Lattice Energy: Electroweak nuclear catalysis and chemical catalysis

Lewis Larsen emphasizes effective mass once again, and of course this is key to the W-L-S paradigm as most understand it. Without necessarily affirming that notion, it is interesting to me that he uses m = E/c² as a simple description of mass increase without the necessity of relativistic velocity. Thus refractive index and C are intimately related. Permittivity and permeabilty are easily, and classically understood parameters that alter light velocity. Thus in a solid with a refractive index of 2.5 (say a modern Schott or Hoya polymeric eyeglass material) we may have a path to electron masses well above that necessary to balance p⁺ + e^- --> n^o

Larsen is of course fascinated by the prospect of demonstrating that thermodynamic efficiencies can easily by driven well beyond the expected enthalpies by manipulating orientation and electrostatic interactions. It is a fascinating field that I like to refer to as "parametric chemistry". And he is exactly right in pointing out that fixing molecular orientations can greatly change the probability of a "directed" chemical reaction (statistical thermodynamics has definite terms relating to arbitrary orientations and those strongly knock down probabilities of effective collisions). It may or may not work at the nuclear level. But W-L-S does not necessarily require that, if their neutron synthesis scheme could be operable. The usual complaints about "where are the isotopic products" notwithstanding, if the immense number of very short lived unconventional isotopes and resonances can offer up low energy betas and so on. The Firestone tables show huge numbers of such decays.

I wrote a post some time ago for EGO OUT explaining how this reverse Beta decay proposed by W&L by way of the weak force can only happen inside the nucleus. Electrons and protons cannot combine outside the nucleus.

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.c…-management-for-lenr.html

Quoting from Axil's cited post at Peter's blog Ego Out:

"Yes,
neutrons are produced by LENR but that creation must be a result of beta
decay INSIDE the nucleus after the proton has become a part of the
nucleus and the weak force must subsequently re -balance the number of
protons and neutrons to keep the nucleus in the zone of stability.

For all who
propose the creation of neutrons OUTSIDE the nucleus as the root cause
of LENR, they must address how the rules of the standard model, the
production of virtual particles from the vacuum and the nature of beta
decay and color change through the weak force are changed to allow this
neutron production process to move forward with such great intensity and
rapidity. Its not just meeting the requirements of energy balance, it’s
meeting all the other conservation laws involved with beta decay and
obeying all the rules of road for the standard m[odel.]"

Longview responds:
There is ample evidence that the Standard Model is wrong on several counts.
So, the conclusion above may, or more likely, may not be correct.
Ultra high energy collisional physics has long failed to predict or to see LENR, so an appeal
to the only manifestation of W bosons as the necessary component of any
inverse beta decay is not convincing to me, as it currently stands...

Neutron decay is rapid and spontaneous in vacuum. So, conditions for inverting that reaction
may not require a nucleus. But, even if it did, a W-L-S model may not propose
vacuum reversal. Structure, orientation and confinement (distance) as well as
mass deficit issues may well be addressed in Larsens' ideas. I don't pretend to know
that argument. I do know that broken models are less likely the way to predict or explain
new phenomena.

Alain. Agree with your last sentence....

LENR physics has taken one more step!

Its time to look closer at the hydrino theorie of R. Mills.

http://brilliantlightpower.com…ions/Permeation082714.pdf

His team has measured the expected spectra of the hydrino resonance. Its time to "readjust" QM which is very nice matheamtics but not very usefull for any predictions...
Further on, current physics has no sound model to predict detailed behaviour of any processes that happen between quarks and the outer core of atomic nuclei.

@Wyttenbach

R. Mills is very advanced in his thinking, except where the hydrino is concerned. It all revolves around how to keep an EMF particle (electron or photon) confined. Mills uses the nucleus to hold the electron in orbit. But this goes against what the addition of energy does to the path of the constrained electron. A electron that has more energy will assume an orbit with a larger orbital radius not a smaller one. If enough energy is added to the constrained electron it orbit will get so large, it will decouple from the nucleus and the hydrogen atom will become an ion.

But if the EMF particle is always constrained in a cavity and can not escape, the particle will keep its orbit constant around the sides of the cavity but increase in its frequency, like a horse running faster inside a coral.

The photons that Mills sees are coming from optical cavities as they are released from that cavity. When energy is added to a particle inside a cavity, it becomes more energetic and its frequency increases. This Nonlinear Optics idea is called upshifting or antistokes waves.

See
http://nptel.ac.in/courses/117…man)/slides(raman)/3.html

@axil

According to Mills logic the charge of the proton is increased (n: 1,2,.. typically 2) inside the hydrino which in his terms explains the lower orbit.
On the other side we have the general law that the charge must be conserved. The only explanation which allows this to happen, is the overlapping of proton orbits in the cavity! This idea of overlapping orbits is as old as LENR.
I think that the hydrino state must be of a temporal nature and is somehow linked to the weak interaction.
As long as Mills formalism is able to predict boundry conditions (resonant frequencies) much more exact than QM, then its their (QM's) part to present calculation which are even more precise.

Quote from Wyttenbach

@axil

I thought that the ground state orbit of these negative fermions was based on their ground state wave function (AKA rest mass), and not their charge.

I don't understand this.

I talked about photons in the cavity, and the charge of the photons are conserved. There are no protons in the cavity.

There are no orbits inside the cavity. There is just a single soliton light wave.

Nonlinear optics predicts how light behaves very well in optical cavities and glass fibers. There is a fundamental difference between chemistry which is based on electron behaviors in atoms and molecules and optics which is based on the behavior of light.

IMHO, LENR is based on the behavior of light at the nano-scale. This is called nanoplasmonics.

Display More

@axil

Quote from axil

There are no orbits inside the cavity. There is just a single soliton light wave.

Unluckily QM tells nothing about intermediate states. Of course there are orbits inside of the cavity. In metal hydrides The protons live in a two dimensional plane and “nothing” prevents them to move along this surface and to flip positions. This even happens in much more stable lattices.

Further on HH--> 2H (D) Fusion happens in these lattices and again QM tells nothing about the states just before this happens.

Looking at Ed Storms' NAE and the conditions others have pointed to that must accompany it.... what might be said here on this LENR physics thread? Perhaps recent work and long time evidence points to "nano" cracks in "conditioned" working LENR / CF surfaces. Keeping in mind Lou Pagnucco's one time mention of "vector potential" and it possible role in creating conditions necessary for LENR, here are a couple of speculations for discussion:

Could a "conditioned" electrode in Storms' sense consist of an oxide layer of very low electrical conductivity on a conductive [and catalytic] metallic substrate? Imagine a crack or hole in the surface of the metal with oxide, below it penetrating into the conducting substrate, presumably and approximately orthogonal / perpendicular to the oxide/electrode surface... a discontinuity, hole, crack of some depth. Electrostatic potential across (that is from the aqueous or gaseous exterior and into the metal through the oxide surface defect) might be constrained to generate currents only at the sites of discontinuity in that oxide surface. Could such a "crack" be the site of a large vector potential and substantial working velocities / energies where positive charges and negative charges might collide with large and even counter propagating vector potentials?

Adding to this and perhaps of interest to Axil and others: Oxides are often photonically active, that is easily transmit photonic energy of suitable bandwidths. Could that also be a key component? We already see (and in semiconductors have long seen) abundant evidence that catalysis, and unusual electron effective masses are highly altered at oxide / metal junctions. Do we have here a mechanism to readily accommodate Dennis Letts and Peter Hagelstein's dual laser experiments?

Further, it is known that surface plasmons are strong at such junctions and penetrate with a 5th power exponential decay into the metallic substrate from the transparent overlay / metal junction. Historically these have been the locus for the most notable physical manifestations of SPR / SPP. The Letts / Hagelstein experiments are classic SPR setups, by the way. SPR force gradients are immense but very shallow even under sufficient photonic flux. But, just a modest effectiveness at catalyzing or energizing a fusion output, could easily product substantial thermal results... One issue with photons here that is not often mentioned is the molarity and "concentration" of photons as a reagent, since in the direction of propagation they may be very dilute even at relatively high fluences. Hence they are typically very dilute relative to nearly static atomic or subatomic reactants. But, in SPR the effective concentration is increased immensely due to the confinement to one or two dimensions at the above mentioned interface. A sustained SPR field capable of doing substantial macroscopic or mesoscopic work may require high photonic fluence (watts per sq. cm). But for LENR, even this may not be the necessary. A nanocrack may be an ideal locus for increasing effective concentration / localization / fluence. Joining of vector potentials, Nernst pressures, and SPR / "evanescent waves", and crack confinement and possible orientation and concentration effects.... what might be seen?

The questions I ask here are not intended to be definitive, but to suggest that theorists and experimenters may find useful nascent models that when fleshed out may be applied to understanding rather diverse observations already made... and others yet to be seen.

Welcoming critical insights and comments, as always, Longview