247) Magnetic forces and coulomb barrier penetration

Ludwik Kowalski (8/10/05)
Department of Mathematical Sciences
Montclair State University, Upper Montclair, NJ, 07043

It is well known that electrically charged objects acquire magnetic poles (N and S) when they rotate. The N and S poles, situated on the axis of rotation, become stronger when the angular momentum increases. Note that I am saying “rotating” rather than “spinning” because it is not a quantum mechanical consideration. Yes, I know that laws of classical physics do not always apply at the subatomic level. The concept of magnetic poles is used because I believe in its pedagogical usefulness. Those who played with bar magnets, or with compass needles, knows that “unlike poles attract each other while like poles repel each other.” That is all I need to show how rapid rotation can help charged particles to penetrate coulomb barriers.

Deuterons are positively charged. Suppose that two deuterons are rotating. Also suppose that the angular momenta are anti-parallel. By this I mean that the axes of rotation are parallel but one direction is clockwise while another is counterclockwise, when seen from the same side. In other words, if the N pole of one deuteron is up then the N pole of the other is down, and vice versa. Under such condition the particles would not only repel each other (due to positive electric charges); they would also attract each other (like two anti-parallel bar magnets). The net force between them would be reduced in comparison with what it would be without rotation. By increasing the angular momentum one would reduce the net repulsive force. The probability of fusion (at a low energy of relative motion) is thus expected to increase with angular momenta.

How large should the rotational angular momenta be to significantly increase the probability of fusion? And what kind of NAE (nuclear active environment) would produces rotating nuclei? I asked these two questions on the CMNS list. I would be happy to post the replies (anonymously), if they materialize. Please revisit this unit in a couple of days.

Appended on 8/11/05:
1) Here is one comment, sent to me in private: “In a particle physics this is called ‘interaction between polarized deuterons’. I do not remember exact numbers. But I do remember that the cross section of the DD reaction does not change a lot (factor 2 maximum for some energy range) for flip and non flip states of polarized deuterons in a wide energy range of interacting deuterons.” I would prefer this to be posted on the list, to see what others have to say. But private messages are welcome. I suppose that the above comment refers to free deuterons. Deuterons studied by cold fusion researches are usually not free; they are trapped in solids. Some CF researchers say that one should not extrapolate from free deuterons to deuterons in solids.

2) What I posted was inspired by a message on the CMNS list. This message is worth showing here, I think. “I agree, reproducibility is important, but it is not the main problem. The main problem is to understand the environment and mechanism that results in nuclear reactions. Without this knowledge, replication remains difficult. In addition, when replication is achieved, it is rejected because success looks like random chance rather than intention. Also, as long as replication involves measuring energy using a calorimeter, the result will be rejected simply because orthodox physics does not trust [low wattage] calorimeters. In fact, I don't trust most calorimeters. Painful experience has shown me that too many ways exist to screw up. Besides, a standard calorimeter does not exist, like a standard radiation detector. As a result, an ordinary physicist has to master each new calorimeter in order to trust the data. I suggest the only calorimeter type that is sufficiently simple for physicists to understand is the Seebeck-type, which is seldom used.

So, what is the solution? First of all, I think everyone needs to acknowledge that CANR does not occur in ordinary materials under ordinary conditions. Replication is difficult because this special material is not normally present and needs to be made before the effect can be produced. Second, any theory that is based on ordinary material, like PdD, or on special and unproven mechanisms, like ZPE extraction, must be viewed with skepticism. In fact, skeptics reject the claims simply because such theories are used to explain the observations.

If we want orthodox physics to take the field seriously and achieve reproducibility, we need to address the real world, not the limited and imaginary world proposed by many in the field. CANR has to be recognized as a normal process that is part of normal science, but one that occurs only because a special atomic lattice is available. The challenge is to understand what makes this lattice unique and what mechanisms are only initiated within this nuclear-active-environment. In addition, all of the novel observations need to be explain, not just a few that are easy for a particular model to address. After all, how many independent mechanisms and environments do you think are operating? OK, I've thrown down the challenge - what do you all think of this approach?”

Let me mention that a low wattage calorimeter was used , by Pierre Curie in 1903, to discover the unexplained heat produced in his radium source. Likewise, the theoretical discovery of neutrinos (by Pauli) was an attempt to make sense out of calorimetric data on heat from a beta radioactive source. I was under the impression that all scientists have great respect for calorimetry. But calorimetry at low wattage is far from being trivial; the person who wrote the above is one of the top experts in that field.