will at first increase to a maximum at
some distance, then decline to zero at
coincidence, and if an incident molecule passes
center, the force will again increase, repelling
the molecule again, accelerating it back to its original velocity.
What incident energy would it take for the
incident molecule to lose almost all of its
kinetic energy climbing this potential hill? I'd
assume that the repulsive force (in directions
orthagonal to the incident velocity) might cause
both molecules to dissociate, but if that is
prevented by their orientation within
confinement, they might not, because of other
repulsive forces from their neighbor atoms.
Takahashi has figures for how long the
"condensation motion" will take, so we'd want the
relative velocity of the molecules to be low
enough that they would remain with their centers
close for this time, roughly. This, then, could
give us a range of velocities. We could then look
at the molecular velocity distribution in D2O at
room temperature and predict how many molecules
would have the necessary velocity. This would
have to be much more than the fusion incidence,
because only incident molecules with particular
orientations at approach would "freeze." Ah, if I had the time.....
The state of single deuterium molecular confinement might be
observable in some way. Where, exactly, does dissociation take
place? How fast a process is it, and is there some period of
confinment during it? It seems fairly obvious to me that there must
be some positional interaction with the deuterium gas to cause it to
dissociate, perhaps as one side gets "stuck" inside the lattice and
the other gets whacked by a passing molecule. According to my
ignorant imagination. Once in a while the end gets whacked enough to
push it all the way in for a time, instead of breaking it off.
I have not seen, anywhere, a deeply informed discussion of the
obvious issues around TSC theory. I have only seen objections like
yours from Hugh Heffner on the Vortex list, or, now, from you. Plus
something similar from one of the more informed Wikipedia editors --
the idea that multinuclear fusion was
preposterous --; the run-of- the-mill editor
didn't know the difference between a molecule and a
nucleus. Literally.
It's frustrating. Thanks for writing, as usual.
And in return, thanks for the very astute analysis.
I'm grateful for Dr. Storms taking the time to
review my questions and comments, which are those
of a largely ignorant amateur, who only started
to read in this field, except for some knowledge
of the events of 1989, a year ago. I am not
expert in any specific field, and am only now
becoming "relatively expert" in terms of some
overall knowledge of the overall field of cold
fusion. Anyone with better preparation in the
basic sciences than mine should be able to do
better than I. At best, I ask the "inconvenient
questions" of a child, and, speaking as a parent,
sometimes my children ask me questions that are
truly difficult to answer, and I don't think I do
them a service by pretending to know the answers.
In the end, we have some pebbles on a beach. Some
of them are pretty. We can walk on them for a
time. We may become familiar with a particular beach.
But the mysteries of the ocean?
