Known Physics That Could Make Cold Fusion Possible?

[DeathDart]

None of the known laws of physics, applied to any of the words you've used (neutrino, gluon, accelerator, pseudoparticle, nucleosynthesis, phonon, wave) leads to anything resembling cold fusion.

What is understood about particles is mainly from plasma physics. These are ionized particles that interact with each through electrostatic, EM, and magnetic fields. They are not within a solid.

Having said that, an isotope within a solid produces (nearly) the same kind of radiation as a particle in free space. There are some energy losses and energy shifts.

Fusion in plasmas, is based on having enough kinetic energy for the fusing nuclei to overcome their mutual repugnance

What if cold fusion were to create an environment which shifted solar neutrinos into a state that would have them interact more readily with common matter. A pseudo particle may simply be a temporary region within the solid, that can intercept neutrinos. It is a pseudo particle until it captures a particle.

Neutrinos appear to only exist at very high velocities, or at the speed of light. That means that at the instant of capture, it has to add with something else to become a true particle.

These are just words strung together, but they could have meaning in the real world.

 

[DeathDart]

Something else about Cold Fusion makes sense. In the experiments that appeared to succeed, the material would eventually die out.

If the structure that enabled Cold Fusion were either mechanically damaged by local hot spots, or chemically poisoned by the fusion residues it would be consistent with a complex process existing and then ceasing. The critical conditions necessary for Cold Fusion no longer exist because another result of Cold Fusion has destroyed a critical function or structure.

This is, in very simplistic way, similar to fission reactors. The actual fissionable material decreases and neutron absorbing elements are increasing.

 

[Ausmerican]

Change out the dilithium crystals, they look like swiss cheese!

 

[ben m]

What is understood about particles is mainly from plasma physics. These are ionized particles that interact with each through electrostatic, EM, and magnetic fields. They are not within a solid.

Not true; not even close. Solid state physics (which applies the normal laws of E&M/QM/etc to non-free-space, closely-packed, etc. situations) is a field with extremely good agreement between theory and experiment. That includes properties of electrons, of neutrinos, of nuclei, of fields.

Fusion in plasmas, is based on having enough kinetic energy for the fusing nuclei to overcome their mutual repugnance

Yes, that's what the laws of physics say.

What if cold fusion were to create an environment which shifted solar neutrinos into a state that would have them interact more readily with common matter.

Nope. We know to extremely high precision how neutrinos can and cannot interact, and how that depends on "environment"; your guesses are not even in the ballpark of being consistent with known physics.

 

[dafydd]

These are just words strung together, but they could have meaning in the real world.

No.

 

[DeathDart]

Not true; not even close. Solid state physics (which applies the normal laws of E&M/QM/etc to non-free-space, closely-packed, etc. situations) is a field with extremely good agreement between theory and experiment. That includes properties of electrons, of neutrinos, of nuclei, of fields.

Yes, that's what the laws of physics say.

Nope. We know to extremely high precision how neutrinos can and cannot interact, and how that depends on "environment"; your guesses are not even in the ballpark of being consistent with known physics.

Solid State Physics..o non-free-space, closely-packed, etc. situations. Unless you are talking about degenerative matter like neutron stars, solids are still mostly space. That space is not free of considerable forces though.

I consider Neutrinos to be a massive assumption on the part of modern physics. The complexity of neutrino theory actually leads me to think that they don't really know what they are talking about.

The neutrino was created to explain away the mass and energy loss during fission. When all the mass, energy, and particles were added in they still came up short against how much mass was consumed.

How could, what apparently is a particle, carry that kind of energy with nearly zero cross-section? Neutrinos are just another name for unicorns.
I think they hide their ignorance behind math, which can't get better than 50% of observed neutrinos (with their own theories).

So converting the amount of energy a neutrino is supposed carry into an equivalent mass, the neutrino should have a significant footprint. Unless it is a ghost?

I said that better than 99% of science is correct. Neutrinos are an area where I don't think they got it right.

 

[DeathDart]

That unaccounted for matter (to energy) went somewhere. On this point I agree.

What I don't agree with is how superficially they have described their neutrino. They seem to have missed some fundamental defining characteristic that would solidify their understanding.

 

[dafydd]

Solid State Physics..o non-free-space, closely-packed, etc. situations. Unless you are talking about degenerative matter like neutron stars, solids are still mostly space. That space is not free of considerable forces though.

I consider Neutrinos to be a massive assumption on the part of modern physics. The complexity of neutrino theory actually leads me to think that they don't really know what they are talking about.

The neutrino was created to explain away the mass and energy loss during fission. When all the mass, energy, and particles were added in they still came up short against how much mass was consumed.

How could, what apparently is a particle, carry that kind of energy with nearly zero cross-section? Neutrinos are just another name for unicorns.
I think they hide their ignorance behind math, which can't get better than 50% of observed neutrinos (with their own theories).

So converting the amount of energy a neutrino is supposed carry into an equivalent mass, the neutrino should have a significant footprint. Unless it is a ghost?

I said that better than 99% of science is correct. Neutrinos are an area where I don't think they got it right.

What you think has no bearing on the matter.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/06/neutrino-transformation/

 

[dlorde]

These are just words strung together, but they could have meaning in the real world.

The words themselves have meaning, it's just the way they're strung together

 

[DeathDart]

What you think has no bearing on the matter.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/06/neutrino-transformation/

Oh it changed flavors, or color, or spin, or its a top, or a down.

Can they show us a dimensional form? Can they define the E, M, g, time, and the 3 dimensions to define a self consistent particle?

How are quarks defined?

Yes, uncertainty does raise its ugly head.

Can they describe the manifold called matter? If matter is energy, what geometry binds energy into a particle?

 

[Dancing David]

A surface wave phonon is a (frustrated) form of electromagnetic wave.


Some people call them plasmons, they have other names depending on the field that they are used in.

When sending charged particles through a slit, it will also explain action at a distance without invoking weirdness. The charged particles cause a resonant oscillation along the edges of the slit. Action at a distance seems to be a myth because of an unseen phenomena. Unless you want to break the speed of light. Good luck on that one.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/nl901208v

Um, did you even read the abstract?
Where does it say that these events could even be used in cold fusion in that article. I know what phonons might be, but to say that could overcome energy barriers in fusion, where does it say that?

Hmmm?

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2003/06/12/872457.htm

is a freaking press release.

You forgot to answer the crucial question Deathdart:

As in, how could phonons be the 'it' in "how it would do this in real physics?"

You are avoiding the real question, where is a reputable article saying that phonons could make cold fusion?

 

[Dancing David]

A complex phenomena where the variables are not understood, would also give spotty results.

So until it is replicable it goes into the 'possible but not likely' category. there is no evidence of it being likely.

So perhaps you should be more cautious in your usage. Thousands of attempts were made to recreate the first cold fusion.

So speculation with no data at best.

I am not sure that Cold Fusion exists, but I find this kind of problem to be fascinating. Its like walking to a a coliseum, through the graveyard of all the people that your opponent has previously beaten.

You don't get it, there is NO opponent. There is no evidence of cold fusion. There is no conspiracy to destroy it, there is no evidence to support it.

Spotty is not good enough, when the people at Los Alamos were 'tickling the dragon' it happened every time, they were able to measure the radiation release rate and the capture cross section. If the masses were two far apart it did not happen.

Not like cold fusion wishful thinking.

Are you going to be the next Moth that the flame burns? Curiosity can be painful and frustrating. Persistence and adaptation is necessary for success in any field.

It is like Bugs Bunny versus the Crusher.

Really, you don't get science, there is no 'little guy struggling to get the idea across', either you have a theory that provides results in data, or you don't.

 

[Dancing David]

What if cold fusion were to create an environment which shifted solar neutrinos into a state that would have them interact more readily with common matter.

Do you know what makes a neutrino a neutrino?

they don't suddenly interct with the EM force.

It would already be observed, duh.

A pseudo particle may simply be a temporary region within the solid, that can intercept neutrinos. It is a pseudo particle until it captures a particle.

Might as well say fairies or angels, show where a real physics paper says that?

Neutrinos appear to only exist at very high velocities, or at the speed of light. That means that at the instant of capture, it has to add with something else to become a true particle.

Do you always insist on violating well evidenced theory?

What evidence is there of neutrinos *poofo* changing?

These are just words strung together, but they could have meaning in the real world.

Not really.

Only as your private idiom.

 

[Dancing David]

Solid State Physics..o non-free-space, closely-packed, etc. situations. Unless you are talking about degenerative matter like neutron stars, solids are still mostly space. That space is not free of considerable forces though.

I consider Neutrinos to be a massive assumption on the part of modern physics. The complexity of neutrino theory actually leads me to think that they don't really know what they are talking about.

The neutrino was created to explain away the mass and energy loss during fission. When all the mass, energy, and particles were added in they still came up short against how much mass was consumed.

How could, what apparently is a particle, carry that kind of energy with nearly zero cross-section? Neutrinos are just another name for unicorns.
I think they hide their ignorance behind math, which can't get better than 50% of observed neutrinos (with their own theories).

So converting the amount of energy a neutrino is supposed carry into an equivalent mass, the neutrino should have a significant footprint. Unless it is a ghost?

I said that better than 99% of science is correct. Neutrinos are an area where I don't think they got it right.

Ooops, I shall no longer correspond with you.

 

[ben m]

I consider Neutrinos to be a massive assumption on the part of modern physics. The complexity of neutrino theory actually leads me to think that they don't really know what they are talking about.

So much for using "known physics" that could make cold fusion work!

1) Look at known physics.
2) Assume a large chunk is wrong.
3) Invent a new chunk to replace it
4) "Known physics makes cold fusion possible!"

The neutrino was created to explain away the mass and energy loss during fission. When all the mass, energy, and particles were added in they still came up short against how much mass was consumed.

How could, what apparently is a particle, carry that kind of energy with nearly zero cross-section? Neutrinos are just another name for unicorns.
I think they hide their ignorance behind math, which can't get better than 50% of observed neutrinos (with their own theories).

Just like infrared light, x-rays, alpha particles, and neutrons, neutrinos were originally discovered as "something invisible", and later studied in more detail. That was a long time ago.

We've been detecting neutrinos directly (they crash into detectors and cause reactions) since 1956. Fermilab, CERN, and Brookhaven have had neutrino beam facilities since the 1960s. The "solar neutrino problem" that seemed confusing in the 1970-1980s is no longer confusing; modern detectors like SNO are able to see all of the neutrinos that were once thought to be "missing", and the solution---oscillations, a normal feature of quantum mechanics whose application to neutrinos is almost identical to its well-known application to quarks---has now been cross-checked between many solar, reactor, accelerator, atmospheric neutrino experiments. Neutrino physics is at a level of precison where the Department of Energy is trying to build neutrino detectors outside of North Korean nuclear power plants, since the neutrino spectrum is an impossible-to-lie-about monitor of whether the reactor is being misused to make weapons-grade fuel.

If you want to find a problem in all of this, go ahead.

 

[DeathDart]

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/nl901208v

Um, did you even read the abstract?
Where does it say that these events could even be used in cold fusion in that article. I know what phonons might be, but to say that could overcome energy barriers in fusion, where does it say that?

Hmmm?

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2003/06/12/872457.htm

is a freaking press release.

You forgot to answer the crucial question Deathdart:

As in, how could phonons be the 'it' in "how it would do this in real physics?"

You are avoiding the real question, where is a reputable article saying that phonons could make cold fusion?

Consider this a survey of possible mechanisms that would be consistent with publicized test results. I can then choose the strongest candidates for further research. If someone can show me that a line of thought is violating a law of physics, that would certainly shoot down that idea.

Phonons represent a means of accelerating a particle at the scale of surface micro-fractures. An intense EM wave can accelerate particles. If they act like microwaves in waveguides then they can be slowed (modifying the Refractive Index of the space they are traveling in) down to pick up the particle then speed up to accelerate it. Yes, you can do that with EM waves.

I believe that most reputable scientists would steer clear of LENR for many reasons. I am not reputable , so I can. If more than 1 or 2 variables are unique and if even one critical factor such as temperature, current flow or chemical contamination of the water is overlooked, it will make for a messy imprecise experiment. A strong theory of operation can explain failures and correct them for the next try.

Sometimes a problem is not solved because of a lack of imagination. Nearly all experiments, that are not sloppy, will give you part of the answer.
You just have to focus and let the results speak.

Without a theory of operation to be validated or refuted, it is very difficult to move forward with experiments. Hand wavium doesn't work in the lab.

 

[ben m]

Phonons represent a means of accelerating a particle at the scale of surface micro-fractures.

Phonons are weak; a typical phonon has an total energy of less than 1 eV. How do you bump a 1eV phonon into a proton and get a 10 keV proton?

An intense EM wave can accelerate particles.

There are not "intense EM waves" in the middle of solid-state materials.

 

[DeathDart]

So much for using "known physics" that could make cold fusion work!

1) Look at known physics.
2) Assume a large chunk is wrong.
3) Invent a new chunk to replace it
4) "Known physics makes cold fusion possible!"



Just like infrared light, x-rays, alpha particles, and neutrons, neutrinos were originally discovered as "something invisible", and later studied in more detail. That was a long time ago.

We've been detecting neutrinos directly (they crash into detectors and cause reactions) since 1956. Fermilab, CERN, and Brookhaven have had neutrino beam facilities since the 1960s. The "solar neutrino problem" that seemed confusing in the 1970-1980s is no longer confusing; modern detectors like SNO are able to see all of the neutrinos that were once thought to be "missing", and the solution---oscillations, a normal feature of quantum mechanics whose application to neutrinos is almost identical to its well-known application to quarks---has now been cross-checked between many solar, reactor, accelerator, atmospheric neutrino experiments. Neutrino physics is at a level of precison where the Department of Energy is trying to build neutrino detectors outside of North Korean nuclear power plants, since the neutrino spectrum is an impossible-to-lie-about monitor of whether the reactor is being misused to make weapons-grade fuel.

If you want to find a problem in all of this, go ahead.

So every passing neutrino triggers an event within the detector?


Weapons grade fuel, as in maximizing plutonium production from the reactor.

I believe the last sensitivity threshold that I had read about was something like 1.8 MEv for one flavor. I believe detection efficiency is still not better than 1e-20. They can sample the neutrinos over a long period of time but their efficiency is still low. So if Cold Fusion were the flypaper of neutrinos it could easily pull in enough energy to produce the results that they have shown.

 

[DeathDart]

Phonons are weak; a typical phonon has an total energy of less than 1 eV. How do you bump a 1eV phonon into a proton and get a 10 keV proton?



There are not "intense EM waves" in the middle of solid-state materials.

How about fractures?

I have read a little about the successful tests. Most of the energy appeared to be very close to the surface.

A lot of blisters and bubbles formed on the surface. Fractures also would extend into the interior.

From an acceleration point of view there is nothing ideal about these conditions.

Difficulties in a pure design:

How about a mechanism (carburator) to feed individual Deuterons into the start point of a surface accelerator.

A surface accelerator that is a dielectric with a variable frequency or variable refractive index to accelerated the particle. One Ev represents a velocity kinetic energy of a particle. If the field can drag a single deuteron then it can over time accelerate it. The strength of the wave is one thing its velocity is another.

This is not like a battery 12volt in 12 volts out. Think more like a spark coil. The energy builds up to maximum level but the coil has stored the energy in its magnetic field which can be released all at once.

A weak field can accelerate a particle to high velocities as long as it does not accelerate deuteron faster than its ability to grip it with its weak field.

 

[ben m]

So every passing neutrino triggers an event within the detector?

No, why should it? Does every passing photon, neutron, kaon, pion, etc. trigger such a detector? No, of course not.

So if Cold Fusion were the flypaper of neutrinos it could easily pull in enough energy to produce the results that they have shown.

There is nothing whatsoever in solid-state physics that makes "flypaper for neutrinos" possible. Neutrino interaction cross sections, which are well known and very simple, always simply decrease at low energy. That interaction is extremely well tested, via low-energy beta decay, down to below 1 keV.

I can't stop you from inventing any new hypothesis you want. Just don't mislabel it "known physics", okay?