3 ms·

I'm not a fusion expert, but I studied physics in undergrad, and this seems pretty much impossible. The first obvious question is "how are you overcoming the C

I'm not a fusion expert, but I studied physics in undergrad, and this seems pretty much impossible. The first obvious question is "how are you overcoming the Coulomb barrier?". Protons absorbing electrons won't just 'happen' - it's energetically unfavorable, requiring 780,000 eV of energy input. (Unbound neutrons are unstable for this reason.) Given that the energy of chemical reactions is usually around 1-3 eV, one has to wonder where the heck all this energy comes from. The second obvious question is "where does the excess energy/momentum go?". If (say) you hit a proton with an electron at 1 MeV, and 0.78 MeV is absorbed in conversion to a neutron, 0.21 MeV of energy and all the electron's momentum still has to go somewhere. Neutrinos weigh almost nothing, so all the momentum has to go into the neutron, which is now traveling at around 500 eV (not 1 eV). You'd likely also get gamma ray emissions. The third obvious question is "what's the reaction cross-section?". Weak force mediated reactions happen very rarely, which is why the neutron's decay time is so long.

RBerenguel 13y ago
I agree with the general sentiment wrt this article, but I can address your first objection: quantum tunneling. Just like in those old (and real, even though energetically deficient) muon-catalysed cold fusion devices
- apsec112 13y ago
  Quantum tunneling increases the rate of energetically favorable reactions, but it can't create energy from nowhere. Eg. in the muon catalysis case, the reaction (D + T -> He4 + H) produced a huge amount of energy as soon as nuclei could "tunnel through" the barrier. In this case (p + e -> n + v), no energy is produced even after the barrier is overcome; the energy used to overcome the Coulomb barrier goes into the mass of the neutron. Hence, that energy still must come from somewhere.
  - RBerenguel 13y ago
    Yes, I realised this a while after answering. A pity muons are so expensive to generate, since at method is theoretically and effectively beautiful. Hope is the last thing you lose, but it's pretty clear this particular case of "cold fusion" is (as the debunking article linked above) shenanigans.

RBerenguel 13y ago

I agree with the general sentiment wrt this article, but I can address your first objection: quantum tunneling. Just like in those old (and real, even though energetically deficient) muon-catalysed cold fusion devices

apsec112 13y ago
Quantum tunneling increases the rate of energetically favorable reactions, but it can't create energy from nowhere. Eg. in the muon catalysis case, the reaction (D + T -> He4 + H) produced a huge amount of energy as soon as nuclei could "tunnel through" the barrier. In this case (p + e -> n + v), no energy is produced even after the barrier is overcome; the energy used to overcome the Coulomb barrier goes into the mass of the neutron. Hence, that energy still must come from somewhere.
- RBerenguel 13y ago
  Yes, I realised this a while after answering. A pity muons are so expensive to generate, since at method is theoretically and effectively beautiful. Hope is the last thing you lose, but it's pretty clear this particular case of "cold fusion" is (as the debunking article linked above) shenanigans.