Rossi's Journal of Nuclear Physics published the paper ''Cold nuclear fusion'', by E.N. Tsyganov.

In August 23rd I posted a comment , and in the next day somebody with the fantasy name ''insight'' posted a reply to my comment.  We both posted some replies, and our comments are ahead.

Dear Dr. E.N. Tsyganov
In spite of atomic electrons may screen the repulsion effect of nuclear charge, it’s hard to believe that such phenomenon can be able to explain the Coulombic penetration, because:
1- When the proton is on the verge of entering the nucleus, it has a big Coulombic repulsion with the protons of that nucleus, and such repulsion increases with the square of the distance decrease.
2- The electrons that cause the screen effect are very far from the nucleus: about 10^-11m (Bohr’s radius).
So, it’s hard to believe that one proton very near to the nucleus (about 10^-15m) can be helped by the screen effect.

Besides, if a proton (with positive charge) is able to enter into a nucleus, then an electron (with negative) charge would have chance to do it easier.

There is not in Theoretical Physics a satisfactory explanation for the fact that electrons do not fall down into the nuclei.

It’s hard to believe that any cold fusion theory, based on the prevailing principles of current Theoretical Physics, can be able to explain cold fusion occurrence.

A satisfactory theory capable to explain cold fusion must be able to explain why the electrons do not fall down into the nuclei.
===================================================




===================================================

Dear Wladimir Guglinski,
I do not agree with you that “There is not in Theoretical Physics a satisfactory explanation for the fact that electrons do not fall down into the nuclei.”.
Maybe you believe that electrons and protons are like “balls”. No, they are not: they have to be considered “quantum states”, that is, probability distribution of matter, considered according position or speed, not both at the same time because there is also the “uncertainty principle”. Also consider the wave-particle dualism, the same puzzle Schrödinger had to address before writing his well-known equation.
So the reason why electrons do not fall down onto the nucleus is that a similar physical condition isn’t a solution for the Schrödinger equation, or its derivatives. You can imagine that, the more the electron gets close to the nucleus, the less it behaves and appears like a “ball”.
In the nucleus protons are subjected to further forces, still they do not collapse but stay together (someone says the nucleus is like a “sea of quarks” instead).
Note: I am not saying that the above mentioned principles cannot be corrected or changed. I am just answering your statement.
Regards
===================================================




===================================================
Wladimir Guglinski

insight wrote:
“So the reason why electrons do not fall down onto the nucleus is that a similar physical condition isn’t a solution for the Schrödinger equation, or its derivatives”

Dear Mr. insight,
only a force can avoid the electron do not fall down into the nuclei.
It must be the force capable to oppose the force of attraction between the nucleus and the electron.

An equation cannot produce a force.

Your suggestion remembers me the isospin proposed by Heisenberg. As two neutrons have not repulsion, but they have attraction by the strong force, then two neutrons would have to form a dineutron.
So that to explain why there is no dineutrons in nature, Heisenberg proposed the isospin postulate.

However, a postulate cannot prevent two neutrons to form a dineutron by the action of the strong force.
Only another force can do it.
Only a force can oppose to another force.
Only a REPULSION force can oppose to an ATTRACTION force, and to separate two neutrons, so that to avoid them to form a dineutron.

Several solutions in Modern Physics actually are not fundamental solutions. They are only bandages.

We cannot explain cold fusion occurrence with a theory developed by the use of bandages.

Dear Wladimir Guglinski,
I am not necessarily a fan of the nowadays accepted physics theories, but I can say you are wrong because particles are not like balls and forces we are talking about are not mechanical forces. They are called forces but at atomic level they just are terms of Hamiltonians, operators in the quantum vector space.
I can understand your wonder at the mysteries of matter. Believe me, it was the same the 20th century scientists felt when addressing the amazing physics phenomena occurring with atoms and nuclei, and Physics students still today feel marvel at them. It’s why Physics is so a beautiful subject.
At present time you have to accept that there are many amazing (and challenging) mysteries in nature and that the found explanations are often counterintuitive or unsatisfactory. So talk about interactions, not forces: those interactions are not like you imagine them, they act just as described by quantum mechanics.

Mr. insight wrote:
“Maybe you believe that electrons and protons are like “balls”. No, they are not: they have to be considered “quantum states”, that is, probability distribution of matter”.

Dear Mr. insight,
you are wrong.

Electrons are like a ball, yes.

Because electrons collide like billiard balls, as Compton experiments proved to us.
Only balls can collide like billiard balls.

“Quantum states”, or “probability distribution of matter”, cannot collide like billiard balls.

Compton experiments (which proved that electrons are like balls) are not a theory. They are experiments.

“Probability distribution of matter” is only a theory. It’s NOT an experimental result.

Probability distribution of matter has been proposed as a theory because the quantum theorists did not succeed to explain why an electron like a ball does not fall within the nucleus.

In another words, the quantum theorists rejected the experiments made by Compton, so that to save their theory, according to which the electron is not like a ball.

But the scientific method prescribes that any experiment must prevail over any theory. If the theory does not fit to an experimental result, the theory must be rejected. To keep the theory, by rejecting the experiment is not according to the scientific criterium.

However, instead of to realize that “probability distribution of matter” is an unsatisfactory concept, refuted by Compton experiment, the quantum theorists decided to do just what scientific method prescribes do not to do: they neglected the Compton experiment.

In short: as the Compton experiment shows that electrons are like a ball, a theory of the atom must consider the electrons in its electrosphere just as they are: like balls.
Since from the foundations of Quantum Mechanics is impossible to explain why electrons like a ball do not fall into the nucleus, there is need to change the foundations of QM. It’s not acceptable to change the shape of the electron detected experimentally (by proposing that electron is a probability distribution of matter, instead of to consider it like a ball) only because Quantum Mechanics cannot explain why they do fall into the nuclei (this behavior is a betrayal to the scientific method).

The false fundamental principles of Quantum Mechanics are responsible for the appearance of several unacceptable paradoxes in Modern Physics.
That’s why Bohr proposed some strange postulates. That was a desperate attempt he proposed with the aim to explain the paradoxes, so that to find an interpretation philosophically reasonable for the strange quantum theory.
One of the Bohr’s strange postulates is the Principle of Complementarity, according to which sometimes a quantum particle can behave as a wave, and sometimes it can behave as a corpuscle.

However a new experiment published in Science has showed that Bohr’s Complementarity Principle is wrong
http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3295&mode=nested&order=0&thold=0#13592
So, to consider that electron is a probability distribution of matter is a fallacy.

The physicists enjoy to cheat themselves.
Instead to realize that some principles of Quantum Mechanics are wrong, they cheat themselves looking for absurd solutions, so that to save the theory.

I thought the reality of cold fusion would change the behavior of the physicists, and they would finally realize that Physics needs new foundations.

Unfortunately, I see that physicists will continue to deceive themselves, because they will try to explain cold fusion with these current theories full of false principles.