This website contains other cold fusion items.
Click to see the list of links

342) Speculations or truth?


Montclair State University, Montclair, NJ, 07055
1/16/08



1) The private Internet discussion list for CMNS researchers has been quiet in recent weeks. Then, on 1/12/08 an interesting message was posted by Ivan Ragland. Two days later another speculative message was sent to me in private. This shows that people are thinking about the ongoing CMNS controversy. These contributions are worth posting here. Perhaps someone will conceive and perform experiments to test the ideas. Evan wrote:

2) “Dear CMNS group, While things are quiet on the CMNS circuit it seems opportune to suggest an alternative structure of matter which might lead to new insight of cold fusion phenomena. I hesitate to make such introduction as no cold fusion theory is clearly established. However, it was cold fusion which caused me, in the spirit of empirical equivalence, to originally present an Alternate Model to Standard Model interpretation of the nuclear strong force. I have written extensively on the structure of matter and have two published papers on the subject. Recently, a third paper is accepted for presentation at the March Meeting of the American Physical Society. The abstract is appended herewith. In preparing for this meeting I solicit and welcome advice, interest, and questions of the CMNS group.

I am elderly, 81, a retired engineer, not a physicist, mathematician, or theorist. After a long career in computer design my interest is nuclear fusion. I bring to technology, success in things that, “cannot be done,” and strong technical opinion. The Standard Model is a tragic wrong theory which for decades has failed the most prestigious of all sciences, high energy physics; string theory, nuclear fusion, M theory, super symmetry, TOE, ITER, NIF, and so on fail, while all sciences, solid state physics biology, medicine, communications, chemistry, computers, space, etc. flourish. Your advice, interest, and questions are appreciated.“
What follows was attached to the message:

3) “Alternate atomic model posits concentric electron and nucleon fields spinning together about an empty center. It is alternative to the generally accepted planetary system in which electron point particles orbit about a center clump of nucleon point particles. Introduced in 1992 as an alternative to the standard model of the nucleus it applies scientific space-time knowledge unknown when the standard model was conceived. Originally advanced in the spirit of alternative equivalence it evolved to model the entire atomic structure plus many features of space-time. Structural definitions assume space-time properties of: unidirectional expansion, special relativity, electrical field, magnetic field, spin field, gravity field, and space-time surface effect. Field effects are associated with Faraday lines of field force. Model properties feature symmetry and complementarily. Mass structures of the electron, proton,neutron, and protium atom plus the atomic and nuclear constituencies of all elements are developed. In addition the nuclear strong force is defined, the magnetic anomaly explained, etc. Model logic constructs the neutron as the complement of the hydrogen (protium) atom.”

4) My reply was: “OK. I will tell you what I think.
a) I suspect that many people on this list, myself included, know the name "standard model" but never studied it, or used it as a tool to solve problems. In other words, most of us are not qualified to discuss this topic. If you want to criticize standard model, and offer a better alternative, then you should find a list with people prepared to deal with your ideas.

b) On the other hand, if you want to propose a new theory of atomic structure, starting from scratch, then this list is OK; it has a lot of people able to face your ideas. I would certainly try to follow you, at least as long as arguments are scientific, and match my personal background. The rules of the game -- how to justify new statements in terms of what is already accepted -- are well known. In that way the CMNS field is not different from other fields of physical science.

c) Is your theory based on experimental facts or is it based on ad hoc assumptions? Please describe it briefly. In other words, you have to make the first move. Then wait for questions and comments about your theory. By the way, you will not be the first one to do this here.

5) Two days later Evan wrote:
Thanks for your response. It is very helpful to me to know your thoughts. [a] I suspect you are right, many may know the name but have not studied or used the “standard model.” It is my experience most scientists avoid ‘standard model’ complexity because they feel lack of expertise. Dr. Johnathan Allday writes, ‘SM calculations are beyond us; [thus].simplifying assumptions have to be made.” The AM is simple classical physics. I append descriptive material for both SM and AM with this reply.

[b] I do want to propose a new theory. I am sure you follow my reasoning and do value your expertise and comments. Also, I have confidence and respect for others on this list. Fortunately, young scientists are joining, plus, I hold highest professional regard for other scientists I know and have worked with since 1992. The rules are clear and, while my AM proposal may be controversial, it ‘s correctness can rescue physical agendas.

[c] It is based on facts, experiment, and assumption. The appended list of these is basis for evaluation of my written paper for the March meeting. My presentation is directed to the “now” of space-time. A description of the AM follows. Also, the paragraph entitled the crucial issue in the attached PDF is worth review. CMNS commentary and critique would be of value to me but I would not want to reflect any embarrassment upon the group. On the other hand CMNS participation might be worthy of consideration. I hope all this helps. Regards, Evan Ragland.”


6) What follows is the attached piece:
“The logic of the Alternate Model constructs the neutron as the complement of the hydrogen (protium) atom;i.e., an electron captured inside a proton. The neutron’s resultant internal field is the nuclear strong force. According to this model the nucleus is a concentricity of individual proton and neutron fields, each confined to a distinct shell location by wave length and angular and spin momenta. The structure conforms to the Pauli exclusion principle, the principles of quantum mechanics, and with the exception of the protium nucleus is bound together by neutron(s) internal field(s). The Alternate Model is plausible and easily visualized.

Nuclear Notes on March paper

01. electrons don’t orbit; they nest
02. nuclei don’t clump; they nest
03. electron & proton are fundamental; (soliton field energy packets)
04. protons don’t decay; (probability 10^30 doesn’t happen).
05. space is expanding: (in time)
06; space is a surface function; (as we know it)
07. spin is a property of space; (spin up, spin down)
08. space is a bubble; (closes on itself, has no boundaries)
09. time has three states; (past, now, and future)
10. now, is a moment; (between past & future)
11. the now of space-time is C/r; (r is radius of the electron & proton)
12. E = mC2 is equivalence of energy (E) and mass (m)
13. decay from C/2 is e (-e, frozen energy)
14. fill of C/2 is p (+e, frozen energy)
15. h = e + p of like spins
16. n = e + p of unlike spins
17. d = p + n
18. t = d + n
19. t decays into he3
29. he4 = he3 + n
21. black holes are singularities “

7) My reply, on 1/14/2008:
You wrote that "the electron in spinning inside a proton." How can this be reconciled with HUP (Heizenbeg Uncertainty Principle, dx*dp~h). For a proton the dx is ~ 1 F. Introductory nuclear physics textbooks often use sizes of a nuclei (several F), and HUP, to explain why an electron cannot exist inside an atomic nucleus. Hydrogen is a small neutral atom and its electron is known to be outside the central nucleus.

8) Next day a carbon copy of another speculative message was sent to me by an old acquaintance (see item 268).
Dean Sinclair wrote: “ I've been out of contact for some time; but, thought you-all might find the following little essay which, I submitted to Helium.com as a "Debate" subject today, a little bit interesting. Can molecules be changed to atoms?

Yes. Under the right circumstances there is no reason why simple molecules cannot be transformed into atoms. Atoms combine into molecules and when one figures out the energetics, it can be shown that in many cases the atom version should be more stable than the molecule. Let us look at one case which is best explained by a
molecule to atom transformation.

In 1998, two scientists, Stanley Fleischmann and Marvin Pons, announced that when they had carried out an electrolysis with a Palladium electrode and "Heavy Water," there was energy produced within the Palladium electrode, to the point, in one case of melting the electrode down. They ascribed this energy production to the fusion of Deuterium atoms to Helium 4 atoms, and called the process, "Cold Fusion."

The scientific community "went ballistic" at the term, "fusion." It is an item of faith in the scientific community that "fusion" can only take place at extremely high temperatures and pressures such as are found in the center of the Sun. In the almost twenty years that have passed since then a number of other workers have shown that the phenomenon reported by Fleischmann and Pons is real and have also reported other results of similar types. However, most of the establishment considers the area as "Kook science," rather than as a frontier between molecular and nuclear science where it probably should be considered. Unfortunately, explanations given for the phenomenon range from the fanciful to the bizarre.

The problems with this whole area stem from the separation of nuclear chemistry from molecular chemistry which started with Chadwick's discovery of the neutron in the 1930's. and the "romance" that enshrined as a fundamental particle of nature, an essential unit of every nucleus except of that of Hydrogen 1, This choice of the neutron as a basic building block of nature was in spite of the fact that it is energetically unstable to both the electron and proton as free entities and the Hydrogen 1 atom which can be considered as isomeric to it. The neutron was not given its proper place as an alternate state of matter which can come into existence under certain high-energy conditions. As a consequence of the neutrons "mis-placement" there began the high energy particle physics field searching for other "fundamental particles," which could be found by "atom-smashing." For some seventy years these scientists have discovered more and more "fundamental particles," which. like the neutron, should be properly classified as "alternate, high-energy states of matter.

All of this has led to such inanities as the Standard Model based upon these sets of "fundamental particles. " and the ideas of "Strong and Weak Nuclear Forces." The latter are ideas that arise directly from the ascribing to neutrons their existence as such in the nuclei of atoms. If. instead of adopting the neutron as a "fundamental particle," which had to be accounted for as such in nuclei, the neutron had been given its proper place and nuclei had been considered in the same way as molecules are, that is, as centers bonded by electrons moving in paths within and among them, perhaps we would have had a much more productive 70 years.

The point of all this is that. for the Fleischmann-Pons observations, there is a very simple probable explanation if one notes that both the Deuterium molecule, D:D, and the Helium 4 atom, He4, can be properly considered as being composed of four protons bonded by four electrons. Even the shapes are somewhat similar. The D:D unit can be visualized as a "stretched tetrahedron," and the He4 nucleus as compact, perfect tetrahedron. The latter could be an instantaneous shape of a vibrational mode of the former. If there is a "receptor" available to drain off the excess vibrational energy of the "D:D form," the more stable "atom" structure can be taken on. Palladium with its plethora of energy levels is an ideal receptor for the excess energy of vibration.

What Fleischman and Pons almost surely observed was what could be called an "Iso-set isomerization" between the molecular and atomic forms of a set of protons and electrons. There are many such possibilities, some of which have apparently been observed in other "Cold Fusion" type experiments. Surely molecules can be transformed to atoms under the proper conditions. It's an area that should be wide open to open-minded scientists.”

9) From Evan to Ludwik (1/16/08):
“I do not think it can be reconciled with the Uncertainty Principle as there is no action between the proton and electron constituents of the AM neutron. They spin together in a common wave packet about a common center.

Nuclear Physics by Irving Kaplan (pages 149-152) uses the UP to show a free electron in the neutron would approach velocity near 0.999 C which is contrary to experimental observations of emitted electron kinetic energies. Kaplan also suggests other reasons questioning the electron/proton hypothesis. The E/P hypothesis posited the electron constituent was free to orbit or actively relate to the proton constituent in the neutron. The AM holds the electron and proton are fundamental, electrostatic wave packets which spin as one in electron spin attitude.

The AM was conceived as a nuclear structure to keep protons from flying apart and neutrons from wandering away. It evolved from fundamental electron and proton structural definitions and their constituencies, the complementary protium (hydrogen) atom and neutron. It was never intended to revive the E/P hypothesis. Included herewith is additional information which may help explain the AM.”


10) I do not want to argue about theoretical topics. But I must reply to Evan; his message was sent to me only. Both sets of ideas might be valid. Unfortunately, neither Dean nor Evan suggest experiments that could be performed to test the ideas. I am not prepared to speculate about their ideas.

11) Ludwik to Evan (1/17/08):
My theoretical background is too elementary to venture in that direction. It is safe to stick to what I learned from textbooks. Textbooks say that the Uncertainty Principle should be used to distinguish between what is possible from what is not. And "possible" does not mean "real." That is why the last word belongs to reproducible experimental data. It would be natural to abandon that principle, or to restrict its universality, to account for new experimental data.

Can beta radioactivity of neutrons (T~10 min) be used as experimental evidence that electrons live in them? Can beta radioactivity of tritium (T~12 y) be used as evidence that electrons exist in it? Can beta radioactivity of U-239 (T~23 min) be used as evidence that electrons exist in these nuclei? The answers are negative, according to most textbooks. Why should I reject these answers? In any case, I am not a good sounding board for speculating about standard model.

12) Closing message from Evan to Ludwik (1/21/2008):
I appreciate your offer to pose the question of, “Speculation or truth?” apropos the concepts of Dean Sinklair and myself. Sinklair’s memo is impressive. It is thinking outside the box, representative of questions troubling physics today. And, I am honored by association with the two of you. However, I do not believe a URL has potential to answer the question. I agree most people are unfamiliar with the Standard Model and thus see no virtue in upsetting it. This whole matter is a hot potato. No one wants to become involved even to argue that concepts are wrong. One might lose the argument which would be worse than ignoring the issue. No response is symptomatic of science when the ground begins to change under prevailing dogma. Unsaid is:

“We know what we were taught, we are professional at what we do, there is much needed work in our specialties, just like everybody else we have mortgages, vacations, kids to put through college and we don’t intend to, and won’t become involved with challenge to prevailing theory.”

That surely is understandable. Ludwik, if High Energy Physics continues to fail, as I expect, stagnation of energy independence will trigger public demand for new high science. That may happen within this year. Many who work with nuclear are near disillusion with the Standard Model. Now is a time for patience. Thank you again for your interest, efforts, and proffer of help.
P.S.
Inasmuch as the new unit is already posted, herewith is copy of review items used in my estimate of URL potential to generate questions of Alternate Model validity. I am certain the nested AM [alternative model] a physically more accurate nuclear structure than the contrived point particle SM [standard model]. And, of course, it does so without imaginary particles (quarks, gluons) and force fields (colors). I am confident to answer all questions regarding my posited model. Although no harm is done, I will be surprised if the CMNS list generates much interest in different nuclear structure. . .

This website contains other cold fusion items.
Click to see the list of links