At 08:35 PM 4/5/2010, Horace Heffner wrote:
On Apr 5, 2010, at 2:40 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
There have been plenty of people who have looked at BECs over the
last decade. Takahashi is late into that game. Here's my take on it
from 1996:
http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/BoseHyp.pdf
Condensates likely do play some role in cold fusion. I think LENR
happens by more than one means. BEC formation and wavefunction
collapse is just one of them.
Takahashi was very early into the "game" in his experimental work
finding evidence for multibody fusion. I should look that up.
That's irrelevant. I said: "Takahashi is late into *that* game.".
That game being CF as a BEC phenomenon. Here it is again:
There have been plenty of people who have looked at BECs over the
last decade. Takahashi is late into that game.
See?
OMG, you were right! The sky will fall! Somebody, get me the smelling salts!
Takahashi did two very significant things in the history of BEC
consideration for cold fusion. First, he did find *experimental*
evidence that multbody fusion could be a mechanism to consider (I'm
not sure who was first to do that, but Kasagi published some evidence
in 1995 (received 1994), and Takahashi published in 1998. One of his
papers claims that he was studying "multibody deuteron fusion" since
1991. Second, to my knowledge, he was first to publish a theory of
what could cause the BEC to form, and showing that it would necessarily fuse.
In some of the criticisms here, it has been claimed that Takahashi
assumes the existence of TSC as a BEC. Not exactly. He doesn't start
with the existence of TSC, rather, he starts with what I've been
calling TS, which is simply a physical arrangement ("Tetrahedral
Symmetric) of two deuterium molecules. It's an unusual one, not
attainable outside of confinement.
I don't find that Takahashi has explained his work well to a more
general audience. What Takahashi refers to as the Tetrahedral
Symmetric Condensate ranges all the way from t=0, where, it seems,
the two deuterium molecules are simply confined in Pd lattice (an
obviously transient state), down to the full condensed state, which
he predicts will take 1.4 fs. He considers the "Condensation Motion."
By the way, in some of the gas loading experiments, am I seeing that
loading ratio approaches 4? That doesn't mean TSC, though, TSC
requires the molecular form.
No claim is made by me that TSC theory, as it is, is a complete
explanation for cold fusion. But, with more development, it is
possible that it will become that.
I'm confused. Are you defending Takahshi's *actual* theory or some
hybrid of his theory and your imagination?
Well, I'm not Takahashi, so I don't know the "actual theory." I only
know how I interpret it. So my answer is "Yes."
Takahashi has explicitly
denied the possibility of electrons in the nucleus, and especially
any possibility of their affecting the nuclear reaction itself, in
particular its timing.
Well, that seems preposterous. He "explictly" considers the electrons
in his diagram showing the "Minimum TSC." And all through the
condensation process. He may have denied the possibility of
"electrons in the nucleus." He's not showing them as "in the nucleus"
but as shielding the repulsive force between the nuclei. I think that
the "nuclear reaction itself," which takes place when the minimum TSC
has formed, is very fast, he gives a figure of 10^-20 sec. In
examining the fusion action, he compares the TSC with the known
fusion of a dt-muon molecule. (I.e., I assume, where a muon has
replaced an electron.) He's certainly very carefully examining the
role of electrons; without them, the collapse and fusion would not
take place. Muons do not "enter" the deuterium or tritium nuclei.
If the reaction can not be delayed then there
is no chance for the reaction energy to be dissipated in many long
wave length (low energy) photons.
I have no idea how fusion within a BEC will behave, particularly when
the BEC is itself strongly confined. Obviously, the energy released
is far greater than the confinement forces, but what will happen, I
surely don't know. Do you?
As to myself, I don't understand, even, what it means for fusion to
take place within a BEC and why everything doesn't fuse (if it's
energetically favorable). How do the constituents of a BEC maintain
their identity? So much to learn, so little time!
What I do know is that Takahashi, in one of the earlier papers, did
show a series of emissions prior to Be-8 fusion. Presumably he's
aware of the difficulty you mention. I don't recall a study of the timing.
While the Be-8 nucleus is intact, I'd suspect, the TSC is still a
condensate of a kind, a single-atom condensate, I'd think. I see no
reason why the electrons would disappear, until fission occurs and
the condensate breaks up. Which comes first, I have no idea.
You wrote, in 1996,
To be
significant to CF, a condensate of two protons or deuterons in a
lattice site need only
be formed a very short time, if formed often enough.
Your examination was, from the point of view of TSC theory, both
more complex and too simple. There is no analysis showing that two
protons or deuterons in a lattice site will fuse, without some
additional elements. The two protons or deuterons don't have
binding forces that would tend to orient them well, but I certainly
know little about that. However, four deuterons, and particular
four deuterons bound to each other with their electrons, would
indeed form a preferential orientation, just take what you wrote
about protons and apply it to four of them (or four deuterons):
Nonsense! I explained the required extra conditions. Here is the
explanation given in the 1996 article: "Wave function collapse occurs
probabilistically on the relative approach of two or more quantum
waveforms. One quantum waveform can collapse to the location of the
other. If two overlapped, i.e. relatively to each other slow,
waveforms in a Bose condensate are penetrated by a high velocity
waveform, a condensation can occur.
Ahem. "Without some additional elements," I wrote. You point to what
I'd noticed, "penetration by a high velocity waveform." But, hey,
what do I know? I know only one thing right now: your explanations
aren't convincing me. Maybe that's because I'm just too slow. Or
there could be another cause.
Also,a kind of paradox occurs.
All motion is relative. Assume the condensate is two protons, and the
high velocity waveform is an electron.
Can you have a BEC with two protons? No electrons?
From the point of view of the
proton condensate, the wavelength (size) of the electron is small.
From the point of view of the electron, though, the condensate must
be very small, and more importantly, since the waveforms of the
proton condensate are phase locked and colocated, the condensate must
appear located in a small volume. Thus, if there is an interaction,
it would seem there would be a high probability that the interaction
would be a 3 body interaction. That is to say the phase locking
tendency of a condensate would greatly change waveform co-location
probabilities. Given two protons jammed into a lattice site, the
Schroedinger Equation predicts that they will be instantaneously
found in opposing locations within the site. However, should they
form a Bose condensate, it is logical that their locations would
appear to be the same to a fast moving particle."
The key is that a pair of particles in a confined BEC should have
co- centered wavefunctions, unlike those in a Schroedinger style
molecular orbital, which are co-located, i.e. the probability of the
location of one at a given point is a *dependent* probability,
dependent on the location of the other deuteron (not being) at that
point.
Takahashi considers the process by which the BEC forms. You, in fact,
are assuming that it already exists.
The nuclei are highly separated for all practical purposes.
In a BEC the wavefuctions are spread out, overlap. A high speed
particle approaching a two particle BEC should see it as a single
particle, a single wavefunction, and a small one too, due to the high
relative velocity, and thus the small de Broglie wavelength.
I don't have a problem with accepting that a BEC might be more
vulnerable to penetration, but a BEC consisting of two protons would
have a charge of +2, while the electron would have a charge of -1. I
don't see why, if an electron cannot just fall into a single proton,
it could suddenly fall into a BEC of two. But, again, what do I know?
I've already said what I know.
There have been plenty of people who have looked at BECs over the
last decade. Takahashi is late into that game.
Given two
protons jammed into a lattice site, the Schroedinger Equation
predicts that they
will be instantaneously found in opposing locations within the
site. However, should
they form a Bose condensate, it is logical that their locations
would appear to be the
same to a fast moving particle.
"Fast moving particles" aren't common in there.
Of course they are. Cosmic rays are common enough to trigger the
reactions.
One reaction per cosmic ray. At this point, Horace, you seem to be
making up experimental evidence, but more charitably, it would seem
that you are making predictions. If a "fast-moving particle" is
necessary, then the reaction could be stimulated by exposing the
cathode to fast-moving particles. That's not difficult to arrange. I
think it's been done, and I don't think that the change in reaction
rates has been what would be implied.
This would also imply that reaction rate would vary with shielding
from cosmic rays. I don't think it does.
One triggered, the resulting keV electrons should keep
things going a bit.
A bit. But these "high energy particles" would still not have a high
reaction cross-section. Most of them would dissipate (or escape)
without managing to hit a BEC, which is, after all, a teeny-tiny
thing. Really tiny. Takahashi has the full BEC have 10-20 fm radius,
which isn't much bigger than a single heavy nucleus. (Your condensate
would be, what, 1/4 the volume?) The atomic separation in palladium
is, what, 140 pm? Not an easy target to hit. Not easy at all. And we
are only talking about, apparently, a thin layer where the condensate
could sit, if fusion is a surface effect. Lots of other stuff to hit,
not collapsed, copiously present.
However, I did suggest "If true, the hypothesis
indicates that spiking the cathodes of CF electrolysis cells with
particle emitters should greatly increase the yield and reliability
of the CF effects." This approach is sometimes helpful, especially
using thorium, but not sufficient to sustain practical CF reactions
just by loading a thorium doped Pd lattice with deuterium.
And why not? By the way, I don't give a fig about "practical CF
reactions," and I'm not sure I've ever heard of one. I'm interested
in the reactions whether they are "practical" or not. Does thorium
*radiation* enhance the reaction?
But Takahashi predicts that one isn't necessary, the material will
fuse all by itself.
There lies one of the problems with his or your conclusions. If this
were true then liquid (or possibly even solid) deuterium should go
bang. It doesn't. Many orientations of D2 molecules occur in liquid D2.
Sure. But, Horace, I'm getting the strange impression that you aren't
paying attention, which is distressing. Yes, many orientations would
occur. But TS is not merely an orientation, and if two free deuterium
molecules started to approach it, the normal happening would be that
they would disassociate. Imagine each deuterium molecule as two
spheres that partly overlap. They are "fuzzy" spheres, if they are
pushed together, they interpenetrate, but the electron clouds repel,
so a force resists the pushing together. Push harder, they get
closer. Now, put another molecule next to this, cross orientation,
and push them together. This will allow the molecular centers to
approach maximally. But those centers will not be in the same place,
and, until they are, the two molecules will repel each other. Fine.
Give the two enough relative momentum, the centers may indeed come to
the same point. But by then one or both of them will be dissociated
into free deuterium atoms, because the force of approach is enough to
push the two atoms of a molecule apart, it is greater than the force
binding them to each other. In order for the molecule to stay
together, an outside force is needed to keep it from dissociating.
That is what the lattice *might* exert.
It might not even be normal lattice sites; one of the factors might
be the frequency of sites that are a bit larger, so that a single
deuterium molecule is more "confortable," so that the confinement
lasts longer and is therefore more available to the next step, the
addition of another molecule.
The point is that in liquid deuterium, there would be nothing to keep
the molecules from dissociating if one of them approaches another
with enough velocity for the centers to come together. You would
never attain the TS, which requires that the centers be coincident.
I really wish that someone with more knowledge than I would be
explaining this! Takahashi is surely aware of all this, so why isn't
he being interviewed? That's the kind of science journalism we need!
The other factor about liquid deuterium is that it's too cold. To
come together as a TS, even if confined, still requires energy. Thus
Takahashi talks about "collision-combination" between a trapped
molecule and an incoming molecule. This is the energy that it takes
to form the TSC, it is "compressed" by the kinetic energy of the
incoming molecule. (I.e., it doesn't fly apart, though it must expand
some) This is thermal energy, definitely "low energy." But this
would explain why the reaction rate increases with temperature, at
least within a certain range.
Why aren't you anticipating all this? I did already say it. And you
are not stupid. Not ordinarily, at least!
There is some relevant discussion of the TSC in
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/TakahashiAmechanismo.pdf, where he
calls the TSC process a "transient-type Bose condensation," clearing
up my previous concerns that what he was describing might not be a BEC. It is.
The paper may be flawed by an assertion that the generated alpha
particles will be at 23.8 MeV. He doesn't discuss that, and this was
2009. This is, to me, the weakest part of the theory, but it seems
more to me like missing analysis than a fundamental defect. What's
needed is more analysis of what happens when the constituents of a
BEC fuse internally, not as the result of some external impingment. I
don't think we know. In 2008, he calculates that if fuses 100% within
a femtosecond, but he doesn't really say or look at what happens
then, except to note that it will end up as two helium nuclei plus
47.6 MeV of energy. He doesn't talk about how that energy is distributed.
