I had a quick look at the patent. I have to say that my trust on the scientific value of patents is near to nil. The explanation given for the accelerated decay goes on the lines of your explanation, sure. The problem is the realistic magnitude of the influence of the atomic (i.e. electronic) environment on nuclear decay matters.
Another relevant article that you might find interesting (dated 1993): math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics…dNuclear/decay_rates.html.
The comment at the end of the web page says: “All told, the existence of changes in radioactive decay rates due to the environment of the decaying nuclei is on solid grounds both experimentally and theoretically. But the magnitude of the changes is nothing to get very excited about.“
I am far from an expert of these subjects, but I would trust the comment.
Your attempt Eric seems to me to share the problems of the LENR theories which predict extraordinary concentration of energy in a single very small volume of the lattice. In fact obtaining very high electron densities, which would significantly influence nuclear decay rates, would require extraordinary high energy concentration, which is thermodynamically too unlikely.
on what basis do you assert that the electron has structure? Shouldn’t that be something borne out by experiment?
The ZB frequency is very high, so it is not easy measure it, however there are some experiments showing data in agreement with the ZB of the electron:
http://repository.ust.hk/ir/Record/1783.1-19361
http://repository.ust.hk/ir/Record/1783.1-22246
David Hestenes commented this effort in the reference I gave you some comments ago:
geocalc.clas.asu.edu/pdf/SnarkPaper.pp.pdf
Essentially an 80MeV electron beam crosses a thin silicon crystal and at 0[deg] (pass through) there is an 8% dip in the transmission rate at the expected energy/frequency.
You can also have a look at some of these:
https://arxiv.org/abs/0909.0674
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.02618.pdf
http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.7037
…
Charge independence is not simply a theoretical supposition; it’s an experimental conclusion. It is a conclusion that comes from doing things like noting the isospin of various systems at different energy levels, and then looking at angular correlation in neutron-proton and proton-proton scattering. All else being equal, systems with the same isospin demonstrate the same behavior. This is a very different case from, e.g., string theory, where there’s very little experimental evidence that can be produced to sift between different possibilities. In this case there are lots of experiments to account for.
An example is the deviation from Rutherford scattering, i.e., deviation from a pure Coulomb potential as neutrons and protons are scattered at moderate energies, which is also seen as protons and protons are scattered. Once one factors out the Coulomb repulsion that arises only between two protons, the scattering data look similar. Since the strong force is 1000 times stronger than the Coulomb force, there should be a clear signal.
See also ch. 4 of Krane, “Introduction to Nuclear Physics” (a textbook), as well much of Bethe and Morrison, “Elementary Nuclear Theory” (another textbook). It’s fine to take a position at variance with mainstream physics on the question of charge independence, I suppose, but be prepared to be asked to respond to some very difficult experimental questions that point in a different direction. Physicists will ignore you if you don't have good answers for those questions, so it's worth the time to really look into this.
So, charge independence. The absence of a bound state for p-p and n-n comes from the the theory of the magnetic attraction, and I can not change it. As I said, I am discussing this matters with Norman Cook and Valerio Dallacasa, who know much more than me about scattering results with nucleons. I know that p-p (corrected for the Coulomb interaction) and n-n scatterings have similar scattering lengths and effective ranges. Which I suppose is not in contrast with the features of the magnetic attraction mechanism. p-n scattering has instead slightly different parameters.
The magnetic force hypothesis predicts a dependence on reciprocal spin orientation and can depend on the momentum of the nucleons for high energies. However it is not clear if it can be responsible also for the repulsion between nucleons.
Anyway I think you are right about physicists ignoring the magnetic force proposal, and, with it the whole EMNR theory, if the model does not answer all detailed questions correctly. I am aware of this. I will try and study more in this direction.
I would like to stress however that my contribution can not be in going into the details of the magnetic attraction mechanism and compare it with a mole of scattering and other experiments and nuclear data. This could be done by professionals in the field. I do something very different for a living. My contribution instead can be in suggesting that, if mass is rotational frequency, and identical (or multiple) rotational frequency means attraction, the electron with its mass (and intrinsic frequency), can feel the nuclear force. This requires an orbital contribution for the “frequency match” which can be provided by some sub-valence electron orbitals. If one uses the ionization energies as proxy of the energy/frequency of these sub-valence orbitals, the list of the best atoms starts with Osmium, Calcium and Palladium, and Zr is not far. Osmium is rare, expensive and nasty, so it has never been used in LENR experiments (as far as I know). But Ca and Pd are the base of the device of Iwamura, who has the only device activated by diffusion only(!). And Pd is the material which started the whole story ...
At 2 fm the Coulomb force is not 1000 times smaller than the nuclear force. It is smaller, but by less than one order of magnitude.
How do you differentiate between an electron trapped in the Coulomb potential of a positively charged proton (i.e., an atom) and an electron-proton system that forms a neutral (and very large) composite particle (a nucleon)? Is the neutron also composed of an electron and a proton in this scheme, with the electron orbiting within a much smaller radius? If not, why not?
Is the binding energy of the Hyd a smoothly varying function, or is it quantized into energy levels? Or is it constant?
If the force that binds the electron to the proton in the Hyd is magnetism, does the Hyd have a large magnetic moment?
An electron in an atomic orbital cannot feel the nuclear force because it doesn’t have the correct orbital frequency and, when it is near it, it is shielded by the other core electrons. So it resides in an orbital, which is defined by an Hamiltonian contemplating only kinetic and coulomb (plus spin, …) energies. The electron in the Hyd instead feels a stronger force and its Hamiltonian has a “magnetic attraction term” which sort of “prevails” on the kinetic energy operator (the Coulomb energy is anyway attractive). It is this term which I guess could be the additional term missing in the Hamiltonian for high temperature superconductivity. This term should be responsible for the otherwise inexplicably strong electron-phonon necessary for the formation of Cooper pairs at high temperature. If sub-valence orbitals, which are the “floor” for metallic (and superconductive) orbitals, react strongly to phonons, the (metallic)electron-phonon coupling should appear.
I regard the Hyd as a neutral nucleus, because the mechanism which keeps the electron and the hydrogen nucleus together is the same which keeps nucleons together in ordinary nuclei.
A neutron is a totally different thing. It is almost as a proton, small, massive … and differs from the proton not only by an electron, but also by an anti-neutrino. I guess the neutrino component is not electromagnetic, so Hyd and neutron are two very different objects.
Energy levels in the Hyd. Excellent question! You are the first to ask this. The equations say that the Hyd could have energy levels, since the frequencies of the electron and of the hydrogen nucleus have only to be multiple of each other, but the multiplier is free.
Attached you can find the table of the first “possible” energy levels.