That is our limitation, not Nature's.
What evidence do you have for that? I have given the reasons why electrons can't behave like that - it is pretty fundamental and not something (like superconductivity) that can in principle be got round it many different ways.
I have given the reasons why electrons can't behave like that
And others have given reasons and experimental evidence that electrons can behave in unexpected ways, including clustering. Try telling an electron 'you can't do that' (which is not a very scientific approach) and you might get a surprising answer
our resident circuitogist QM expert has assertions,,, not solutions...
QM is not 'precise' for multielectron atoms.
No analytic solution is possible for many-body system - for example multi-body planetary systems are chaotic and cannot be exactly predicted. Yet celestial mechanics simulations are exquisitely accurate.
Our resident "personalise everything and do not engage with arguments" person possibly doe snot know much about the question here.
QM simulations work, and while you can always find extended complex systems too chaotic for exact prediction, we are talking here about an extremely high local build-up of charge, not a chaotic many-body system
The analogy would be arguing that we cannot accurately predict the orbit of the earth because comets from beyond the Kuiper belt can come in unpredictably and affect earth orbit. They do, but not in ways that matter for practical purposes.
And others have given reasons and experimental evidence that electrons can behave in unexpected ways, including clustering. Try telling an electron 'you can't do that' (which is not a very scientific approach) and you might get a surprising answer
With respect Alan, you are not understanding the point here.
In large many-body system electrons can and do behave in unexpected ways. Specifically when - in such a system - two electronic wave functions are coherent, and when not, is complictated.
none of that affects the basics of how you cannot squeeze too much charge together in a small space. The HUP prevents it - mathematically there are not enough QM states to do it without going up to v high energies (and momentum) and then there are no forces to keep the electrons constrained. Which is why we have atoms and not things that can suddenly collapse to 1000th the size.
To confuse that without subtle bulk coherence/no coherence effects in extended many body systems, or topological coherent effects in same, is wrong.
You can argue that coherence over extended systems does various interesting and perhaps relevant to fusion things, but not that it does what Ed says which is allow a very high charge build-up close to the nucleus that would screen two nuclei from each other
Go talk to any physicist about how electrons work.
You can incidentally argue (alas it seems incorrectly) that deuterium ions, if coherent and behaving no longer as particles, could more easily fuse as in Chubb IBSL. The problem there is that the interactions with other particles prevent coherence strongly. But that is actually less obviously true. it requires estimating what things prevent decoherence and showing there is nothing can be done about it.
Whereas this matter is simply true.
Go talk to any physicist about how electrons work.
Really?
ETA. I cannot find two who agree.
Thanks THH, I discovered what I wanted to know. The Coulomb barrier cannot be reduced by a local assembly of electrons according to conventional theory. Conventional theory can not be used to evaluate an assembly of electrons other than the assembly that creates chemical bonds. Therefore, we have to look outside of conventional theory for the explanation. Is it possible for you to think outside of conventional theory?
Yes, chemical bonds form because they are stable. Therefore, the electron assembly that allows cold fusion to occur would also be stable- until it is destroyed by the nuclear reaction.
But when you say that the Coulomb Barrier does not exist, I know immediately that we are not discussing the same reality.
There is kinetic physics that sees a coulomb barrier. And there are CF reactions that see no coulomb barrier.
We all live in the same physical reality but CF cannot be explained with the classic bang bang model.
The Holmlid reaction definitely sees no coulomb barrier.
Chemical bonds overall release energy because they are stable - if they did not release energy they would fall apart!
Almost ever true....
But chemistry usually is defined over an equilibrium what enters the Gibbs equation as dS (entropy term). So if one side kinetically is more stable then a reaction does run uphill albeit it consumes energy and hence e.g. cools the environment.
Display MoreThere is kinetic physics that sees a coulomb barrier. And there are CF reactions that see no coulomb barrier.
We all live in the same physical reality but CF cannot be explained with the classic bang bang model.
The Holmlid reaction definitely sees no coulomb barrier.
Almost ever true....
But chemistry usually is defined over an equilibrium what enters the Gibbs equation as dS (entropy term). So if one side kinetically is more stable then a reaction does run uphill albeit it consumes energy and hence e.g. cools the environment.
When you say that some reactions see no Coulomb barrier, I assume you mean that a mechanism is operating in the material that has reduced the barrier enough so that it no longer influences the measured behavior. I'm trying to understand that mechanism.
THH points out that conventional theory can only be applied when added energy is used to overcome the barrier. We are confronted with the fact that cold fusion occurs without added energy. So, we have a problem to solve.
I'm beginning to realize that this problem is too difficult for it to be solved here.
To generate Lenr reactions we need,how to say, pump energy from electrons which will brake and condensate.
Thanks THH, I discovered what I wanted to know. The Coulomb barrier cannot be reduced by a local assembly of electrons according to conventional theory. Conventional theory can not be used to evaluate an assembly of electrons other than the assembly that creates chemical bonds. Therefore, we have to look outside of conventional theory for the explanation. Is it possible for you to think outside of conventional theory?
In order to think outside conventional theory you have to understand what it is, and which bits of it are fixed by experimental results (e.g. any theory would need to predict those same results).
Conventional theory can and is used to evaluate all sorts of assemblies of electrons, not just those that create chemical bonds. For example: FRCs, solar and terrestrial plasmas, semiconductors, superconductivity, electron double-slit experiments, topological superconductors, quantum dots, surface plasmon polaritons (not electron assemblies but relevant to electron behaviour in chemical reactions).
I've always seen myself as somone pretty good at thinking outside conventional theory. But I don't think you can do that till you understand the relevant conventional theory. On (nearly) the topic at hand I championed the various many-worlds (Everett) style interpretations of QM when they were considered weird and unpopular - though of course that would no longer be the case.
To reply to your first sentence. Conventional theory offers ways to get round the CB - but not, as you say, ways to reduce it a lot via local electrons (electron screening reduces it a bit anyway). As you can tell on this specific matter I'm not in favour of unconventional theories that are directly contrary to very much replicable experimental evidence.
We are confronted with the fact that cold fusion occurs without added energy. So, we have a problem to solve.
I don't think that is proven. In all CF systems to my knowledge there is quite a bit of energy around the lattice. How much that energy can be localised and amplified to increase tunnelling through a CB - well - that is complex, and I don't claim to know the answer. Nor, I think, does anyone.
...
These are very useful papers. Thank you. 
I don't think that is proven. In all CF systems to my knowledge there is quite a bit of energy around the lattice. How much that energy can be localised and amplified to increase tunnelling through a CB - well - that is complex, and I don't claim to know the answer. Nor, I think, does anyone.
There is indeed intrinsic energy in the lattice environment, and we add more energy by raising the temperature or subjecting it to electrolysis. But if you stick with the idea that there is in every case and in every environment an energy mountain to climb before the CB can be overcome then LNER will never happen. But it does as witnessed and proven in hundreds of carefully conducted experiments..
To paraphrase (slightly) the words of Akito Takahashi "Experimental results are independent facts.
Theory and explanation are also independent issues. to combine the three requires full consistency with as many rational physics aspects as possible".
But please note, he says " As many...as possible." And when you run out of the old 'possibles' you have only new ones left.
Cold fusion has required physicists to consider chemical issues, which seems to be a problem for them. In a chemical system, the energy is distributed in several different forms, but with the potential chemical reactions limiting the magnitude of each form. For example, the enthalpy of melting limits the amount of energy present as the so-called phonon energy. For example, it's not rational to pretend that 23.8 MeV can be dumped into the local phonon environment without massive local melting being the consequence. Normally, nuclear energy is dissipated and converted to phonons well away from the source and throughout the general environment by means of the radiation converting its kinetic energy to heat. Why would cold fusion be different?
In any case, energy is not an absolute. It is always measured with respect to two states or conditions. Also, energy only flows down hill. So, when THH says that lots of energy is present, his comment is not useful unless the source is identified.
In fact, a chemical system tries to go to the condition of the lowest energy. The attempt fails only because some conditions having a lower energy may require an activation energy. Consequently, this energy is not available until the activation energy is supplied. If you want to use this source of energy, you need to identify how the activation energy can be applied. For example, increased temperature causes the fusion rate to increase because it supplies the activation energy for diffusion, which limits the supply of D to the fusion sites. This explanation has been demonstrated to be correct.
Also, the chemical energy states do not interact with the nuclear energy states. That is why the idea was rejected as being impossible. Obviously, this rule does not apply to cold fusion. We need to discover why not.
So, we have several basic rules that MUST be applied. Pretending they do not exist has kept a useful understanding from developing.
And when you run out of the old 'possibles' you have only new ones left.
I would also like add; that just because something is old, it doesn't mean there is nothing new to discover about it. As the saying goes: "familiarity breeds contempt". We tend to dismiss some familiar things, or processes, because we assume they are completely understood - when we have just stopped asking questions about them.
QM is not 'precise' for multielectron atoms.
and there is always plenty of fudge available in the quantum tunnel
"
The H−growth rates that are extracted from the fits are plotted as a function of H2 density inFig.3a;\
.A previous semiclassical statistical calculation based on an earlier potential energy surface provided about three orders of magnitude lower tunneling rate coeffficient,
which shows the enormous sensitivity of tunneling rates on the theoretical methods..
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2303.14948
Also, the chemical energy states do not interact with the nuclear energy states. That is why the idea was rejected as being impossible. Obviously, this rule does not apply to cold fusion. We need to discover why not.
Dr. Storms, sorry for my ignorance and I may have missed this in this thread. Also I did not read your books yet. But you are saying that in LENR a chemical energy state does interact/influence the reaction. I wasn’t aware of this, can you give an example?
Dr. Storms, sorry for my ignorance and I may have missed this in this thread. Also I did not read your books yet. But you are saying that in LENR a chemical energy state does interact/influence the reaction. I wasn’t aware of this, can you give an example?
I will give you more than an example. I will tell you how the fusion process works.
The fusion reaction must first start as a chemical process. This chemical process causes the D and electrons to assemble, a process to which the rules of chemistry apply. This chemical process does not start with a fusion reaction being possible as the final event. The fusion reaction needs to be thought of as an accidental consequence of a chemical process, to which all of the rules of a normal chemical reaction apply. This understanding is critical to creating a successful explanation.
As I said before, the chemical energy states do not interact DIRECTLY with the nuclear energy states. This means that a condition not present in a normal chemical structure has to be created. As I said above, the creation of this condition has to involve the rules of chemistry. In order to cause fusion, this condition must allow at least two D to get close enough for their nuclear energy states to interact. The electrons that would cause this reduction in separation would also have to interact with the nuclear energy states. So, at the time fusion takes place, some electrons are in direct communication with the nuclear energy states of two or more D. As a result, when fusion happens, all of these electrons can carry some of the resulting mass-energy as kinetic energy and momentum. Briefly stated, the chemical-nuclear energy structure explodes.
Based on the results observed by Gordon and others, a large number of electrons are interacting with the nuclear energy states when fusion occurs. I person might imagine this structure to briefly consist of 4 or more neutrons surrounded by a cloud of electrons. The energy needed to form the neutrons is supplied by the mass-loss when this process occurs. This structure rearranges to form He4 because this has a lower mass-energy. However, H4 is briefly formed because an electron is captured during the process. In other words, Nature has the ability to form a chemical-nuclear structure that has been overlooked by conventional physics.
As with all natural structures, their formation can be described in many different ways. I have chosen only one of the possible descriptions for the sake of discussion.
I would be interested in knowing why such a process can not work.
Display MoreThere is indeed intrinsic energy in the lattice environment, and we add more energy by raising the temperature or subjecting it to electrolysis. But if you stick with the idea that there is in every case and in every environment an energy mountain to climb before the CB can be overcome then LNER will never happen. But it does as witnessed and proven in hundreds of carefully conducted experiments..
To paraphrase (slightly) the words of Akito Takahashi "Experimental results are independent facts.
Theory and explanation are also independent issues. to combine the three requires full consistency with as many rational physics aspects as possible".
But please note, he says " As many...as possible." And when you run out of the old 'possibles' you have only new ones left.
Right. But you are making assumptions when you say it is not possible. There is a mountain to climb, but there are many possible things to help that climb.
I am not saying it is likely - but if LENR exists it has a mechanism - and the possible mechanisms need to be considered, not dismissed out of hand.
