Posts by Longview

    It only looks like a protonic orbital. But it is a H*, a proton plus an electron in a shrunken orbit bound to 56Fe, because the chemistry still shows Iron, with some disturbance in the orbits and not 57Co.


    Continuing, inspired by Jacques Dufour's notion, and Wyttenbach's worthy critiques:


    Does it even look like one? I suspect actual nuclear protonic orbitals may be considered NO Larger than 1/1837th of any outer electronic orbital. By the muonic analogy given earlier (muon 207 times electron mass, radius of muonic orbital 1/207th that of an electron. https://doi.org/10.1134%2FS106377961102002X).


    Keeping in mind that hydrogen atoms, ions and protons with or without neutrons are unique chemically and physically, [I point out the obvious to many here, but want to keep others with the discussion.]


    By having or capturing a conduction band electron, a/an hydride / deuteride negative ion--- that is an effective H-, proton with two electrons, one or both borrowed at some electronic level from a transition metal (Fe, Pd, V, Mo, Mn, Tl etc) might find a comfortable, or confused interfacial "orbital" to at least briefly occupy, since that proton comes already shielded. Can coincindent occupation of an orbital lead to proton / deuteron fusion? Could coincident hydride / deuteride orbitals and the differing masses greatly increase the normally infinitesimal cross section for fusion? And would the conduction band (?), faraday screened, electronic milieu provide the putative gamma screening and effective thermalization??


    Note for comparison: the lifetime of the free muon ( t1/2 ~2 microseconds, https://www.sciencedaily.com/r…/2011/01/110125131450.htm)

    Sorry if my expression was unclear: While such nuclei certainly have considerable magnetic susceptibility---- Eric's point appears correctly to be that a proton immersed in a sea of electrons has no electrostatic susceptibility, it is certainly Faraday screened in any conductor.


    But a finer point may have been missed:

    (Note that the magnetic moment of a proton is a small thing.)


    Longview elaborates this: the magnetic moment of an extra nuclear protonic orbital is surely not a small thing. I advise those following this issue to read my initial post, and the full text following the introductory sentence below:

    I have not yet been able to access the half century old works on "protonic orbitals" by P.L. Goodfriend. Perhaps there is something in that work that might shed some light on this work reported by Jacques Dufour.


    If someone can bring up P.L. Goodfriend's "protonic orbital" full text articles, it might shed more light on Dufour's ideas. I recall the citation(s) were directing to a Bunsen chemical journal out of Europe in perhaps the late 1940s and 50s--. [My local research library appears to be missing the cited volume(s)].

    And note that even with the two electrons in the H- ion, only a small solid angle is subtended by the bound electrons to screen the positive 1e charge of the proton.

    Whither goest orbitals? Physical explanations of chemistry phenomena are often challenging. Physical explanations at the level of catalytic function even more so. I appreciate that you, Eric Walker, are bringing your expertise to these issues. As many here and elsewhere have suggested, good testable hypotheses that correlate either to conventions in say physical chemistry, or to quantum mechanical and/or condensed matter theories are needed.....

    Of course that may only be true for "CF", if there are demonstrable and perhaps energetically useful nuclear events initiated and/or catalyzed by say 100 eV (or far less) inputs.


    With respect to Jacques Dufour's presentation, which I have not yet read or viewed: NMR, shows us that above an effective curie temperature, a ferromagnetic nucleus (for example, a piece of steel at 1000 C, or iron in hemoglobin of dried RBCs, or an iron chelate in solution) can easily be oriented in a strong magnetic field. Further an electron or proton can easily be guided by a rather modest electrostatic field, with quite different dynamics for each depending on oscillations in field strength. Outer orbitals can easily be disrupted by external electrostatic fields, certainly so in many metals, especially the alkali metals (periodic column 1A, H, Li, Na, K..) and alkaline "earths" (Be, Mg, Ca...). I suspect that inner orbitals can also readily be "bent" and "stretched".... but more importantly can be pulled into a fixed relative position vis a vis any magnetic nuclear axis. Particularly for some transition metals, where chemistry has been very substantially altered by magnetic and electrostatic interactions, IIRC.

    .

    Yes, you are no doubt correct. I was only hoping to get an order of magnitude estimate, on the assumption that something was nuclear (in contrast to this suggestion, for example). It wasn't intended as a critique of the author's suggestion (although it sounds very fanciful). Just a back-of-the-envelope calculation.


    If your report of the author's view of the matter is accurate, I am almost comfortable dismissing it out of hand. :) From my reading, I am aware that magnetic forces at the nuclear and atomic levels tend to be orders of magnitude less than Coulombic forces.



    I have not yet been able to access the half century old works on "protonic orbitals" by P.L. Goodfriend. Perhaps there is something in that work that might shed some light on this work reported by Jacques Dufour.


    Is it safe to dismiss "magnetic" in view of the possibility of such rapid motion of an electrostatic charge pair (net neutral but with nucleus in between) or net negative charge 1-, this is, perhaps as a triplet-- H minus itself in some quasi inner orbital?


    Only by some experience and intuition I suspect the equivalent of a very tight proximity to the nucleus might surprise us with respect to its "magnetic" implications. Perhaps even more so in a ferromagnetic context. At the 1000 C reported, the sodium (hydride?) is at least substantially dissociated (Na+ and H minus, giving at least some Na with electrons from iron, and freeing H minus to occupy positively charged "holes" in the hot iron, perhaps incidentally above its normal unalloyed curie temperature of around 750 C.

    ".....energy far beyond what is capable in an electrolytic system.


    2.0 volt vs. 400 volt or higher."



    Thanks for keeping this level of discussion alive. There are important possible distinctions here. The electrolytic "Nernst pressure" compared with the deceleration energy experienced by an electron or proton collision with a condensed matter surface. While admiting that some aspect here may be unifying, my recollection is that a Nernst overpotential nearing even 1 volt can result in immense pressure at or near the electrode surface, Tadahiko Mizuno mentions this and has it as far greater than the solar core. While the Lipinski's see their highest Q values (surrogate for COP) of thousands in the presence of square wave potentials and argon admixture.


    One key metric implicit here is that potential gradients at the interfaces involved is best comparatively measured as " volts per cm" or the equivalent. That is the steepness of the gradient is a key parameter.

    Thanks Alain. IMHO that WSJ article has the flavor of "trumping up" a case for war. Granting that the young "Un" appears to deserve the worst.


    My concern is that diligent and well-intentioned workers on LENR may now be wrongly databased as suspect, since there are application and perhaps theory overlaps with thermonuclear miniaturization work.

    Today, Thursday, March 9, 2017 a Wall Street Journal article "North Korea tried to sell...." (p. A8 in my paper copy) of some possible interest to those hoping to work with lithium in a fusion context. I'll warn here that the subject is likely not perfectly covered from a nuclear physics standpoint, and that the motive behind this "news" might be similar to the infamous "aluminum tubes" under the younger Bush that very conveniently promoted a war harming many, except perhaps Defense contractors.

    Note to Newbies:


    Please consider getting older General Chemistry texts-- often "instructor's Editions" which are now seen in bookstores and online, as academic folks retire or go completely online. These texts of the last say 20 years and especially the recent ones, will give you the reasoning and the solved problems and the "dogma" which has quite well functioned as the "received" view, as say the era of "quantitative chemistry" (from about 1790-1850 to present ). I write this to help the Newbie appreciate the depth in this part of science and technology, both of the inertia and of the brilliance of current dogma. But most importantly how that dogma grew out of sustained, but open-minded investigation in the development of both chemistry and physics.


    "Can" --- Thanks for your "amateur" efforts, which surely you know are possible raw material for future scientific advances.

    -Longview

    Titanium, MFMP and/or any active and applied researchers caring to answer: How are you accounting for the energy budget of H2 dissociation in the preloading and loading phases?


    BTW, I much appreciate your efforts!

    Perhaps there is some kind of connection there? Which is why LFH is currently beginning experiments in ultrasound treatment of T255 Nickel particles in a hexane slurry. If only life didn't get in the way so much.


    The use of a non-polar and electrically non-conducting liquid medium has interesting implications, to me at least-- not the least of which might be the ability to superimpose large electrostatic fields on the reaction medium.


    Do you or LFH have a rationale here that you might briefly share?


    Are there a couple of relevant references that might motivate this project?

    Interesting, and it appears that the functional activity at the cleaved ends is not being invoked for the "superconductivity", but only for the n-alkane decomposition.


    Perhaps look at the Lewis acid definition, that is rather than proton donors, instead electron pair acceptors, in a chain "handoff" structure conferring a semblance of superconductivity.

    The machine is capable of pushing electrons up to an energy of six billion electron volts.


    Source apparently The Harvard Crimson, and of course not referring to any Neutron Generator. Nevertheless an interesting news piece.

    But then I have no access to the Miami property register.


    Actually, you probably do: Miami-Dade County Property Records. These county records (for tax purposes) are quite revealing (last I looked), including location of real property, description of land area, type and area of structures, history of ownership, sale dates, amount of sale and the County Assessor's valuation.

    “Enormous” – not really… Arata almost measured it with his double-structure cathode one time, but his pressure sensor topped out at about 10,000 psia as I recall. But it looked like it wasn’t going to go much higher. 20 kpsia is not ‘enormous’.


    From a tank pressure standpoint 10 kpsia are as high as a professional / military diver might see in say the tiny oxygen
    'make up' tank for a rebreathing apparatus... density equivalent roughly to cryogenic LO2 but giving much longer underwater times since no boil off .


    The diamond anvil maximum pressures are, if I recall correctly much much lower than Nernst pressure computed at an electrode face with even a modest overvoltage. I don't have the numbers at hand, but they can be amazing. No one to my knowledge has yet taken the Nernst pressure argument to a convincing explanation of CF--- but I'd like to see it.

    ( journals.aps.org/prb/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevB.80.165404 )


    iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0031-8949/1988/T22/016/


    These look like they may be very interesting articles.... unfortunately for me they are behind costly paywalls. At best, I have to pay dearly, or travel to some academic library (15 to 300 km) offering the hard copy or other public access. Or I have to accept the title and abstract at face value (that can be quite misleading in occasional cases) and/or your testimony that the full article remains relevant and makes the point you assert.


    As an aside: It has been an on-going public interest issue in the US at least, that research results often substantially, if not completely, supported through public funding are becoming less accessible to many citizen taxpayers.

    The ranking seems, at best, arbitrary. And it does not appear to be inverse order, except perhaps for CMNS. Children's programming languages have existed for decades. A quick overview suggests an understandable but unlikely focus on IT. Imminent flooding of major port cities worldwide may well push the focus from consumer electronics to planetary concerns.

    * This means closed, but it does not mean pressurized. Ed Storms guessed it was pressurized, like the loop in a water radiator. As I said, if it were pressurized you could not use a gravity return.


    I don't see that pressurization necessarily precludes gravity return. Of course it can depend on the specifics of the circuit. Please clarify that point, Thanks.

    you can be sure that IH and Jones Day would find grounds for an appeal.


    But, keep in mind that successful appeals are generally based solely on judicial errors... with the very rare exception of some few that gain certiori with the U.S. Supreme Court. Grounds for "cert", include conflicting lower appelate decisions and/or other issues arising the "Supremes" consider to be of Constitutional magnitude.


    (Longview: Not an attorney, nor lawyer, nor barrister, nor advocate, nor solicitor, nor counselor, nor agent).

    The convention with nuclear reactions is to use a plus sign for exothermic reactions.


    That could be a big problem communicating between nuclear physicists and chemical thermodynamicists.


    And we would not be the only readers seeing and perhaps being misled by that issue. In the reference cited by Kirkshanahan here to support his contention that hydrogen absorption into Pd is due in large part to exothermic enthalpy, the authors (Wicke and Brodowsky pp.73 to 155 of Alefeld and Voelkl, Eds. Hydrogen in Metalls II, 1978) give positive delta H on pp. 79, 81 and 93, and negative on pp. 82. Under the thermodynamic convention only the negative would represent 'energy out' or exothermic or more correctly exergonic i.e. 'producing work'.

    It is interesting that he has a BS degree (74) from Rutgers in----- Spanish


    Your reading iappears mistaken. The reading should be clear: James Bass' degree is Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering "BSEE" from Rutgers--- summa cum laude (highest honors). It appears he may have earned another bachelor's with IT specializations, that appear under the rubric of "Spanish Software".


    Education
    Bachelor Degree '74 Rutgers University Jan '74 BSEE Rutgers University, 1974 Summa Cum Laude Deans List, Presidents List, Eta Kappa Nu, Tau Beta Pi. Bachelor Degree | Spanish Software: numerous assemblers, Visual Basic, C, C#, Windows Server, MS SQL, MySQL, Oracle, Linux, Unix, Alcatel Motive CPE Network Manager, National Instruments LabView. Speak fluent Spanish and conversant in French and Portuguese

    Also, natural helium concentration in rocks can reach 7% ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium ) - is alpha decay sufficient to explain such huge concentrations?



    Assuming the helium does not escape, this question could devolve to whether minerals can originally have levels of alpha decaying isotopes at a level of 7% or more? I imagine the answer is "yes".


    Another factor may be that some minerals may have a high capacity to sequester helium as it "passes through".