Electron-assisted fusion

Quote from Jarek

Imagine zero velocity situation: two protons and electron in the middle between them ( p ---- e ---- p ).
The Coulomb force says that electron-proton attraction is four times stronger than proton-proton repulsion.
So this simple 3 body system should collapse – down to fusion into deuteron.

This trivial example suggests that electron could be very helpful in overcoming Coulomb barrier for LENR.
What is wrong with this picture? That it requires” classical” trajectory of electron, while we are expected to consider the quantum picture: with electron smeared into a probability density cloud – making such electron assisted fusion practically improbable.

So the main question here is: can we consider a trajectory of electron? For example averaging to the quantum probability distribution.
There are many arguments that we can, for example equivalent dBB interpretation: that inserting psi = rho * exp(iS) to Schrodinger equation, we get continuity equation for the density (rho) and “classical” Hamilton-Jacobi equation for action S, with h-order correction/perturbation: of interaction with the pilot wave.
Great intuition about this picture provides e.g. “classical-quantum” Couder experiments , getting for example interference: the corpuscle travels one paths, while its “pilot” wave travels multiple waves, influencing trajectory of the corpuscle (e.g.

External Content www.youtube.com

Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.

Display all external content

Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

).

So imagine there is some (semi-classical) trajectory of electron’s corpuscle inside atoms, piloted by its wave, averaging to Schrodinger’s probability cloud.
What trajectories should we expect? The first answer is Sommerfeld-Bohr’s elliptic trajectories. However, the ground hydrogen has zero angular momentum: we should degenerate the ellipse into a line: a free-fall trajectory.
What is missing in Bohr-Sommerfeld is taking electron’s magnetic dipole moment into consideration – it is corrected in the free-fall atomic model of Gryzinski.
This correction, classical spin-orbit interaction, has large influence on the free-falling trajectories.There appear also backscattering trajectories: when electron turns 180 degrees – allowing it to jump a few times between two nuclei, screening the Coulomb repulsion. And so Gryzinski has a note in Nature about cold fusion in 1989.

Gryzinski's papers (~30 from Phys. Rev. type of journals, ~3000 total citations): https://scholar.google.pl/scholar?hl=en&q=gryzinski
Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-fall_atomic_model

Slides about free-fall atomic model: https://www.dropbox.com/s/38xidhztpe9zxsr/freefall2.pdf
Simple simulations in Mathematica: http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/KeplerProblemWithClassicalSpinOrbitInteraction/

What do you think about it?

update: simulations of atoms with electron's magnetic dipoles taken into consideration (classical spin-orbit interaction):

External Content www.youtube.com

Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.

Display all external content

Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

update: gentle introduction to Maximal Entropy Random Walk - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximal_Entropy_Random_Walk

2017 paper about its connection with QM: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0910.2724v2.pdf

showing why standard diffusion models are only approximation (of the Jaynes maximum uncertainty principle required by statistical physics models), and that doing diffusion right there is no longer disagreement with thermodynamical predictions of QM (Anderson localization):

Update: Gryzinski's 1991 CF paper "Theory of electron catalyzed fusion in Pd lattice": https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.40688

One (top)/two(bottom) electron trajectories for molecular bonds from his book, top-left is the one which could allow for fusion: with electron traveling between two nuclei, screening their Coulomb repulsion. In the paper above he writes that Pd lattice helps stabilizing such trajectories:

Display More

2015 ... Then I still believed that electrons can have orbital rotation ... You wrote - "This trivial example suggests that electron could be very helpful in overcoming Coulomb barrier for LENR.

What is wrong with this picture? That it requires ”classical” trajectory of electron, while we are expected to consider the quantum picture: with electron smeared into a probability density cloud - making such an electron assisted fusion practically improbable. "I will disappoint you - back in 1993 Kanarev Philip Mikhailovich proved that that there is no rotational motion of an electron around the nucleus of an atom and there is no "quantum cloud" around the nucleus - these are the tales of old physicists ... You can read about these investigations of FM Kanarev here -

THE FOUNDATIONS OF PHYSCHEMISTRY OF MICRO WORLD, Kanarev F.M., 2003 - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/3DDD/4j1Az8Ste

THE FOUNDATIONS OF PHYSCHEMISTRY OF MICRO WORLD, Kanarev F.M., 2003 - https://drive.google.com/file/…MbLAuEjU/view?usp=sharing

and here -

ACTUAL PROBLEMS OF MODERN PHYSICS, 1993-2020 - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/43mg/5i64hswxz

ACTUAL PROBLEMS OF MODERN PHYSICS, 1993-2020 - https://drive.google.com/file/…krPt51mE/view?usp=sharing

And my corrections of Kanarev's delusions are here -

Physicist Charles Coulomb and Cavendish, 15 September 2020 - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/4MUd/Ao4WCYyFq

Physicist Charles Coulomb and Cavendish, 15 September 2020 - https://drive.google.com/file/…65DWsrpu/view?usp=sharing

The fundamental reaction in all nuclear LENR reactions is the e-capture reaction on a free proton ... That is why these installations require either water or hydrogen (proton) containing substances. The fundamental reaction in all nuclear LENR reactions is the e-capture reaction on a free proton ... That is why these installations require either water or hydrogen (proton) containing substances. And also huge clusters of free electrons - "temporary magnets" are required ... That is why "electrolysis", "electric discharge" and the like generates LENR reactions. And the last thing - not an "electric field" is formed between the cathode and the anode, but a magnetic field with the participation of both free electrons and magnetons, which you previously called IONS, and these are "magnetic structures" ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…%20in%20everyday%20speech.

Quote from Cherepanov2020

The "MASS of an electric fluid" and they followed Newton, who proposed the concept of MASS and which he expressed in kilograms ...

But Isaac Newton died in 1727 and the kg was defined in 1795

I don't think you will find the word "kilogram" in Principia Mathematica..1687

even in 1745 Voltaire used the 'pound' as a unit of mass.

"

"A solid cubic foot of English measure contains 76 pounds troy weight of rain water

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28233/28233-h/28233-h.htm

;

Quote from RobertBryant

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…%20in%20everyday%20speech.

But Isaac Newton died in 1727 and the kg was defined in 1795

I don't think you will find the word "kilogram" in Principia Mathematica..1687

even in 1745 Voltaire used the 'pound' as a unit of mass.

"

"A solid cubic foot of English measure contains 76 pounds troy weight of rain water

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28233/28233-h/28233-h.htm

;

Display More

Thank you for the clarifications ... I agree with you ... But I'm talking about something else ... In 1780 and after that physicists used the concept of "mass" - that is, the amount of matter, and this happened 50 years after Newton's death ... What is the dimension of "pounds" or "kilograms"? Does it really matter? Another thing is important !!! What is important is that their "CHARGE" was expressed through "mass" in the sense that this amount of substance ... They wrote in their treatises - "hypothetical mass" ... For them it was an unknown mass of "something" , but today we know that this is the "mass of free electrons" ... It is the "mass of free electrons", and not the incomprehensible "charge" invented by Maxwell and his followers ... Thomson's symbol "q" means "mass of charge", and to us they slipped the symbol "q", in which there is no mass - they slipped us an abrocadabra, which led physicists to a dead end and which led to a dead end Niels Bohr, Schrödinger and other physicists into quantum physics that does not exist in nature ...

Poisson writes - "Therefore, if m denotes the electric mass placed at point D"

Do you understand that the Poisson symbol "m" means "mass" - "mass of electricity" = "mass of free electrons"?

Thomson writes - "Let's place electric masses at these different points ..."

Thomson gives the definition of "charge" and "charge density" -

"8. Charges. - According to fundamental theorems, we will have to distribute on the surface of the sphere A the mass qaa = ∑An of electricity, and on B the mass of electricity of the opposite sign qab = ∑Bn in order to create the same potentials on these spheres

9. Density. - The density, at each point, is a component of the resultant force from the actions of the hypothetical masses An and Bn, we can also notice that the distribution on A is the sum of the distributions equivalent to each of the masses An. Both methods lead to the same result, namely, the density at the point M of the sphere"

Pay attention - Thomson designated the mass (charge) with the symbol "q".

Thomson writes - "If we set qbb = ∑Bn, qab = ∑An '= ∑Bn, then it is clear that we get the potential Vα on A, Vb on B, having masses." further he reveals the concept of "attraction" as "action of hypothetical masses", by which he understands "charge", the definition of which I gave above ...

Thomson writes - "16. Finally, we can propose to look for the mutual repulsion of two spheres kept in contact: we will restrict ourselves for the moment if they are equal. First, consider a point inside the sphere B at a distance δ from the point of contact, which has mass m; the action of the masses An and A'n will be equal to the sum of the shares "

Quote from Cherepanov2020

Thomson writes -

So do you prefer 'plum pudding' or or "chocolate chip cookie ".

https://www.thoughtco.com/j-j-thomson-biography-607780

I am giving a link to a French site ... SUBFACE DE DEUX SPHÈRES CONDUCTRICES ÉLECTRISÉES -

http://cnum.cnam.fr/CGI/fpage.…21-1/381/90/416/0079/0316

The French Association of Physicists published this material in 1870 ... Agree - then the dimension of mass was already expressed in "kilograms" ... But France and England were not connected by the Internet at that time and, perhaps, that is why Maxwell did not hear the French physicists and did not read this material. .. But other versions are possible ... Another thing is clear - in 1899, the German Schreber severely criticized those who perverted Charles Coulomb and Poisson and Thomson ... I present his article -

To summarize - this is an excerpt from Schreber's article translated into English -

The conclusion for modern physicists is more than sad - the textbooks on physics are complete lies! Coulomb's law in its modern form distorts the true meaning of those patterns discovered by Charles Coulomb. The designation of charges "+" and "-" is complete nonsense and it is the hardest theoretical virus in physics. There is no "electrostatic charge" in nature on the electron and proton! An electron carries a "magnetic substance" that forms its structure - a "ring" in the first approximation and a "torus" in the second approximation ... By virtue of this, the electron has its own magnetic moment, its own magnetic field and its own magnetic poles ... on the surface of balls, wires, plastic objects, etc., free electrons form clusters, which are temporary magnets - therefore, the entire "electrostatics" of Charles Coulomb, Poisson and Thomson is easily explained by the magnetic properties of free electrons. If on the surface of one object free electrons are turned by their north magnetic pole to the surface, then a north magnetic pole is formed on the surface ... If on the surface of one object free electrons are turned by their south magnetic pole to the surface, then a south magnetic pole is formed on the surface ... Therefore, with the same magnetic poles on the surface of the body they are repelled - that is why the arrow of the "electroscope" is deflected, and therefore with opposite magnetic poles on the surface of the body they are attracted ... Physicists of the past could not understand the next - the role of photons in the formation of free electrons on the surface of bodies .. - This is especially evident in Cavendish's experiments with lead balls ... in Cavendish's experiments the magnetism of free electrons "works".

Quote from RobertBryant

So do you prefer 'plum pudding' or or "chocolate chip cookie ".

https://www.thoughtco.com/j-j-thomson-biography-607780

My dear physicist! We are talking about different people - my Thomson - William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin; June 26, 1824 Belfast, Ireland - December 17, 1907, Largs, Scotland

Cherepanov2020

i'm close to your understanding however i expect H mustn't be involved especially all time see this old paper.

i translated by hand this old English paper to a fresh french easily translatable by Google files translation.

Quote from Cherepanov2020

The fundamental reaction in all nuclear LENR reactions is the e-capture reaction on a free proton ... That is why these installations require either water or hydrogen (proton) containing substances. The fundamental reaction in all nuclear LENR reactions is the e-capture reaction on a free proton ... That is why these installations require either water or hydrogen (proton) containing substances. And also huge clusters of free electrons - "temporary magnets" are required ... That is why "electrolysis", "electric discharge" and the like generates LENR reactions. And the last thing - not an "electric field" is formed between the cathode and the anode, but a magnetic field with the participation of both free electrons and magnetons, which you previously called IONS, and these are "magnetic structures" ...

houhou ouuu Dear Cherepanov2020 already gone ?

I would like to read your answer about my question

Why hydrogen do not seem to be involved full time by screening effect you postulated ?

Взаимодействие с другими людьми

Quote from Cydonia

houhou ouuu Dear Cherepanov2020 already gone ?

I would like to read your answer about my question

Why hydrogen do not seem to be involved full time by screening effect you postulated ?

Of course, Rayleigh's article is of interest ... But for a modern discussion, the results of these experiments are very scarce - there are few input and output data in the article ... In a word, we, living today, need to know more precisely which isotopes were at the beginning of the experiment and which were obtained or they were not at all - which should be questioned ... You should understand the following for yourself - hydrogen is a fundamental isotope that is included in all chemicals on earth ... Maybe my model of the nucleus (molecule) of nitrogen will tell you something ? And I will add - you should always expect an e-capture reaction during discharge ... You just don't think about it - no one pushes you to think about it ... And I push you - think about the e-capture reaction during discharge ...

But this is what i tried to explain you e-capture couldn't be involved especially for hydrogen but also for nitrogen or oxygen in the case here of Rayleigh experiments

Взаимодействие с другими людьми

Quote from Cydonia

But this is what i tried to explain you e-capture couldn't be involved especially for hydrogen but also for nitrogen or oxygen in the case here of Rayleigh experiments

What is our misunderstanding with you ... You argue in the paradigm of physics, which you were taught the same way as I was taught in the 70s at NRNU MEPhI ... But that was wrong physics ... And on this site I explain - why is the old physics wrong ... Read my posts and comments ... there are links to my articles ... In the paradigm of the physical chemistry of the microworld, the e-capture reaction, which is hidden from our eyes, occurs during an "electric discharge" ... Each electric discharge leads to this result? I think not ... And in the Rayleigh experiment, he probably was ... Try to repeat the experiment ... I think cold nuclear fusion will go ... The model of the gold nucleus will help you -

What you expected as electric discharge is called surface plasmon resonance, in the case of Rayleigh gold catalyst.

Quote from Cherepanov2020

Взаимодействие с другими людьми

What is our misunderstanding with you ... You argue in the paradigm of physics, which you were taught the same way as I was taught in the 70s at NRNU MEPhI ... But that was wrong physics ... And on this site I explain - why is the old physics wrong ... Read my posts and comments ... there are links to my articles ... In the paradigm of the physical chemistry of the microworld, the e-capture reaction, which is hidden from our eyes, occurs during an "electric discharge" ... Each electric discharge leads to this result? I think not ... And in the Rayleigh experiment, he probably was ... Try to repeat the experiment ... I think cold nuclear fusion will go ... The model of the gold nucleus will help you -

Взаимодействие с другими людьми

Quote from Cydonia

What you expected as electric discharge is called surface plasmon resonance, in the case of Rayleigh gold catalyst.

Below I will give you an excerpt and Kanarev's textbook ... Unfortunately, Philip Mitkhailovich also did not avoid misconceptions and therefore mistakenly wrote - "charge" e "" ... This was an unconditional incident, which he recognized in 2019 ... Why? And because in the same textbook he proved to us THAT that there is no electric field in nature and there are no "electric charges" ... That's what they wrote in the Russian version of their textbook from 2016 - "The electron model (Fig. 38) involuntarily forms idea of the possibility of the formation of clusters of electrons (Fig. 38, b). Unlike magnetic poles can bring them closer, and the same electric charges limit this approach. As a result, electrons, connecting with each other, can form clusters. There is already experimental evidence of this fact [1 In addition, it has already been established that all electrostatics is based on the interaction not of positive and negative charges, but of the north and south magnetic poles of electron clusters in electrostatic phenomena.

The analysis of the above shows that the formation of the structure of the electron (Fig. 38) is controlled by more than 20 constants, which reflect the reliability of all the hypotheses we have formulated, and they acquired the status of postulates. "

So what happens? Very close to Kanarev in his text placed two opposite concepts -

The first concept sounds like this - "it has been established that all electrostatics is based on the interaction not of positive and negative charges, but of the north and south magnetic poles of electron clusters in electrostatic phenomena." and then the second concept, which contradicts it - "like electric charges can limit this convergence" in electron clusters ...

Pay attention to the enormous value of the magnetic intensity in the geometric center of both the electron and the proton !!! It is this circumstance that allows us today to assert about the magnetic nature and chemical and nuclear reactions