Water in Space as an Analogy to Understand Hot and Cold Fusion (Mats Danielsson)

Hi all,

Axil Axil’s very exciting creative thinking about the LENR process and our discussions lately gave me this thought: We need a new analogy (model) to understand what we cannot experience. The standard model is not intuitive enough; it is much too static and based on complex concepts. We need something that anyone can take to heart intuitively.

I understand Axil Axil’s model (vision) as a stormy weather system and that analogy is much better than a static model but I have problem understanding that storm at a more detailed level.

I do not claim to have a better model, I just want to throw out this idea of a weather analogy at a smaller scale.
First, watch this video of how water behave in space where gravity forces are absent (close to zero):

Now, think of the behavior of a single proton as that bubble of water. What will happen when you smash high speed water drops into that bubble? It will be a splash. But soon the water will gather into different drops, smaller and larger, continue their trajectory paths – and in this scenario a hot fusion physicist has an instrument getting an eV value for the sum of mass and speed for each of the drops.

Gravity is absent (close to zero) at the scale this take place because the mass of the bubbles are so small.
Now, think of the behavior of a LENR reaction. We are not smashing but cooking instead. Cooking is adding energy, which in this case is vibrations like the guy in the video does to the bubble.

Depending on the frequencies and intensity (vibrations) given to the bubble the result will be different results, from nothing (it just goes back into its original form), to decay (many tiny bubbles leave at a higher speed), to transmutations (new larger bubbles form and leave with slow speed).

This analogy can be applied to more complex ‘particles’ as well. A cluster of subatomic particles as in a big uranium atom would also be a bubble-of-water-in-space but some force makes it decay, it loses tiny drops of water all the time. This bubble is probably swinging and swaging fiercely.

How to translate this analogy into quantum mechanics? Again this is just creative thinking, I have no mathematics or experiments to backup this idea with: The quantum – defined as “the minimum amount of energy required to form an electromagnetic field” – is in this model the tiniest water particle which is one molecule of water. Then, the quantum field must not have two, but three dimensions, and behaves as we see in the video.

Water molecules stick together because H and O have small opposite electrical charges. The force of this bond defines how ‘sticky’ the water is. The quanta would probably have (I guess) less stickiness than water molecules and therefore behave a little different. Playing the video at a slightly faster pace might get closer to truth.
This model is long from complete, even dumb and crazy, but water behavior has been studied before in history of science, see: http://einsteinsintuition.com/book-excerpts/chapter-2/2/

Mats G Danielsson aka Mats002

  • hempenearth

    Hi Mats,

    I have been trying to think of a way to explain LENR to the proverbial barmaid for quite a while so I’m not sure that talking about gravity, protons,molecules and charges will do the job unless the barmaid is a physics or chemistry student. I like your idea about cooking. When making risotto the other night I pictured the rice as nano particles of nickel, a splash of wine as lithium aluminium hydride (LAH) and water as the hydrogen.

    The meal tastes like crap if the water is not fully absorbed into the rice.
    The system will not work if the hydrogen is not fully loaded into the nickel lattice.

    If insufficient heat is applied, the rice will not be in a suitable condition to absorb the water or the wine.
    If insufficient heat is applied the nickel lattice will not vibrate suitably to absorb the hydrogen or the LAH.

    When the rice has completely absorbed the water and wine with suitable heating, it becomes soft, tender and tasty.
    When the nickel lattice is fully loaded with hydrogen and has suitable heating in the presence of LAH, it fuses hydrogen to create helium and excess heat.

    (I ignored the stock powder, olive oil, garlic and sausages)
    Any thoughts to improve the analogy would be appreciated.

    • Mats002

      Hi hempenearth,

      An absolute gorgeous analogy! I am on a diet but you make me want to quit.

      Analogies and models are useful for communication and mutual understanding. Your analogy
      would work perfect for my family and I think it should work for engineers as well. With some extension it might be the complete reciepe for a replication.

      Some day not far from now I hope teachers around the world will have the challange to explain LENR. Depending on what knowledge and interest their students have, they will need different analogies.

      The cooking idea is stolen (with pride) from the old timers Peter Gluck and Russ George blogs where they use that analogy for (i think) chemistry. Cheers to your proverbial barmaid 🙂

    • Omega Z

      It would worked better had that splash of wine made it where it was supposed to.
      You know that Right???
      🙂

    • Obvious

      A sprinkle of salt lowers the boiling point a bit, a bit of olive oil keeps the bubbles at bay (changes surface tension)…

  • Obvious

    Neat idea.
    IMO, LENR is an emergent collective effect. It cannot be modelled in low number body calculations, because a large number of atoms is a requirement for the behaviour to occur. It will therefore have to be mathematically described based on empirical data and statistics. A useful formula can be determined, but the effect cannot be predicted from the actions of atoms based on a reduction to a smaller number of parts, and built up to a collective state phenomemeum. This is why the atom soup calculations will fail consistently to calculate a meaningful result. This is why CERN will never find the answer by smashing particles and deducing their meaning. Smashing things apart is the opposite of what is happening.

    • Mats002

      I am in computer science but I have always followed physics and the latest discoverys. One of the differences in this water-model and reality (I think) is that the water-model would produce random eV values. In reality it seams to be clear steps of eV values found. What are your thoughts about that?

      • Obvious

        I’m not quite sure I follow… Do you mean that the water droplets should be quantized, due to their constituent molecules, but adding in the contribution of vector kinetic energies of the droplets results in a bremsstrahlung of calculated eV energies?

        • Mats002

          Yes. How far from a realistic model would you say this is. I am not afraid of embarresment, I see this as an opportunity to learn something.

          • Obvious

            The problem lies in the detail of measurement. At the finest detail, even the vector energies might converge to quantum units of energy. However, the detector of this energy may influence this measurement, by virtue of excitation by quantum effects ultilized in order to allow the detections…
            Have a look at the Quantum Hall Effect, and the Fractional Quantum Hall effect (Google). These are truly breathtaking results that cannot be predicted ab initio from properties of individual particles.

            • Mats002

              Ok, now I understand better your initial argument why this model cannot simulate collective behavior. First one has to define some collections and give them a common behavior, is phonons an exemple of such a collection? How many types of collections are ‘in play’ here?

              • Obvious

                Hmm. I made a reply. Lets see if it shows up…

                • Mats002

                  Sorry you lost the first answer. I have nothing against the standard model, it describes a table of eV values measured with a certain procedure. Giving names to those eV values do not add data about their behavior or properties. The final product is a table of eV values and some of the values are grouped because they share some behavior.
                  It is just one reduced view, many different views are needed to understand complex systems.

                • Mats002

                  And I agree 100% that without sufficient data, speculations will dominate the subject, that I experience daily in the computer systems business.

                • Obvious

                  What is interesting is that large numbers of things organize themselves at certain scales or conditions. Consider silicon. Liquid silicon is a roiling mass of atoms, essentially without structure. Cool them just right, and almost from nowhere, they align themselves so that thousands of atoms line up, perfectly, without a flaw, to form a crystal. To make a semiconductor, you must fight the self organization in order to insert flaws intentionally. Do this just a little wrong, and the silicon will reject the dopants, and line themselves back up. The silicon atoms “want” to be lined up.

                • Mats002

                  I understand that self organisation as a function of a) the geometry of the dipols of the atom, for example H – O – H and b) the force of the dipol between those atoms

                  Again – this is just a view at a certain level of abstraction, and I might got it wrong or incomplete.

                • Obvious

                  Yes, but far more complex examples exist also. I chose a simple one for clarity. Many of these self-organizational systems exist, and probably many of them are yet to be discovered. Most cannot be deduced from their constituent parts. Excess energy is what keeps the silicon from lining up into a crystal, but who knows what other conditions can be modified to affect other systems. To form a crystal of silicon of the raw size used to make computer chips (large arrays of them on a single crystal), billions of billions of silicon atoms are lined up. A computer the size of the universe could not pre-calculate the required motions and actions of the constituent atoms over time required to shed the excess energy and align to form a crystal 10 cm across, and be able to separate the billions upon billions of alternate arrangements from the one that actually occurs with surprising regularity.

                • Mats002

                  Very magic. I do not believe a computer can simulate reality, and definitely not if that computer is part of the system to be simulated.

                  My interest here is simulation for the purpose of education and understanding, and my personal interest of learning.

                  Thank you Obvious, a pleasure to learn from you.

  • georgehants

    The unknown Quantum attributes of Water may run very deep.
    ———
    ScienceInsider
    Breaking news and analysis from the world of science policy
    UNESCO to host meeting on controversial ‘memory of water’ research
    http://news.sciencemag.org/people-events/2014/09/unesco-host-meeting-controversial-memory-water-research

    • Mats002

      Yes I admit this is a cold, dead and logic analogy and not the warm, living and magic place nature really are.
      Atoms as mini solar systems still lingers in my mind since the years in school and I think most people have that picture of hard particles smashing each other around.

      I wonder if this analogy can extend to the old school model a better understanding how atoms behave.