Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (cold fusion)

[Captain Kremmen]

The mainstream media have missed out on all this.
Whether he turns out to be the saviour of the environment or one of the most audacious con-men in history,
the ride along with him has been fascinating.
And continues to be so.

Read this:
Andrea Rossi Preparing for Huge E-Cat Company
http://www.e-catworld.com/2011/11/an...-on-the-cards/

[Me-Ki-Gal]

The mainstream media have missed out on all this.
Whether he turns out to be the saviour of the environment or one of the most audacious con-men in history,
the ride along with him has been fascinating.
And continues to be so.

Read this:
Andrea Rossi Preparing for Huge E-Cat Company
http://www.e-catworld.com/2011/11/an...-on-the-cards/

Wow ! He is building his own empire . May it be on sand or rock time will tell . Wow ! He is going for it . Got to admire him for that

[Captain Kremmen]

It is literally incredible Mi Ke.
I don't know what to make of it.

[quadraphonics]

Despite the above and your article, I am still forced to continue to conclude that there must effectively be a net weak repulsion between two mutually near neutrons (when no protons are present as in Tritium & He) as they will not mutually bind,

After spending some quality time on Google (and physicsforums), my understanding is that the strong force is attractive between neutrons, but is substantially weaker than between protons (or protons and neutrons) and so the potential well isn't "deep enough" to bind the neutrons together. There is no repulsive force between neutrons. Just an attractive force that is insufficiently strong to bind them.

do not exist, cannot be created,

There are theorized bound states of neutrons, actually, but they are apparently very short lived and have not been experimentally observed. There's also neutron stars.

[Trippy]

I don't follow the field but seems like the theorical advances are coming very slowly. - Is that your view too?

I think the nuclear shell model (I think that's what it's called) shows more potential, and we're rapidly approaching the level required to be able to test some of its predictions - my recollection is that there's a general feeling that they're rapdily approaching the shores of an island of stability (stability here being a relative term).

After spending some quality time on Google (and physicsforums), my understanding is that the strong force is attractive between neutrons, but is substantially weaker than between protons (or protons and neutrons) and so the potential well isn't "deep enough" to bind the neutrons together. There is no repulsive force between neutrons. Just an attractive force that is insufficiently strong to bind them.

There are theorized bound states of neutrons, actually, but they are apparently very short lived and have not been experimentally observed. There's also neutron stars.

Now that you mention it, my vague recollection is something along these lines also.

[billvon]

Andrea Rossi Preparing for Huge E-Cat Company

Good for him! If he wants to spend his own money setting up a company like that, great.

Of course, if he wants to swindle people a third time, I don't think he'll have any remaining sympathy with the courts.

[Billy T]

After spending some quality time on Google (and physicsforums), my understanding is that the strong force is attractive between neutrons, but is substantially weaker than between protons (or protons and neutrons) and so the potential well isn't "deep enough" to bind the neutrons together. There is no repulsive force between neutrons. Just an attractive force that is insufficiently strong to bind them. ...

{Against what? -thermal energy splitting?}

That attractive force must be very very weak as there are a huge number of thermal energy neutron in water moderated reactors colliding with each other every second.

You are saying that the "potential well" is not even "thermal energy deep" as room temperature thermal energy "unbinds them" from their "attraction"!

Surely I am not the first to note this and surely some one has cooled neutrons down to liquid He temperture, with them still not being bound as even that low thermal energy is splitting them apart.

AGAIN: If thermal energy is not "unbinding them" from their mutual attraction force, what is?

I think the answer is clear - the net force between the is NOT attractive, but repulsive.

[quadraphonics]

{Against what? -thermal energy splitting?}

Yeah, basically. I gather that by the time you get to a cold enough setting for the well to bind them, you're into the realm of Bose-Einstein condensates and the basic physics looks very different (exclusion principle doesn't work the same way, etc).

That attractive force must be very very weak as there are a huge number of thermal energy neutron in water moderated reactors colliding with each other every second.

Those neutrons also have considerable kinetic energy, no? And so shallow energy wells would present little obstacle to them.

You are saying that the "potential well" is not even "thermal energy deep" as room temperature thermal energy "unbinds them" from their "attraction"!

That seems to be the upshot, yes.

Surely I am not the first to note this and surely some one has cooled neutrons down to liquid He temperture, with them still be unbound by even that low thermal energy

Yeah, see above.

AGAIN: If thermal energy is not "unbinding them" from their mutual attraction force, what is?

There's some other effects to consider. One is the Pauli exclusion principle, which prevents them from just collapsing into one another in the first place. The other is the uncertainty principle - if you confine a neutron to a small radius around another neutron, you are thereby guaranteeing that it has a certain minimum momentum, which may be enough to overcome the strong attraction between neutrons (not positive on this, but it would explain the putative temperature independence).

I think the answer is clear - the net force between the is NOT attractive, but repulsive.

No, that is unequivocably, definitively not the case. The force is attractive. It's just too weak to bind neutrons together.

[Billy T]

... No, that is unequivocably, definitively not the case. The force is attractive.

Do you have reason for believing that? (except "appeal to authority's" beliefs?) I gave reasons why I think there must be at least net weak repulsion - Namely for NN not to exist even at liquid He temperatures the "attraction" is extremely weak - so weak that force of 0.000,1 of a flea's fart force would blow them apart, etc.

For me, despite "expert opinion," the non-existence of NN, even at a few degrees K, says they are NOT attracted to each other.

Also, although not well informed here, I think Bose-Einstein condensates properties do not apply to only two particles.

[quadraphonics]

Do you have reason for believing that? (except "appeal to authority's" beliefs?)

Appeal to authority is a perfectly good reason to believe something, if the authorities in question are knowledgeable and reliable. Which they are, in this case.

I gave reasons why I think there must be at least net weak repulsion - Namely for NN not to exist even at liquid He temperatures the "attraction" is extremely weak - so weak that force of 0.000,1 of a flea's fart force would blow them apart, etc.

If you can demonstrate that the momentum implied by the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle for a (hypothetically) bound neutron is insufficient to overcome the strong attraction between neutrons, then I will consider learning enough more about QCD to give you a more definitive, first-order answer here.

Although, I'll note that your reasoning there doesn't obtain. You're just asserting that the attraction is extremely weak, not that it is a repulsion.

For me, despite "expert opinion," the non-existence of NN, even at a few degrees K, says they are NOT attracted to each other.

You will need to be a credible expert yourself, before your reasoning on this matter will rate questioning credible expert opinions to the contrary. Every source I've been able to find says very clearly that neutrons are attracted to one another by the (residual) strong force. You are literally claiming that basic aspects of standard quantum physics are categorically wrong, that some other, unknown fundamental force exists, etc. I.e., you are veering into crank territory.

Also, although not well informed here, I think Bose-Einstein condensates properties do not apply to only two particles.

I see no reason why not.

[Trippy]

Do you have reason for believing that? (except "appeal to authority's" beliefs?) I gave reasons why I think there must be at least net weak repulsion - Namely for NN not to exist even at liquid He temperatures the "attraction" is extremely weak - so weak that force of 0.000,1 of a flea's fart force would blow them apart, etc.

For me, despite "expert opinion," the non-existence of NN, even at a few degrees K, says they are NOT attracted to each other.

Also, although not well informed here, I think Bose-Einstein condensates properties do not apply to only two particles.

Helium-6 is the simplest nucleus with a “halo”: two loosely bound neutrons in an orbit around a compact core formed by two protons and two neutrons, also known as an alpha particle.

Helium 6

Most Precise Measurement Ever Made Of Helium-6 Charge Radius

The Helium-6 Nucleus

Helium-8 Study Gives Insight Into Nuclear Theory, Neutron Stars

You may need to rethink some aspects of your position, Billy.

[Trippy]

Also worth noting is this:
He-4 is stable.
He-5 which has an unpaired neutron, has a half life of 0.76 zs.
He-6 which has a pair of neutrons in its halo has a half life of 806.7 zs
He-7 which had one pair of neutrons, and an unpaired neutron has a half life of 3 zs.
He-8 which has two pairs of neutrons has a half life of 119 ms.

The fact that the nuclei which contain only complete pairs have half lives that are on the order of twenty orders of magnitudes longer than those that don't says something significant (to me at least).
Source

[Captain Kremmen]

Good for him! If he wants to spend his own money setting up a company like that, great.

Of course, if he wants to swindle people a third time, I don't think he'll have any remaining sympathy with the courts.

From the article:
Rossi has mentioned having plants or offices in Miami, Boston and Manchester, NH.


More puzzles.
Why set up in the US, where Corporate fraud will get you a life sentence?
Better to stay in Spain, or still better, move to Greece, where corporate corruption is a way of life.

[Billy T]

Appeal to authority is a perfectly good reason to believe something, if the authorities in question are knowledgeable and reliable. ...

Like the pope? He is very knowledgeable and certainly reliable - consistent in what he and his predecesser teach as the truth. My point is that if you have and give reasons to think differently, and the authorities are in the impossible position of trying to prove something does NOT exist (namely a repulsive force greater than the extremely weak N on N attractive force, which is not even by its self able to resist the "thermal splitting" at 3 degrees K) - i.e. NN does not exist even at 3K then, until the "authorities" can explain why not, alternatives that do seem attractive.

I said: "I think Bose-Einstein condensates properties do not apply to only two particles." Your asked why:

I see no reason why not.

Again I know little about Bose-Einstein condensates, but think Bose-Einstein condensates properties come from a collection of identical particles that enjoy changed statistics - something to do with the fact that if two are switched it is still the same state and thus only counted once in the statistics of the group. I.e. Bose-Einstein condensates are different in their statistics

For one particle statistic is meaningless - for two, damn nearly so, I think.

I'll note that your reasoning there doesn't obtain. You're just asserting that the attraction is extremely weak, not that it is a repulsion.

No, I noted that the NET attraciton is very very very weak for NN, if it exists and suggested the alternative that it does not - is a repulsion as NN is not found even at 3K. I believe the strong force does exist and is much strong than the net force, for which we are discussing the sign - attraction or repulsion.

If it is attraction I only point out that it is billions of times less than the strong force alone which does bind NP (deuterium). I suggested a fifth force could exist with very short range, which is "killed" by the presence of near by charge. That is, I think, entirely consistent with all known physics. I.e. would change nothing as in all cases, but NN, charge is "near by."

My idea also has the advantage of explaning why the isolated neutron is unstable (decays into a proton and beta, I think). I.e. the neutron is really three quarks so the forces on a neutron act on these three quarks. If there is a repulsive strong "fifth" force, which slightly over powers the strong (attractive force) when no charge is "nearby," then it too act upon these three quarks, making the isolated from "nearby charge" neutron decay.

[Billy T]

... The fact that the nuclei which contain only complete pairs have half lives that are on the order of twenty orders of magnitudes longer than those that don't says something significant (to me at least). ...

Thanks for the interesting links.

I think that says something very significant to all, me included. In post 416's foot note I noted that super conductivity only exists because of the "exchange energy" of the "pared electrons" which interestingly do not need to be "near" each other.

They travel thru a low temperature lattice without energy loss, despite it still having some weak phonons, because when a phonon "hits one" the other "pulls" it along as if no collision with a phonon took place. (Or something like that when over simplified.) In normal conductors it is the phonon collisions which which remove energy from the non-thermal motion of the electrons - re thermalize them - make resistance.

This "exchange energy" some how comes from the changed statistic of identical particles - helps binds them together as if in a lower energy well. I am sure it is significant for identical nucleons as well as electrons. I don't understand it even as poorly as I did 40+ years go, which was better than now.

Let me clearly state that I am ONLY suggesting that postulating "fifth force" of nature, which, like the strong force is very short ranged, and which is "killed" by near by charge, would be very hard (impossible?) to observer as except for effects upon (1) NN, which does not exist and (2) the isolated neutron, N, which is unstable, this fifth forces does not exist. (There is killing charges too near.) This postulate does simply explain both (1) and (2) FACTS OF NATURE and is consistent with ALL known facts (AFAIK.) so is attrctive, at least to me. I don't think proving this 5th force does not exist is possible.

[Trippy]

Thanks for the interesting links.

I think that says something very significant to all, me included. In post 416's foot note I noted that super conductivity only exists because of the "exchange energy" of the "pared electrons" which interestingly do not need to be "near" each other.

They travel thru a low temperature lattice without energy loss, despite it still having some weak phonons, because when a phonon "hits one" the other "pulls" it along as if no collision with a phonon took place. (Or something like that when over simplified.) In normal conductors it is the phonon collisions which which remove energy from the non-thermal motion of the electrons - re thermalize them - make resistance.

This "exchange energy" some how comes from the changed statistic of identical particles - helps binds them together as if in a lower energy well. I am sure it is significant for identical nucleons as well as electrons. I don't understand it even as poorly as I did 40+ years go, which was better than now.

Let me clearly state that I am ONLY suggesting that postulating "fifth force" of nature, which, like the strong force is very short ranged, and which is "killed" by near by charge, would be very hard (impossible?) to observer as except for effects upon (1) NN, which does not exist and (2) the isolated neutron, N, which is unstable, this fifth forces does not exist. (There is killing charges too near.) This postulate does simply explain both (1) and (2) FACTS OF NATURE and is consistent with ALL known facts (AFAIK.) so is attrctive, at least to me. I don't think proving this 5th force does not exist is possible.

The point I was driving at, or otherwise alluding to, was an analogy with ionization energies, and the behaviour of full (or half full) shells, compared to those around them, or in the same row.

To my mind at least, the half life data on its on suggests pairing of neutrons is occuring.

[Billy T]

... To my mind at least, the half life data on its on suggests pairing of neutrons is occuring.

I agree 100% and said in post that almost everyone (who knows any thing about this does.) My post opened with:

"I think that says something very significant to all, me included. In post 416's foot note I noted that super conductivity only exists because of the "exchange energy" of the "pared electrons" which interestingly do not need to be "near" each other."

Perhaps what you are implying with "pairing" and what I am focused on are different: Perhaps you are thinking in terms of "force interaction pairs" much more than "exchange energy pairs" and me more the other way round.

That is why I mentioned in the super conductivity case the paired electrons do NOT need to be close to each other - Pairing is not "force bonding" - it is not something that can be classically understood that way. It is something that some how falls out of the mathematics of quantum statistical physic. - At least if memory serves me correctly from long ago. The pairs are part of the same wave function, more joined together in "monemtum space" than in 3D physical space, again as I recall.

Somewhat like "entangled photons" don't need to be near each other (can be miles apart) yet if one is observed to be spin up the other will be found to be spin down even if speed of light limit does not permit the "spin of A" is up information to get to photon B before it is measured to have spin down. Exchange energy pairs are one quantum system.

[Trippy]

I agree 100% and said in post that almost everyone (who knows any thing about this does.) My post opened with:

"I think that says something very significant to all, me included. In post 416's foot note I noted that super conductivity only exists because of the "exchange energy" of the "pared electrons" which interestingly do not need to be "near" each other."

Perhaps what you are implying with "pairing" and what I am focused on are different: Perhaps you are thinking in terms of "force interaction pairs" much more than "exchange energy pairs" and me more the other way round.

That is why I mentioned in the super conductivity case the paired electrons do NOT need to be close to each other - Pairing is not "force bonding" - it is not something that can be classically understood that way. It is something that some how falls out of the mathematics of quantum statistical physic. - At least if memory serves me correctly from long ago.

Right, but the literature doesn't talk about cooper pairs of neutrons, it talks about weakly bound pairs of neutrons. I'm also fairly sure that in at least one of the links I have provided it talks about them being bound by the residual strong force.

[Billy T]

... at least one of the links I have provided it talks about them being bound by the residual strong force.

Right! And I am in no way suggesting that the strong force does not act between N & N.

In fact I am suggesting that it is very strong, perhaps the same order of magnitude as between N & P (not just a "tiny residual") but I note the NET force, if attractive, between N & N must be very, very, very weak as even 3 degree K "thermal forces" are greater. I.e. how did the net force get to less than a "flea's fart" force, if not by being slightly more than balanced out by a postulated 5th force also of very short range? (so it can not be directly observed) and which is killed by "near by charge" (as tritium, with two near each other Ns, etc. is strongly bound)?

BTW I started a thread bout this year's Nobel physics prize being one that would spin Alfred in his grave for its total neglect of the instructions in his will but bardeen cooper schrieffer fully deserved the one they got for explaining how super conductivity occurred. The BCS theory lid the foundation for enormus benefit to mankind - just a Alfred's will required. Fact that stars about 13 billion light years way move so as to suggest the existence of an extremely low density energy (many orders of magnitude less than moon light) will never directly benefit mankind as Alfred required - the energy density is (what? 10 orders of magnitude?) too low to ever be used.

[quadraphonics]

In fact I am suggesting that it is very strong, perhaps the same order of magnitude as between N & P (not just a "tiny residual") but I note the NET force, if attractive, between N & N must be very, very, very weak as even 3 degree K "thermal forces" are greater.

After some further reading, I believe I've spotted where this line of reasoning is broken.

To wit: your reasoning is based on the classical physics idea of how a potential well binds a particle - if the potential well is deeper than the particle is energetic, then the particle is trapped. Otherwise, the particle escapes. So, any potential well, no matter how shallow, should bind a particle provided we make the particle's energy low enough.

However, things work a bit differently in quantum physics. For starters, there is the tunnelling effect - for any finite potential well, there is some non-zero probability of finding the particle outside the well, even if the particle's energy is less than the depth of the well. Of course, this alone does not really conflict with binding particles into wells, as such - for a one-dimensional finite-potential well, there is still always at least one bound state. The only change is that you accept a finite probability of the particle tunneling out of the well, but this probability dies off quickly as you move away from the well.

And since the standard undergrad treatment of quantum physics stops at 1-dimensional potential wells, most of us (who are not quantum physicists) assume that this intuition extends to 3 dimensions. But it turns out that it does not - in three dimensions, an insufficiently deep potential well does not have any bound states. The reasoning behind this is a bit mysterious to me (it comes out of several-page-long derviations of differential equations and boundary conditions), but the upshot is clear: the intuition that any potential well, no matter how shallow, can trap a sufficiently cool particle is incorrect. An insufficiently strong three-dimensional potential well does not have any bound states. It doesn't matter how little thermal energy a particle has, the well won't trap it.

I.e. how did the net force get to less than a "flea's fart" force,.

It doesn't need to - it only needs to be less than the threshold required to exhibit a bound state. Beyond that point, it doesn't matter how the force compares to the energy of the particle we're trying to trap.