Free energy or hoax?

[xilman]

Originally Posted by CRGreathouse

So wait, what are those? The only one I knew of that was generally accepted is pyroelectric fusion, and if you're saying AIFC isn't then what are the other two?

-physics newb

As I wrote earlier: muon-catalysed and QM tunnelling

[davar55]

If AICF, MCF, and QM-Tunneling are three proposed (possible) mechanisms
for cold fusion (which one is pyroelectric?) my first question would be
what nuclear (H,D,Tr,He,Li,etc) nuclear reaction mechanisms do these
three methods have in common? Since I would have a conclusion in mind,
I'd look for the patterns first. So perhaps a brief description of all three
would be useful here. Then I'd ask the same question about hot (solar)
fusion. Then I'd compare the analyses to see what energy considerations
and constraints would be necessary to produce a controlled cold fusion
on earth or in earth orbit or on the moon. Then, well, I'd think about
other considerations.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by davar55

I suppose it's alright to answer my question with two questions.

I apologize for assuming that either (a) since you quoted the link to the article, you had read the article or (b) my questions would prompt you to read the article.

(1) I don't know, I never read it. How many?

"controlled" doesn't appear in the article.

(2) I don't know. Again, I never read it. How many?

"cold fusion" appears several times in the article and its title.

(3) Do scientists do the math or just defer it to mathematicians?

If you're referring to your "two-for-one" and "3-for-1", then Paul already told you they don't make sense.

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by xilman

As I wrote earlier: muon-catalysed and QM tunnelling

The problem here is that there is no credible evidence that either of these routes occurs in the types of experiments in question. Unless our soon-to-be-famous-obscure-researchers somehow managed to swap out the electrons in their experiment with muons and simply forgot to mention that wee technical detail.

(p.s. One can also use tauons in place of muons, as these squeeze the atomic nuclei of the atoms they occupy even more closely ... there is just the little problem of the extremely short half-life).

[xilman]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

The problem here is that there is no credible evidence that either of these routes occurs in the types of experiments in question

I made no claim that either route is used in the apparatus in question. I claimed only that the mechanisms are widely believed to result in cold fusion.

Straw man, in other words.

Paul

[xilman]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

(p.s. One can also use tauons in place of muons, as these squeeze the atomic nuclei of the atoms they occupy even more closely ... there is just the little problem of the extremely short half-life).

One could also use other negatively charged sub-atomic particles, such as p-bar or pi-, all of which have even shorter effective lifetimes than muons --- though some of them live much longer than the tauon.

Paul

[davar55]

Originally Posted by xilman

[RDS] This is physics gibberish[/RDS]

What is "exactly two-for-one (binary) chain reaction"? Why does cold fusion require it, presumning one exists, and hot fusion does not require it? I think it reasonable that we have the shared assumption that the Sun exists and that it now generates the overwhelmingly greatest fraction of its energy through hot fusion.

Cold fusion has been demonstrated through at least two well documented processes and no serious physicist now doubts its existence. The two best known examples are muon-catalysed fusion and acoustic inertial confinement fusion, informably known as bubble fusion or sonofusion.

A third cold-fusion mechanism is confidently expected to occur but no experiment has yet detected it and, I believe, it is most unlikely to be detected. This one relies on quantum tunnelling of one nucleus into another at low temperature. I can't now find the article but I'm sure I read a while back that deuterium-deuterium tunnelling fusion occurs at a rate of about 30Hz within Jupiter. It is this low rate which leads me to believe that it is unlikely to be demonstrated experimentally

Perhaps I'm sometimes obtuse.

Without using any url links (which I can't url-ways access),
can you briefly explain AICF, MCF, and QMT fusion mechanisms?

[xilman]

Originally Posted by davar55

Perhaps I'm sometimes obtuse.

Without using any url links (which I can't url-ways access),
can you briefly explain AICF, MCF, and QMT fusion mechanisms?

AICF: a collapsing bubble generates high pressures and temperatures. It is claimed that under certain circumstances the conditions are conducive to D-D fusion reactions occurring.

MCF: a muon behaves exactly like an electron but is a little over 200 times heavier and has a short lifetime. It can replace an electron in a DD or DT molecule; by virtue of its increased mass the internuclear distance is much reduced, so much so that the nuclei stand a good chance of fusing. The fusion energy disrupts the molecule, thereby releasing the muon which can then be captured by another molecule and so catalysing another fusion reaction.

QTM: according to quantum mechanics a finite potential barrier is not infinitely hard. There is always a chance that a particle can "go through the hill separating one valley from another" even if it doesn't have the energy to surmount the barrier. The shallow valley on one side is caused by the eletrostatic attraction between the nuclei individually and the molecular electrons. The barrier resisting fusion of two nuclei is their electrostatic repulsion. The valley on the other side results from the strong force attraction between the nucleons. Even under room temperature and pressure, a DT molecule could spontaneous fuse through the tunnelling mechanism but the process is very very very unlikely to occur. In the conditions within Jupiter, where the temperature is a few tens of kiloKelvin and the deuterium is a rather high density liquid metal, the process is still so unlikely that fusion reaction only occur a few times a second in the entire planet.

Paul

[davar55]

Originally Posted by xilman

AICF: a collapsing bubble generates high pressures and temperatures. It is claimed that under certain circumstances the conditions are conducive to D-D fusion reactions occurring.

MCF: a muon behaves exactly like an electron but is a little over 200 times heavier and has a short lifetime. It can replace an electron in a DD or DT molecule; by virtue of its increased mass the internuclear distance is much reduced, so much so that the nuclei stand a good chance of fusing. The fusion energy disrupts the molecule, thereby releasing the muon which can then be captured by another molecule and so catalysing another fusion reaction.

QTM: according to quantum mechanics a finite potential barrier is not infinitely hard. There is always a chance that a particle can "go through the hill separating one valley from another" even if it doesn't have the energy to surmount the barrier. The shallow valley on one side is caused by the eletrostatic attraction between the nuclei individually and the molecular electrons. The barrier resisting fusion of two nuclei is their electrostatic repulsion. The valley on the other side results from the strong force attraction between the nucleons. Even under room temperature and pressure, a DT molecule could spontaneous fuse through the tunnelling mechanism but the process is very very very unlikely to occur. In the conditions within Jupiter, where the temperature is a few tens of kiloKelvin and the deuterium is a rather high density liquid metal, the process is still so unlikely that fusion reaction only occur a few times a second in the entire planet.

A few more questions:

In the AICF mechanism, what KIND of bubble? Do you mean like soap
bubbles, or atomic/sub-atomic bubbles, or both?

In the MCF mechanism, (if electron=e, muon=m, tauon=t):

How are the initial catalysis agents (m and/or t) generated?
What are the life-spans of e, m, and t?
What are the relative masses m_m/m_e and m_t/m_e ?

In the QMT mechanism, is DD (versus DT or TT or DE or TE or EE) a
necessary part of the reaction-mechanism description ?

I'll let those be a beginning, but do realize that I didn't put all I knew
into that cosmology first draft, and now I'm learning even more.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by davar55

A few more questions:

In the AICF mechanism, what KIND of bubble? Do you mean like soap
bubbles, or atomic/sub-atomic bubbles, or both?

In the MCF mechanism, (if electron=e, muon=m, tauon=t):

How are the initial catalysis agents (m and/or t) generated?
What are the life-spans of e, m, and t?
What are the relative masses m_m/m_e and m_t/m_e ?

In the QMT mechanism, is DD (versus DT or TT or DE or TE or EE) a
necessary part of the reaction-mechanism description ?

I'll let those be a beginning, but do realize that I didn't put all I knew
into that cosmology first draft, and now I'm learning even more.

One more answer: do your own work for a change instead of expecting others to spoon-feed you.

Paul

[xilman]

Originally Posted by davar55

A few more questions:

In the AICF mechanism, what KIND of bubble? Do you mean like soap
bubbles, or atomic/sub-atomic bubbles, or both?

In the MCF mechanism, (if electron=e, muon=m, tauon=t):

How are the initial catalysis agents (m and/or t) generated?
What are the life-spans of e, m, and t?
What are the relative masses m_m/m_e and m_t/m_e ?

In the QMT mechanism, is DD (versus DT or TT or DE or TE or EE) a
necessary part of the reaction-mechanism description ?

I'll let those be a beginning, but do realize that I didn't put all I knew
into that cosmology first draft, and now I'm learning even more.

Originally Posted by davar55

Once again, you assume I am asking for your assistance.

Can't anyone else answer these questions?

I apologise. I thought your native language was English.

In response to my posting of answers to your earlier questions, you asked "In the AICF mechanism, what KIND of bubble? Do you mean like soap
bubbles, or atomic/sub-atomic bubbles, or both?". The use of the word "you" (emphasised in the quotes) led me to believe that you (and I do mean you davar55) led me to believe you were asking for my assistance. How silly of me.

Paul