Mini-atoms is a false and misleading concept. No way.

I have been reading about the idea of ‘mini-atoms’ as a possible explanation for LENR and frankly this is so ridiculous that is almost offensive. It is like throwing away all the well-known concepts of quantum mechanics.

The hydrogen atom is regulated by quantum mechanics. In particular the non-relativistic Schroedinger equation with the pure Coulomb force between the proton and the electron explains very well all the properties and all of the energy spectrum of  the hydrogen atom.
Now, these people that are patenting LENR devices (only to sell the patent to stupid enterpreneurs or to shift capitals to Panama?) want us to believe that mini-atoms are formed and that they convert into virtual neutrons and this convert nickel into copper.
Come on boys are you drunk?

1- the concept of mini-atom is unacceptable for the following reason. The 1s electron of hydrogen has a very well-known probability of sitting anywhere in space. Its wavefunction, R(r)=(2/a0^3/2) e^(-r/a0) has a little non-zero tail extending down to zero, which means there is a tiny probability of the electron to be found within the volume of the proton. This probability (calculated by integrating the wavefunction on the volume of the nucleus/proton) is ~5*10^(-15), tiny, but not zero (red around zero in the picture, not to scale). This DOES NOT MEAN that a mini-atom is formed. The system is always the same: an atom with the usual size (about 1 Angstrom) and only for a very short period the electron goes close to the nucleus and then turns back to the standard size. For that matter, the hydrogen atom has an even higher probability, ~3*10^(-14), to be greater than 10 Angstroms! (red on the right in the picture, not to scale). Nobody ever speaks of maxi-atoms!

These ignorant or malicious people cite the Heisenberg principle and the DeBroglie wavelength (easy concepts that most people can become familiar with), but either ignore or hide the Schroedinger equation and forget that we can make calculations and predictions with it.

2- You might say that, do the right math or not, the electron ‘enters’ of ‘feels’ the proton from very close, therefore a conversion into a neutron might happen, after all this is the mechanism that we think explains the beta-plus decays! NO, THAT IS NOT TRUE FOR THE SINGLE PROTON FOR ENERGY REASONS: even if you put the electron (that is moving at tiny atomic energies measured in eV) on top of the proton, it does not have enough energy to convert the proton into a neutron because the neutron is a heavier particle and the process DOES NOT start spontaneously.
Different is the case if you shoot very energetic electrons (with energy measured in Mega-eV) on protons, you might observe beta-decay into a neutron and neutrino. Mass of proton ~938.3 MeV, mass of electron ~0.5 MeV, mass of neutron ~939.6 MeV, therefore
mass proton+electron ~ 938.8 you still miss 0.8 MeV. The energies of an orbital electron are of the order of 0.000013 MeV, we can safely neglet them. Where the fuck is the missing energy to allow the conversion?

Once again these people are either uniformed or just evil. Once again they mix perfectly valid concepts with bullshit and induce people to believe them…

3- Then we are told the following  “but you unmovable conventional skeptical scientists are just firm in your opinions, you are not open-minded!”. THAT IS NOT TRUE. Scientists evaluate and ponder, but cannot forget what is already WELL-KNOWN, PROOVED and ESTABLISHED. There are several experiments that have been conceived, planned, funded, constructed, tested and completed in order, for example, to establish the half-life of the proton and test if, maybe, this proton conversion exists anyway! The result is that the proton is stable and the lower limit of this stability is at least 10^33 years, that is much much more than the known age of the universe (slightly more than 10^10 years). The proton is terribly stable.

Once again, the people saying so are either unschooled or just nasty. Study first, think second and maybe speak at last.

4- Just to finish: why the mini-hydrogen-atom should act only on nickel ? If this never-seen-before (and believe me, never-to-be-seen-later) virtual neutrons allow the proton to overcome the coulomb barrier without problems and make a fusion reaction, why they don’t do it in ordinary molecules, in crystals, in melting metals in a furnace? Why nickel should be better than calcium, iron or palladium?

Simple answer: they just don’t exist at all.

Second order crackpots – deep fried

I’ve received an email message from a romanian crackpot scientist with such a ridiculous surname, Mr. Coso-fret, (in italian sounds like Thing-hurry !), that, while laughing, I could not stop reading his pseudo-scientific bullshit and his complaining about conspiracies hatched by “real” scientists. I will not give links to this because it’s really not deserving…

Well, I must comment on it for two reasons: 1) because the message talks about a funny experiment on nuclear physics and electromagnetism that I can easily disprove and 2) because it allows to define “second order crackpots”, i.e. people using several correct sentences amidst a bunch of nonsense and showing apparently a certain degree of knowledge about how to conduct experiments, but then making serious blunders in the
process of understanding things.

The experiment is made by a beta emitter enclosed in a metal foil. The metal collects charges (electrons) and through a certain circuit, delivers the micro current to an electrolytic cell with acidulated water. The idea is to measure the volume of gas released in the cell as a way to show the effect of currents. Unfortunately the device does not produce gases and Mr.Coso-fret incorrectly starts a series of ridiculous deductions about
electromagnetism being wrong, etc. etc.

The reason why he does not see any gas is a very simple one: the process is relatively slow and does not accumulate enough electrons on the metal cage (before they are dispersed away by some other process) to allow a POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE (in Volts !) high enough to start the electrochemical reaction. The reaction WILL NOT TAKE PLACE unless a certain potential is applied to the cell. The energy coming from an outside source is used to drive the redox reaction (that would not happen spontaneously) in the cell. In addition there are other factors that might hinder the beginning of the reaction and an overpotential is sometimes necessary!     —-    This is basic electrochemistry.

I suggest him to repeat the experiment as follows: insulate the metal cage as perfectly as possible, put an open switch between the cage and the cell, wait long enough that the potential energy difference between the metal and the ground becomes large enough to start the reaction, then wait a little more in order to charge your nuclear-driven battery, and finally, after closing the switch, enjoy the effects of the electrochemical reactions happening under you eyes as long as the potential difference is above threshold (as long as the nuclear battery is charged).

Electromagnetism is all right, electrochemistry is all right. Volta, Maxwell and Faraday will take a cup of tea in heaven and Mr. Coso-fret will fry like chicken in hell.

An outstanding example of bad science.

In the following I will quote some sentences from http://www.nickelhydrogencoldfusion.caz  (accessed on 29/05/2014, version of 06/02/2014) showing how badly written they are and how many severe mistakes can be be gathered in such a little space.

Quote 1):
“The Theory
According to some reports the theory behind the LENR and E-Caz probably began from F. Piantacazzi. He is a retired professor of biophysics from the University of Scema. He had used a biophysics device using Hydrogen and Nickel gases. He had then chilled the device with liquid helium. ”

A “biophysics device”? What does it mean? Living matter? Proteins? Something made up of organic molecules, i.e. carbon, hydrogen and oxygen with little amounts of nitrogen, etc.?

“using Hydrogen and Nickel gases” ? Well, as far as hydrogen is concerned , it is a gas at room temperature, but nickel is a metal. Badly written, to say the least.

“chilled the device with liquid helium” ? What do you get if you chill a biological device to 4 degree kelvin? That all the special ‘biological’ properties, if any, are gone. Bah.

Quote 2):
“The Nickel nuclei then fuse with the Hydrogen nuclei and this is where the nuclear fusion occurs. This process is only possible when Coulomb forces are overcome, resulting in nuclear forces. At the same time Nickel acts as a catalyst and breaks the Hydrogen molecules into single Hydrogen atoms. The electrons in Hydrogen atoms are then deposited on the Nickel atoms where there exists the Fermi Band. The electrons then diffuse further into the Nickel crystals of Nickel. This is how Nickel Hydrogen fusion occurs. ”

Well, if this is an explanation of the phenomenon, it is a most ridiculous one. It is not the Coulomb force that must be overcome, “resulting in nuclear forces”, rather is the simultaneous presence of Coulomb (repulsive) and Nuclear (mainly attractive at those distances) forces that creates the Coulomb barrier that must be overcome in order to have fusion.

Then nuclear physics is mixed with molecular and atomic physics too easily here. The nickel ATOM might act as a catalyst, true, but what has this to do with fusion? Even if you split the H2 molecule into 2 H atoms or two ions, or even if you then strip the electrons (note that the hydrogen atom is more electronegative than nickel and it is not easy to transfer the electron from H atoms to the metal),  where does the proton go? It still feels the stronly repulsive Coulomb barrier, it cannot fuse unless you give it enough energy (many MeV!!) to overcome the barrier.

“This is how Nickel Hydrogen fusion occurs. ”  Oh man, come on! This is how your brain fused long time ago.

Quote 3):
“The theory behind LENR and E-Caz can also be qualitatively explained using Bohr’s Hydrogen atom, Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and High Speed Nuclear Reactions. ”

This is a typical case of putting a sufficient number of nice and complicated concept to confuse the average reader into believing what you say. How do the Bohr’s atom theory come into play? And what this might have to do with fusion?  See next.

Quote 4):
” the electrons remain in a circular path orbiting around the nuclei in a path”
Well electrons are not balls, they are not riding into circular orbits, but rather they have a certain probability to occupy certain orbitals around the nucleus (actually the 1s orbital represents a spherical distribution, the 2s and 2p orbitals have more complicated shapes, refer to a quantum chemistry or atomic theory book for further explanations and picture).

Quote 5): – SUPERFUNNY-
“According to Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, during cold fusion in the LENR and E-Caz devices, mini Hydrogen atoms are formed. These are neutrally charged and also fuse with the Nickel nuclei. Furthermore, these trapped mini Hydrogen atoms undergo in-situ annihilation”

The Heisenberg principle has very little to do with this. Anyway, “mini hydrogen atoms” !!!!
Actually the size of the H atom is determined in the Bohr’s theory they cite as being the size of the Bohr’s radius a0~0.5 Angstrom, that is 0.000000005 cm.
“undergo in-situ annihilation” – SUPER ! – annihilation with what? What is acting on that? What do they produce upon annihilation.

Well, if this is the theoretical understanding they have, we are very far from producing cheap devices.
It is very funny, for scientists, to have 5 minutes of boasting laughs on this sort of shit, but it is also really sad, if you think that the level of masquerade (I mean the mixing of real science and real names with their secret patented device ready to be sold) is already enough to convince the layman or even to bring them fame or money, for nothing. Choose if it is to be considered as an elaborate joke or as a criminal scam.

Thoughts on Trace Analysis

There is a lot of talking (note: mostly on the web, not in serious scientific journals) about Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (or LENR) as a purported explanation for experiments that try to get cold fusion out of mixtures of certain metals (Nickel, Copper, Palladium,?) and various gases (mainly deuterium) under pressure. I’m skeptical and the reason is that whatever experiment you might concieve there is a clear way to establish if a nuclear reaction has occurred: isotopic abundance analysis and in particular trace element analysis either through Neutron Activation Analisys (NAA), Particle Induced X-ray Emission (PIXE) or Mass Spectroscopy (MS) !
These techniques are well-known, robust, repeatable, readily available in major laboratories worldwide and have sensitivities that range from maybe 10^(-6) to 10^(-15) or more for most isotopes.

If a nuclear reaction of any kind has really taken place (at high or low energy) in a sizeable manner (i.e. long enough to leave measurable traces and energy release), than one should be able to measure the end-products of this reaction, not only monitor on-line the escaping particles such as neutrons or gammas with some detector, but also by putting samples into a trace analysis apparatus.
Take two samples, one before the reaction and one after the reaction has run long enough to allow the accumulation of products to reach the limit of sensitivity of the chosen technique (say Mass Spectroscopy) and you have a smoking gun, a clear-cut measurement that signals if something has changed or not.
[Actually you might want to take several samples at regular intervals to demonstrate the increasing accumulation of reaction products in the samples].

If a certain energy release is measured, IT MUST BE CORRELATED with the number of reactions that have taken place and this number, in turn, MUST BE PROPORTIONAL to the accumulation of end-products in the sample.

Do you know any example of a crystal-clear isotope count determination that proves the occurrence of LENR?  My skeptical conclusion is that … 🙂

Switch on a light bulb inside the Polywell !

After a relatively long period, I’d like to discuss on experimental ways to probe theories. Most people (including myself) are debating on whether the polywell confines electrons or not from a theoretical point of view. While I’m fond of theory and math, physics is two-faced and the other side of the coin is experimental. Now I’m asking the experimentalists to perform this simple experiment: setup a conductive filament inside the  polywell cage, run a steady current in it and make vacuum inside the cage.This is nothing but an old-style light bulb that emits light and electrons. The law of thermoionic emission describes this phenomenon sufficiently well (forgetting a few details about the microscopic structure of conduction bands in a metallic crystal) and gives at least an estimation of the number of electrons one should expect. One can easily measure the electron flow with a Faraday cup and an ammeter in different positions in space (inside or outside the polywell, along the faces, along the vertices and so on) and see it is isotropic with the polywell switched off (well, of course the coils will shadow and intercept some electrons). Now switch on  the polywell. Does the intensity of emitted electrons decrease? How much? Does the distribution of electron in space cease being isotropic, but rather takes the inverted polywell shape ?  When repeating the experiment with a larger filament current, such that the average thermal ionic motion is higher, do we have more losses ?

Edison would be proud of his invention.

Mathematica Notebook: code for trajectories in magnetic fields

For your perusal, I release the Mathematica 8.0 (TM, Wolfram)  Notebook that calculates and plots magnetic fields and trajectories of charged particles in magnetic fields that I have used to convince myself (and you…?) about the fact that a Polywell does not make a great job in holding charged particles inside. The program, called magnetic-fields.nb, is revised and commented with tips and instructions, SI units are used throughout (be careful with extremely small charges, masses, times and so on).

The code can be obtained by email from the author at the following web-page.

With the code you can make calculations of magnetic fields and intensity, plot trajectories of charged particles and save movies of the trajectories and set-ups.

Biconic and polywell

The code that calculates trajectories of charged particles in a given arrangement of coils is almost ready, I attach here some preliminary results: 1) in the first picture you can see the trajectory of an electron inside the magnetic field generated by two anti-aligned coaxial coils (many people call this a ‘biconic cusp’, a most wrong name, that I’m not going to spread, there are no cusps and the geometry is cylindrical rather than biconic…). The particle revolves a couple of times and then is eventually lost. 2) in the second you can see the total magnetic field of a cubic polywell.

My trials essentially confirm the results of the paper by Carr et al. on Phys.Plasma 18 (2011) [thanks to the Polywell Guy for pointing it out!]. There is a certain degree of trapping  in both devices, but the particles are quickly lost. As I have pointed out earlier, taking random initial conditions for the particle position and velocity inside the traps and taking into account only the Lorentz forces, almost always leads the particle to escape out of the traps. If you add that not one, but many electrons will also collide and repel each other, this seems another argument against the working principle of this machine!

Quick Notes

Hi, I’ve found some spare time over Easter holidays,  I attach here a .pdf note about the magnetic field generated by a loop (a circular coil). In the near(=joke) future I’ll write a code that displays it:  magnetic_04-04-2013. If you find  any mistake, I’ll be happy to hear.

Not even electrons inside that ball!

I receive comments about the fact that I’m wrong and that the polywell is about confining electrons, not the heavier nuclei and that, once you have enough electrons, they would form a cathode inside the polywell that attracts positive nuclei. That was perfectly clear to me from the very beginning! (sorry). Other insist that the “cusps” (a totally misleading word: there are no cusps, that is there are no places where the derivative is discontinuous, this is a symptom that polywell-fanatics don’t even know basic mathematical terminology) should hold the particles inside.

The fact is that the polywell cannot HOLD even electrons. Reply to this question: send an electron towards the center of the coil from the inside. Does it bend? If your answer isn’t a NO, then go back to the chapter on Lorentz’ force on every physics book.  Now send an electron towards the ‘cusps’. Does it bend? If your answer isn’t a NO then go back to the chapter on Lorentz’ force.

Major restructuring of the blog

Recent comments (either totally biased or respectable thoughts) and a reasonable amount of visitors have made me reconsider the scopes and mission of this blog. It started like a sort of journalist inquiry, but the critical tone brings to the blog nothing more than foes and all sorts of fools. Now it is more like a collection/review of separated scientific topics each of which deserves a different page. The comments will be accepted only if they match the topic of the page and if their content is relevant and proven. This is to avoid having to spend time on nonsensical comments. In addition the modularity will be useful if a certain topic enters into more than one discussion.

Some changes have been made and some new considerations have been added.