Re-examing Karabut's anomalous collimated X-rays

That sounds a lot like so-called "heat after death" in LENR; i.e., perhaps there's a residual reaction that is occasionally firing back up and then dying down again.

Interesting from the Hagelstein paper:

"Collimated X-ray emission near 1.5 keV in Karabut’s glow discharge experiments in our view is of fundamental importance in sorting out the new physics involved in excess heat in the Fleischmann–Pons experiment. The difficulty in understanding the excess heat effect is that we are unable to observe the final products of the reaction directly as energetic particles (since there are no commensurate energetic particles present). If the large nuclear quantum is being fractionated in these experiments, we could have consistency with theory, but with no clear positive proof. On the other hand, the models indicate that it should be possible to go the other way, and upconvert a large number of low-energy vibrational quanta to produce nuclear excitation. If so, then we should be able to make it happen, observe the radiation produced, and study it systematically. Karabut’s collimated X-rays in our interpretation show that this is possible. Added support for this point of view comes from Gozzi’s collmated gamma rays, Karabut’s collimated penetrating X-rays, and the directional X-rays seen in the experiments of Kornilova, Vysotskii and co-workers.
"

To summarize the paper, Ivlev is attempting to explain the bursts of collimated x-rays that occur over an extended period of time that Karabut has reported over the years. Ivlev rules out a nuclear explanation of some kind:

Quote

Misinterpretation of experiments [1, 2] is possible by attributing the energy source to nuclear reactions. These reactions are impossible here since energies of phonons (0.01eV) and electrons (1eV) inside a solid are too low compared to MeV range. It is not real to expect phonons in a solid to suddenly get collected into the MeV energy.

Ivlev's lack of imagination as to what could bring about the energetic particles that would explain the x-rays over long periods of time (sometimes over a period of 20 hours) leads him to postulate such things as long-lived excited states in the keV range, continuous-spectrum lasing and contributions from the zero-point field. It would be easier simply to say that Karabut is a bad researcher and to attribute systematic experimental error to his reports.

I am reminded of the following quote from Wikipedia concerning explanations for the perihelion precession of the orbit of Mercury that were suggested before general relativity came along: "A number of ad hoc and ultimately unsuccessful solutions were proposed, but they tended to introduce more problems."

None of this is to say that I don't think the paper is interesting on some level.

I remember reading a long time ago about getting xrays or gamma rays when electrons where sent through diamonds. They were sent along the crystals main axis and the rays were at at a 90 degrees angle to the electrons path.

Quote

Ivlev's lack of imagination as to what could bring about the energetic particles that would explain the x-rays over long periods of time (sometimes over a period of 20 hours) leads him to postulate such things as long-lived excited states in the keV range, continuous-spectrum lasing and contributions from the zero-point field. It would be easier simply to say that Karabut is a bad researcher and to attribute systematic experimental error to his reports.

Ivlev here is very imaginative. His proposed idea is similar to Axil's beloved plasmons, but Ivlev being a guy who actually understands QM has quantified a mechanism and referenced his hand-waving argument with appropriate theory. It makes much more (detailed) sense than any other LENR mechanism that has been suggested that I've seen. Also, because it proposes high energy photons generated and nothing else it would fit with some of the fragmentary LENR evidence quite well.

However, I can't follow his maths, which he does not provide. There are many quantum singularities in solid state physics. But I don't understand the one that he claims. He is saying (I think) that the QM state density gets very large in such a way that there is a spatial singularity (ignoring QED) - and this causes a large spatial charge density and therefore QED effects become significant.

The problem being that even without QED multi-electron QM solvers have to include the effect of charge density on the wave function. Taking a spatial basis, a point with a high electron density will have lower probability of electron wave function amplitude, due to the effect of charge density on the electric potential. This effect can be seen only in the joint Hamiltonian of the system, and is not visible when you consider only single-particle wave functions. It has the effect of strongly smearing out areas of otherwise high electron charge density.

The key step that would justify Ivlev's claims - how you obtain a high spatial charge density - is argued qualitatively and, as I've shown here, the qualitative argument looks unphysical and just plain wrong. I can't say in more detail where it is wrong because Ivlev has not given it in more detail. But I think I've identified it - he is assuming the potential due to other particles does not affect each particle's wave function - but of course it does. This critique comes from a very basic (on my part) knowledge of QM maths and some acquaintance with modern DFT solvers. Doubtless someone else can do a better critique - but Ivlev, due to the lack of detail, has not made his case.

What I like about this: it attempts to use known correct theory and quantify results. It claims to explain details of experimental results (though it would be much more impressive if it predicted these details and they were later discovered!).

What I don't like about it: it is wrong in a way (positing high local charge density at one point in a cavity) that is obviously physically unrealistic.

But I enjoyed reading the paper.

Quote from MikeFid

I remember reading a long time ago about getting xrays or gamma rays when electrons where sent through diamonds. They were sent along the crystals main axis and the rays were at at a 90 degrees angle to the electrons path.

High energy electrons interacting with material will generate bremstrahlung x-rays.

Something like this:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02720561

Quote from Thomas Clarke

It makes much more (detailed) sense than any other LENR mechanism that has been suggested that I've seen. Also, because it proposes high energy photons generated and nothing else it would fit with some of the fragmentary LENR evidence quite well.

You need to read more. Some of the LENR theories get very detailed and very quantitative (e.g., Hagelsteins' stuff). That said, I can't think of a single LENR paper with a hamiltonian in it that has been persuasive in any way. I tend to avoid the theory papers.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

What I like about this: it attempts to use known correct theory and quantify results.

Sure. But what's the point if it's obviously unphysical? Why did Ivlev not notice this?

Quote from Thomas Clarke

What I don't like about it: it is wrong in a way (positing high local charge density at one point in a cavity) that is obviously physically unrealistic.

We agree on this point.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

High energy electrons interacting with material will generate bremstrahlung x-rays.

In addition, if they're high enough energy they'll excite inner shell electrons and yield characteristic x-rays (x-rays with a sharp energy, in contrast to bremsstrahlung, which are broadband).

Quote

Some of the LENR theories get very detailed and very quantitative (e.g., Hagelsteins' stuff).

I like Hagelstein's stuff, but he has been trying to prove parts of the mystery in principle. To my knowledge he has quantified a mechanism that would provably work given certain assumptions, which turn out to be untrue.

Perhaps I'm out of date but if he had succeeded it would be big news.

That is not an LENR theory, though I agree it is much more than usually found.

Quote

Sure. But what's the point if it's obviously unphysical? Why did Ivlev not notice this?

I like it because it is substantive, even though wrong. Because substantive it can be evaluated. Much of the LENR theory is not, in this sense, substantive.

As for why Ivlev did not notice this - there are people - decent mathematicians who manipulate equations with competence without understanding what they really mean (what people would call physical intuition I guess). But as you know, trying to guess people's inner experience is not helpful, it is too varied and we have too little information.

Quote from Eric Walker

Quote from Thomas Clarke: “High energy electrons interacting with material will generate bremstrahlung x-rays.”
In addition, if they're high enough energy they'll excite inner shell electrons and yield characteristic x-rays (x-rays with a sharp…

Yes, you are quite right the coherent X-rays in the linked paper are due to lattice electron excitation and stimulated decay.

Quote from MikeFid

I remember reading a long time ago about getting xrays or gamma rays when electrons where sent through diamonds. They were sent along the crystals main axis and the rays were at at a 90 degrees angle to the electrons path.

The potential for coherence and high directionality in diamond seems real. The analogy may be a "wiggler" that is a linear array of strong magnets of alternating polarity across which an electron beam is aimed. High energy beams can produce high coherence "light" in such "free electron lasers" or FELs. Perhaps the diamond provides another path to coherent output, here the periodicity is very compact, the electron beam may be relatively weak, but the result may also be a "wiggler" with high coherence photonic output. The only part that may not fit Mike's recollection is the orthogonality of the resulting EM radiation to the incident beam path.

In my own thinking, a beam of say 50% of the velocity of light would pass the structural periodicity of say diamond with ~1 nm electronic bonding features and generate x-ray output of ~ 1 nm wavelength. As the velocity became substantially relativistic, say 99% C, the photonic output would shift from simple geometric to Lorentzian, and hence gammas would be attainable, assuming the diamond "wiggler" did not evaporate!

Who here has worked with FELs enough to know?