Posts by Jarek

Sure, the assumption of spherical density has lots of disagreements with reality.
Effectively, this nonsymmetry can be asymptotically described by higher electric moments (dipole, quadrupole, octupole) and their oscillations - what is the base of later Gryzinski's scattering models, e.g. explaining the Ramsauer effect ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…r%E2%80%93Townsend_effect ).

However, average electron-nucleus distance is relatively large (~10^-10m), and orbitals focus on dynamical equilibrium - which is greatly affected by the incoming second nucleus, which needs to get to 10^-15m distance, where any interaction with shell electrons becomes nearly negligible.

Eric,
1) if you want high concentration of electrons, you can have a few dozens of them in a large atom - does increasing Z make LENR more probable?
These electrons effectively screen the charge of nucleus down to zero ... but only asymptotically (and electric dipole/qudrupole/octupole may remain). While getting really close, this screening drops down to zero ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem ) - making essential only the single electron which remains between the two nuclei.

Anions can have stronger screening, but again only asymptotically - it doesn't help when the two nuclei are really close.
Electron concentration might be helpful in some initial stage, but the most of assistance is required in the final state - when the nuclei approach ~10^-15m distance so that nuclear force could take from here - in such distances there is just no place for a second electron due to tiny mass and huge Coulomb force.

2) Applying external magnetic or electric field perturbs the dynamical equilibrium (Zeeman, Stark). Classically, the electron orbits became a bit shifted, and Gryzinski claims nearly perfect agreement for such calculations of diamagnetic properties ( http://www.sciencedirect.com/s…icle/pii/0304885387903337 for He, Ne, Ar, NaCl, KCl and CaCl2).
Anyway, we are talking here about eV-scale of changes - very far from the required for nuclear transitions.

3,4) I see you are talking about more general LENR, while I was thinking about the ones finally leading to excess energy - not from radioactive isotopes or fission.
Neglecting situations with 782keVs for going through neutron, such excess energy requires crossing the Coulomb barrier - what, if true, requires electron staying between the nuclei for a sufficient time.

Electron concentration, high energy electrons, external field applied, van der Waals force etc. might have some influence on the initial state.
But the energy of Coulomb barrier is 1/r: crossing the last femtometers require more energy than getting to 10fm distance - this final state is the most crucial, and electron between the two nuclei seems the only factor which could really help.

1. Electrons avoid concentration due to Coulomb repulsion ... assuming you could get 10x energy this way (flying hamster...), you just got from 0.1eV to 1eV scale ...
2. Where this dynamic condition comes from?
3. Sure beta decay is a good source for high energy electrons, but you need specific isotopes to produce it ... and such electrons produce high energy gammas ...
4. Ok, some of these electron, you need a concrete source for, could allow for 3He + e -> t ... but still: so what? How tritium helps you with fusion?
If you would like to fuse it with a different nucleus, you would still need to cross the Coulomb barrier ...

The role of electrons is definitely crucial if LENR is true, but it's not about their high energy (unless reaching 782eV) or high concentration - high energy electron just pass by nucleus, high concentration of electrons repel each other.
If true, LENR is an act of three actors: two nuclei and a low energy electron - attracted by both of them, what should be sufficient to stay for a long enough time near these sources of attraction, with noneligible probability.

Quote from Wyttenbach

An other guy who investigated some aspects of electron resonances is heffner : mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DeflationFusion2.pdf

He is writing exactly what this thread was supposed to be about (electron-assisted fusion):
"D + e- + D ---> He + e- + energy
D + e- + D ---> T + p + e- + energy
D + e- + D ---> 3He + n + e- + energy"
However, he hides electron dynamics behind "tunneling", "wavefunciton collapse" - these are popular QM terms used when we don't know what's happening there - we need to understand this hidden dynamics, finally calculate probabilities of such events.
Eventually, he could present some quantum calculations, but I don't see anything like that in this paper.

Quote from Eric Walker

The question of induced beta decay reactions (including electron capture) involves a different but similarly interesting thought experiment. Re the p + e → n reaction, I find this one unlikely for the reason you mention. But what about 3He + e → t, which requires only ~ 19 keV?

I have to admit that I still don't understand ...
In 1000K for LENR, thermal average energy is below 0.1eV ... while 19keV indeed looks better than 782keV ... it still seems extremely unlikely, and I completely don't understand how tritium could help? You would still need crossing the Coulomb barrier to fuse it with a different nuclei.
Could you give an example of the entire sequence (leading to excessive energy from nuclear reactions in ~1000K)?

The only way to avoid crossing the Coulomb barrier I can imagine here is going through something neutral like neutron - but it would require investing these unimaginable large 782keV energy ... or dineutron, but it so exotic that it seems we probably don't even know its mass or lifetime: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dineutron

So currently I don't see a way for realistic LENR without crossing the Coulomb barrier - and the only way for doing it seems by using assistance of electrons.
And if radial trajectories of electrons dominate, Gryzinski has gathered dozens of arguments for, it seems reasonable that such radial trajectory "jumps" between the two nuclei for a sufficient time - Gryzinski has been considering this kind of trajectories for molecular bonds earlier and so 27th April 1989 he was able to publish response in Nature to F&P (23rd March): http://www.nature.com/nature/j…38/n6218/pdf/338712a0.pdf
He has started working on CF back then, mentions some calculations in his book, but I couldn't get anything concrete.

Here is his 1990 New Energy Times comment: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/archives/fic/F/F199007.PDF
1991 theory conference, but I couldn't find text: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991AIPC..228..717G
4 papers here, but I could get only 1: http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/aca…sion/wais/cold-fusion.cat

Wyttenbach,
GUT is for explaining everything, while here we have a different case: in a situation covered by a given theory, it provides wrong predictions.
Like predicting lack of shielding of inner shells by outer shells, or forbidding electron capture - these fundamentally wrong predictions make this theory just wrong.

Regarding staying between two nuclei, here we just have a series of successive scatterings - electron falls on one nucleus with nearly zero angular momentum, scatters back nearly 180 deg (also in pure Kepler), falls on the second nucleus and so on - staying between them, screening their repulsion.
There is absolutely no magic in such explanation, no additional resonances needed (resonances are for stable systems like atoms) - just asking about trajectory of electron.

Eric, could you elaborate?
I thought we are talking about e.g. nickel nuclei absorbing protons from hydrogen?
How would you like to avoid crossing the Coulomb barrier here by induced alpha or beta decay, or induced fission?
There is hypothesized p + e -> n reaction, but it requires to invest ~782keV first, which seems completely unachievable to localize in this point using only chemical or mechanical ways (?)

I don't have access to this book of Ryde -
does its experimental results agree with quantum predictions (equally spaced lines for Lyman gamma: 4 -> 1)
or rather with Frerichs 1934 results (external lines are closer than predicted by QM)?

Regarding Mills, I don't know about Stark, but the screening constant from my previous post is another clear argument against Bohr and Mills: outer shell electrons screen charge of nucleus for inner shell electrons.
If electrons would stay in a circle or sphere, the shell theorem says that there would be no screening from outer shells: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem

Regarding LENR, it requires to understand how electron could stay between the two nuclei for a long enough time to screen the Coulomb barrier (like symmetric p - e - p initial system collapsing into deuteron) - it requires understanding dynamics of electrons inside atom - what we are currently discussing: should we be satisfied with quantum probability clouds (making LENR practically impossible), or maybe we can also ask for electron trajectories behind them - which average to these density clouds?
How these trajectories shouo look like?
Bohr's are excluded by many arguments, for example electron capture, magnetic dipole moment of hydrogen (orbital angular momentum), these screening constants ...
Are low angular momentum (Gryzinski) also excluded?
If they are allowed by experiments, such electrons could stay for a longer time between two nuclei - allowing for LENR.

I hope the discussion about a magical membrane has ended here once for all ...

Let's go back to real physics - screening constant.
Gryzinski has written that in contrast to his classical calculations, QM has a real problem to get it right: http://gryzinski.republika.pl/teor6ang.html
I a trying to test it against the physicsforum:
https://www.physicsforums.com/…ants-slater-rules.887322/
(the Stark problem remains unresolved there: https://www.physicsforums.com/…ory-vs-experiment.885330/ )

"In multiple-electron atoms the effective charge of nucleus for a given electron, is reduced by the presence of other electrons (including those from more external shells, against the shell theorem
Z_eff = Z - s
where the screening constant s depends on Z and the concerning orbital. It is usually calculated by semi-empirical so called Slater's rules: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slater%27s_rules

I have tried to find some experimental values.
On page 286 of 1936 English translation of Arnold Sommerfeld's "Atomic structure and spectral lines" there is a clear figure (on the left below) with dots suggesting experimental values (but I couldn't find it being explicitly written).
Wikipedia article cites 1967 "Atomic Screening Constants from SCF Functions. II. Atoms with 37 to 86 Electrons" by Clementi, Raimondi, Reinhardt ( http://scitation.aip.org/conte…cp/47/4/10.1063/1.1712084 ) which contains Hartee-Fock calculations of screening constants (figure on the right) - unfortunately it doesn't seem to refer to any experiment (?)

These two figures have some essential differences (including order!) - could anybody refer to some better experimental results?"

Regarding resonance orbits, if you mean shell frequencies, here is a table with experiment and Gryzinski's calculations for noble gases from 1975 "Low energy scattering and the "free-fall" atomic model" (they neglect spin-spin 1/r^4 interaction):

Regarding needle-like electron orbits, Gryzinski has used both spin-charge (1/r^3) and spin-spin (1/r^4) interactions in his calculations - I haven't test it, but plan to do it.

I like his argument that helium is the only atom that can diffuse through glass - one could think that it should be simpler for hydrogen, but surprisingly the second electron makes it easier to squeeze in.
Is there a quantum explanation for this fact?

I don't understand your question about freeing energy (ionization energy is ok), nor "center of attraction"?
Gryzinski's orbits are Kepler for very low orbital angular momentum (in QM, s orbital has zero angular momentum), with taken into consideration corrections from spin-orbit interaction (v/r^3, practically negligible unless nearly passing the nucleus).

Regarding circular trajectories you want, beside being excluded by electron capture as we have written a few times here (nuclear force does not work in 10^-10m scale, while real orbital electrons are being captured by the nucleus), a very different clear counter-argument is magnetic dipole moment of the atom.
Gryzinski writes as it was obvious that experiments shows that magnetic dipole moment of hydrogen or helium is zero, but I couldn't find any experimental paper (probably <1950).
And QM clearly says what is magnetic dipole moment of atom: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…agnetic_moment_of_an_atom
m = g*mu*sqrt(j*(j+1))
which is zero for both hydrogen and helium (and Gryzinski - his hydrogen has zero orbital angular momentum).
In contrast, circulating electrons create magnetic field, giving these atoms nonzero magnetic dipole moment - wrong again.

Regarding further arguments of Gryzinski for his helium model, there are lots of them.
His lecture ( http://gryzinski.republika.pl/teor5ang.html ) at the end points a link for further arguments - it doesn't longer work, but I have its content:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ohn7ihx92mnf815/helium.pdf?dl=0
So briefly his arguments for needle-like helium are:
- the mentioned screening coefficient (ionization energies),
- magnetic susceptibility (<2% difference from experiment),
- in some place he writes that being "needle-like" allows it to easily escape - that helium is the only atom that can diffuse through thick glass,
- asymptotic behavior: electric quadrupole along needle + pulsating electric dipole (perpendicular to needle) - the strength of quadrupole was written to be confirmed by scattering experiments in the paper he has introduced multi-electron configuration (1975 "Low energy scattering and the "free-fall" atomic model"),
- he uses oscillating electric dipole to explain interaction between helium atoms, van der Waals force, helium molecules, clusters, density of liquid helium:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium_dimer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium_trimer

Two persons describing Mills theory here have written about 2D membrane/surface where electron is prisoner in atom.
I see there are some published papers about his theory ... but only those showing its nonsense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…ant_Light_Power#Criticism

Regarding helium, page 9 of Sprawa Atomu is just a picture having nothing to do with helium.
Here you can find his considerations about helium: http://gryzinski.republika.pl/teor5ang.html
It starts with ionization energies, which are known as: 24.59eV and 54.42eV.
The second is just 2^2 * 13.6eV for single electron in 2e potential.
The first allows to find screening coefficient s ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slater%27s_rules ) :
W = (24.59 + 54.42.42)/2 = (Z - s)^2 * 13.6
getting experimental s = 0.296.
Additionally, we know it has zero magnetic dipole moment, excluding Bohr-like trajectories:

The right picture was the original Gryzinski's model, but it has s = 0.25.
So he considers also other trajectories, but the the screening coefficient is still not right:

Finally he ads spin-spin interaction into consideration, getting s = 0.302, what is 2% from the experimental value.
His final trajectory is:

But sure, there are obviously still approximations to improve here.

What 5% of disagreement are you referring to?

And generally, these are all only approximate models - we are still far from complete understanding of what's really going on in hydrogen atom, in its proton, or even a single electron: which itself is an extremely complex system: has charge (not a point one as it would give infinite energy of electric field), has magnetic dipole moment (is tiny magnet), behaves like a tiny gyroscope (but being a magnet is not from spinning charge) and finally has some internal periodic process (zitterbewegung/de Broglie's clock, required for interference and orbit quantization, directly observed in experiment: 2008 "A Search for the de Broglie Particle Internal Clock by Means of Electron Channeling").

Sadly these basic questions have stopped being asked with the dawn of QM - making people satisfied with density clouds.
Gryzinski showed that humanity has given up understanding too early.
And please don't compere it with modern magical "explanations" using made up stuff like 2D membrane.

Quote from axil

When there is too many protons in the nucleus, how does the electron know it, and how does it combine with the proton to form a neutron, when the electron needs lots more energy than it has in its energy account?

In Gryzinski's picture, electron "knows" what to do only from Coulomb force + Lorentz force + Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization condition.

Electron capture by nucleus requires involving nuclear forces - this is currently a separate world ... but hopefully the gap will be closed some day.
Nuclei undergoing electron capture are those reducing energy in to this process.
They have tendency to capture electron, waiting for opportunity for that: some specific set of parameters of incoming electron. Our knowledge of nuclear physics is currently not sufficient to calculate this space of parameters, but we can treat it statistically ... and the most crucial requirement is that nuclear force can initiate the nuclear transition - what requires electron to be in range of these forces.

First of all, if you looked at the material, you would know that Gryzinski himself will not improve it as he is now a historical figure - he has lived 1930-2004.
Secondly, he has published ~30 papers in top journals (Phys. Rev. class) 1957-2000 about classical considerations, where he has focused on AGREEMENT WITH EXPERIMENTS: mainly various scattering scenarios (nearly direct way of asking nature about structure of atom), but also spectral lines, screening coefficients, diamagnetic coefficient, Stark shift and many others.
His papers have currently ~3000 total citations: https://scholar.google.pl/scholar?hl=en&q=gryzinski

And his only "new" idea comparing to Bohr-Sommerfeld (~1915), was using the fact that electron has magnetic dipole moment, which has been known since ~1925, when classical considerations have started being taken over by QM.
He just gave the natural way a second chance and used more recent experiments to verify the details of Kepler orbit for electrons - that they should have nearly zero angular momentum (also required for electron capture).

If you have found some insistencies in his work with reality/experiment, please share some details and we can discuss about it.
He has already proven a lot - what do you think is still missing?

Wyttenbach, as it was already written, Bohr and Mills pictures are excluded by electron capture ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture ) - the fact that nucleus can capture electron from orbital, what requires this electron to get to a distance nuclear force can start acting (femtomemters).
There are also many other problems like the nature of this membrane - a very controversial infinitesimal made up entity.
Until you can explain electron capture there, please let us stay away from this theory here.

Regarding being "easy to understand", I don't know how this membrane applies, Gryzinski is just Kepler + magnetic dipole moment of electron + quantization condition.

ps. please help defending his Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…on/Free-fall_atomic_model

As "membrane" I have indeed imagined a "spherical area" ... it doesn't help.
Why electrons are restricted to some surface? (and its prediction of hydrinos is a terrible one - low energy hydrogen should be in such hypothetical state below ground state, but it isn't).
This surface needs to nearly touch the nucleus for the possibility electron capture.
When and how this surface is created?
When electron and proton are traveling to finally meet to form hydrogen - for energy above 13.6eV it will just be scattering and classical Gryzinski's description is very good here (~2500 citations).

So what's happening, what's so special when electron is below 13.6eV? Why and how such "membrane" is formed?
In Gryzinski's view nothing special has happened - hydrogen is just series of successive electron - proton scatterings.

Regarding "nonradiation condition" (lack of bremsstrahlung), this seems a consequence of atom being a standing wave in QM picture, what requires quantization conditions for underlying trajectory of electron (closed trajectory plus Bohr-Sommerfeld condition: the clock performs integer number of ticks during the orbit), like in Couder's picture ( http://www.pnas.org/content/107/41/17515.full ).

Regarding electron not being a singularity, I completely agree - point charge would have infinite energy of electric field. Regularizing this singularity, alongside charge quantization, is the base of particle models as topological solitons (slides).

Regarding electron "moving on a spherical 2D (!!!) membrane around the nucleus", it sounds terrible.
So when this membrane is created while collision of p + e into hydrogen? What is it made of?
What is its minimal distance to the nucleus? Remember possibility of electron capture ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture ) - this minimal distance needs to be small enough to allow nuclear forces act on this electron (<10^-13 m ).

Wyttenbach, I have briefly looked at the book - I see "classical" but don't see any trajectories.
So what electron trajectories is he considering? Not Kepler? Could you refer to a published paper (accepted by some reviewers)?
I remind that his education was medicine and that he believes in these "hydrino" states of hydrogen having lower energy than the ground state - what is a total nonsense for me, as if it was true, common hydrogen should thermodynamically be in such lowest possible energy state.

If you want LENR to be treated seriously, please stay away from magical explanations.

Being a standing wave is also exactly my answer for lack of bremsstrahlung: what I have meant here by resonance with the field - as in Couder's quantization picture - see image and paper I have linked in 3rd post of this page (above).
But this standing wave is only one perspective on this situation - looking only at wave nature of the particle (de Broglie's "pilot" wave caused by some internal periodic motion).
We have duality - particles are both waves and corpuscles.
In Couder's picture there is also a "classical" trajectory behind this standing wave (of the walking droplet) - which has to be closed and perform integer number of ticks of the clock to get the resonance.

We have two different perspectives on the same system: quantum looking through wave nature of particles, and classical looking through the corpuscular nature.
We should be aware of having simultaneously both of them, especially in difficult questions like possibility of LENR.

Regarding electron capture by nucleus, I also don't have much experience with Gryzinski work - classical mechanics is much more complex than it sounds, especially that we need to have in mind that everything is happening in a field - effectively described by QM and resulting e.g. in Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization condition.
Let me know if you would find some good papers about electron capture/internal conversion?

Regarding mutli-electron atoms, this is extremely complex topic:
- there is magnetic coupling inside orbitals - opposite nearly free-falling electron seem reasonable - Gryzinski's helium: http://gryzinski.republika.pl/teor5ang.html
- there is Coulomb repulsion between electrons, affecting spatial distribution of orbitals,
- everything is happening in a field, electron finds resonance with - suggesting some synchronization between electrons from different orbitals.
Very good test of Gryzinski's picture seem these screening constants (outer shell electrons screening charge of nucleus for inner electrons) - he claims better agreement than for quantum calculation (I plan to test it): http://gryzinski.republika.pl/teor6ang.html
The youtube video is not even a simulation we can see e.g. from constant velocities:
- the minimal distance while passing nucleus should be ~1000x smaller than maximal one,
- I am not certain about further orbitals - Gryzinski has some their additional oscillations, making atom effectively an oscillating electric multipole (dipole, quadrupole octupole), he has used for explaining the Ramsauer effect in 1970 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…r%E2%80%93Townsend_effect ) and was the base of e.g. his three 1975 Journal of Chemical Physics papers.

Regarding lack of bremsstrahlung, I don't know but my intuition is that it is because of finding resonance with the field (also preventing chaos) - lack of such resonance would lead to radiation of some energy until finding resonance.
And honestly, does QM answers lack of bremsstrahlung question? It just avoids it by neglecting electron dynamics, which in fact is there like in this observed delay in photoemission.
Or in these photos of electron orbitals (2009 "Imaging the atomic orbitals of carbon atomic chains with field-emission electron microscopy"), where they measure positions of single electrons while being stripped for the carbon atom, finally getting density clouds by averaging these positions:

ps. I have just found Gryzinski's 1973 Phys. Rev. A paper ( http://www.sciencedirect.com/s…icle/pii/0375960173906592 ) predicting the valleys and peaks for p -> H electron capture (not by nucleus, 1956 Helbig Everhart: http://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.140.A715 ) - I knew unpublished extended version from 1995 (Electron capture in p+H head-on collisions and classical dynamics), so he has struggled for ~20 years with publishing it ...