[Vo]:66 remarkable dazzling detailed slides apply new Widom-Larsen paradigm for low energy nuclear reactions via weak force re anomalies in many fields, including geology, meteors, comets, impacts:
66 remarkable dazzling detailed slides apply new Widom-Larsen paradigm for low energy nuclear reactions via weak force re anomalies in many fields, including geology, meteors, comets, impacts: Rich Murray 2012.05.22 http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2012/05/21/fascinating-reading-larsens-latest-on-lenrs-and-gold/ http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llc-lenr-transmutation-networks-can-produce-goldmay-19-2012 # What's interesting for me is that in 1995 and 1996, before I became a pragmatic skeptic about cold fusion research, I spent a lot of time at many science libraries, finding and zeroxing research from 1900 to 1940 about nuclear transmutations in electric sparks, electrically exploded wires and a variety of chemical systems -- I had a hunch that early research probably would have found possible anomalies without having the power to clearly prove them -- but I didn't have the technical skills to reach any strong conclusions, so last year gave several boxes of the papers to Michael H. Barron
Re: [Vo]:Spark plugs... thoughts and how-to?
I see you point about oscillations of the KV, although I fail to see the reason why that is neccessarily a bad thing, as far as the reaction goes. In light of Axil's recent speculations about a Carbon Nanotubes accumulating extreme charges that would break down the coulomb barrier, I have come up with a new working hypothesis on how to achieve this. I now believe that the creation of Carbon Nanotubes in abundance is critical. That is where the sparks come to play. I plan to expose Carbon Nanopowders to intense sparks to create Carbon nano tubes and other carbon allotropes. (This would be a variation of the KRA¨ TSCHMER-HUFFMAN generator used to create carbon nanotubes.) In addition, when the sparks ionize the H2 to H+ ions, hopefully the freed electrons would accumulate on the carbon nanotubes. You then need to promote collisions and contact between these H+ ions with the carbon allotropes that have hopefully accumulated the excess electrons. To me, if there are oscillations in the KV, that would cause the H+ ions, as well as other Carbon nano tubes and other Rydberg Matter to oscillate back and forth within the reaction chamber. This should promote more contact and collisions between these reactants. The more this Dust oscillates, the more likely they are to contact and initiate fusion. You want your H+ ions to be floating in the chamber, not driven to the walls (or in your case, the Ground Electrode) of the reactor. Remember, in a working reactor that is extremely hot, your Nickel nanopowder will not be sticking on the walls, but rather floating all around carried around by the turbulence. Collisions and contact are where the action is and I think your reactor design should promote this. All the better to have oscillations. I'm beginning to think that I should remove that heavy diode sink in my circuit to promote more oscillations. I humbly suggest that you might be working on the solution to the wrong problem. Jojo - Original Message - From: Guenter Wildgruber To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 5:38 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Spark plugs... thoughts and how-to? -- Von: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com An: Vortex Vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 21:32 Dienstag, 22.Mai 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Spark plugs... thoughts and how-to? Interesting!!! Glad jojo no problem. Misunderstandings are quite normal. Anyway. Ignition coils tend to heavily oscillate on the secondary side, which is quite undesirable in the LENR case, because it tends to neutralize the direction of the ion movements. Which is irrelevant in a combustion-motor, but not with LENR. The function of my hypothetical auxiliary mesh-grid can be more easily seen if not used. See my attached sketch. Here you can see that H+ ions tend to oscillate around their point of generation and finally neutralize with high probability. The simple trick seems to be to rectify the potential , such that the H+ ions travel towards the reactant. This can be accompished a) by -well- rectification b) by applying an auxiliary potential via the mesh (a) rectifiication- would do the job , but only for a very short time. By rectification one gains a lot. The 20-10-5..kV pulses then all work in the right direction. (b) -aux mesh potential- on the other hand, only works if the time-interval between sparks is sufficiently large (1:10..1000) compared to the dominant potential (20kV) of the major pulse, which is, say, a couple of usec. So the mesh in the strict sense is not necessary, but only for fine-control or low frequency sparks (say 100msec interval). We are not there yet. best regards Guenther Attached You find a crude graphic representation of said situation.
[Vo]:Robert Moog- Synthesizer Birthday 78- Google -Player On-line
Greetings Vortex-L, Too Col, http://www.google.com has a Moog that you can play on their website. I know that it works for PCs. Respectfully, Ron Kita, Chiralex
Re: [Vo]:Robert Moog- Synthesizer Birthday 78- Google -Player On-line
And Macs. On May 23, 2012, at 6:39 AM, Ron Kita wrote: Greetings Vortex-L, Too Col, http://www.google.com has a Moog that you can play on their website. I know that it works for PCs. Respectfully, Ron Kita, Chiralex
RE: [Vo]:Nickel-hydrogen nuclear ash
Sorry, but I find none of these reports believable – especially in light of the fact that a major High-Tech company, Thermacore, ran Ni + K2CO3 cells continuously for over on year – with over a hundred thousand watt-hours of net thermal gain, and with top notch radiation detection equipment - and yet they never reported 3H. Did they hold back that information? I suspect BLP has even more run time with Ni + K2CO3 … are they hiding the results? As for Srinivasan, Rothwell reported that he has directly contradicted, in verbal discussions, some of his own prior paper’s conclusions. I do not know anything about Notoya. But neither of them has the credibility of the Thermacore team, and they were operating under DARPA contracts. The cost of tritium - which the USA is willing to pay to keep its weapons functional - is in the neighborhood of $100,000 gram, and our yearly expenditure is in between $1-2 billions (based on the Savannah River reports and the UCLA study). A few countries who want to become players in the Arms race, will pay much more. Do you give up on a simple process for making it - with this kind of economic incentive? True, maybe you do go underground with it, but there is no evidence of that either, at least not that I am aware of. OTOH – it does explain why Thermacore could have been persuaded to “get outta town” with the technology - by their largest customer. And also why India might want to encourage others to disavow the possibility. Come to think of it, if I were a conspiracy nut, I would actually take another closer look at that scenario ... Jones From: Eric Walker Eric - perhaps the original post should have been phrased as “zero believable evidence”… instead of zero evidence. The paper does constitute putative “evidence” after all – actually rather convincing if it could be taken at face value. You forced me. :) Ni + K2CO3 + H2O: tritium 26 * background. Notoya et al., Tritium generation and large excess heat evolution by electrolysis in light and heavy water-potassium carbonate solutions with nickel electrodes, Fusion Technology, 26,179, 1994; Alkali-hydrogen cold fusion accompanied by tritium production on nickel, Trans. Fusion Technology, 26, 205, 1994. Ni + K2CO3 + H2O: tritium 10-100 * background. Notoya, Alkali-hydrogen cold fusion accompanied by tritium production on nickel, in the proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion, 1993. Ni + K2CO3 + D2O, H2O: tritium 339 * background. Srinivasan et al., Tritium and excess heat generation during electrolysis of aqueous solutions of alkali salts with nickel cathode, in the proceedings of the Third International Conference on Cold Fusion, 1992. Ni + Li2CO3 + H2O: tritium 145 * background. Srinivasan et al., op cit. Please confirm either that these references do not meet your evidentiary standards or that the Ni-H2O electrolytic system is different in some basic way from the Ni-H2 system when considering the question of radiation. Eric
RE: [Vo]:Robert Moog- Synthesizer Birthday 78- Google -Player On-line
The Google Doodle's interactive capabilities are based on HTML5. On my PC, the Synth is only a pretty picture, with no interactive capabilities. Today's Doodle is meant to be a nice demonstration of the capabilities of HTML5, and a nice marketing tool for directing Googlers to upgrade to a modern browser. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_browser_comparison#HTML5_support): Internet Explorer is way behind in HTML5 support, with even IE-9 passing a woeful 138 of 500 HTML5 test points. Safari, Chrome, Maxthon, Midori, FireFox, Opera, Qupzilla, and Web are all substantially ahead, scoring at least 300. I just checked my own browser (Internet Explorer 8) via the Wiki-link (http://html5test.com/), and scored a whopping 42/500. No wonder it doesn't work. Browser HTML5 Test Points[41] Apple Safari 5.1 317/500(+8) Google Chrome 19.0 402/500(+13) Internet Explorer 9 138/500(+5) Maxthon 3.3.7 437/500(+15) Midori 0.4.5 340/500(+15)[citation needed] Mozilla Firefox 11.0 345/500(+9) Opera 11.60 338/500(+9) QupZilla 1.2.0 341/500(+14)[citation needed] Web 3.4.1 345/500(+15)[citation needed] From: ldebiv...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Robert Moog- Synthesizer Birthday 78- Google -Player On-line Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 08:40:10 -0400 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com And Macs. On May 23, 2012, at 6:39 AM, Ron Kita wrote: Greetings Vortex-L, Too Col, http://www.google.com has a Moog that you can play on their website. I know that it works for PCs. Respectfully, Ron Kita, Chiralex
[Vo]:Fralick 2011 slides uploaded
See: Fralick, G.C., et al., *LENR at GRC (PowerPoint slides)*. 2011, NASA Glenn Research Center: Cleveland, OH. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FralickGClenratgrcp.pdf Lots of good photos and graphs. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Nickel-hydrogen nuclear ash
My bad, Eric. And I need to set the record straight on this important detail - since Randell Mills did find tritium - over twenty years ago - and before he decided to distance himself from LENR ! Once again, America's Newton shoots himself in the foot ! Too bad. Ed Storms, whose memory is much better than mine, reminds me of this important detail - and it is from a rather famous article in Fusion Technology : Mills Kneizys, Excess heat production by the electrolysis of an aqueous potassium carbonate electrolyte and the implications for cold fusion Fusion Technology 20, 65 (1991) Randy admits in print that they detected a significant amount of tritium but not enough to explain the heat. The estimated amount is not clear. Tritium measurement is easy, and it is so sensitive that very few atoms are required to reveal much more than background, which then looks like a large amount, and consequently it is hard to arrive at an accurate energy balance. But the fact that this admission comes from Mills himself, is important in many ways. And the lack of mention of nuclear reactions thereafter (after 1991) is itself damning in retrospect as it will be interpreted as intent to deceive. Lawyers should take note (this is for the other Randy). This appearance of tritium from a light water reaction also bolsters Ed's case for a (preliminary) round of deuterium forming reactions, which would be needed to supply the required level of deuterium, so that statistically we do not depend on the natural paucity ... but it also leaves the Thermacore story (apparent null result) unexplainable, and even more mysterious. In the end, there is little doubt than QM tunneling provides a mechanism for some amount of tritium to show up with light water alone. Since 3H is so easy to measure with certainty, due to its short half-life and known beta decay spectrum - even a few atoms are not be easily hidden. But it gets more complicated from there on. The next question is how much energy is really carried away by the neutrino, when hydrogen fuses into deuterium, or is there another route ? Can the net thermal gain be explained without redundant ground states or is that too part of the setup for allowing lots of hydrogen to fuse into deuterium? It just gets curiouser and curiouser... Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Fralick 2011 slides uploaded
I also have this one, uploaded 2005: Fralick, G.C., A.J. Decker, and J.W. Blue, *Results Of An Attempt To Measure Increased Rates Of The Reaction 2D + 2D -- 3He + n In A Nonelectrochemical Cold Fusion Experiment*. 1989, NASA: Cleveland, OH. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FralickGCresultsofa.pdf - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Fralick 2011 slides uploaded
The people at BARC also used a commercial electrolyzer. A different make: Milton-Roy. See: *Cold Fusion Experiments Using a Commercial Pd-Ni Electrolyser* http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KrishnanMScoldfusion.pdf BARC collection: http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=463 - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Nickel-hydrogen nuclear ash
One final point on all of this relates to another elusive genius - JS Brown - and his Superconducting Protons in Metals arXiv:cond-mat/0504019v1 The hitherto neglected phonon-exchange interaction between interstitial protons in metal lattices is found to be large. It is shown that this effect may give rise to a phase of protonic superconductivity, characterized by the formation of Cooper-like pairs of protons, in certain metals at high stoichiometric loading. OK - The question arises - if there can be what is effectively paired protons in a lattice, ostensibly acting as a unit - then what about the possibility of going direct to tritium? After all, this is thousands of times more likely than the proton pair tunneling into a nickel nucleus (in terms of lower Coulomb repulsion). This direct route would seem to have the great advantage of bypassing spin problems, and of not requiring neutrinos to do it - depending on the details. As to the three body problem - maybe it is not really a problem since two protons are already bound. If we wanted to get really twisted here ... we could propose not only Brown's paired-protons, operating a unit - but also to have them mate with a Mills' hydrino hydride, at deep redundancy so you go all the way from protons to tritium in a single step with charge and spin balanced. Stanger things have happened. But not much stranger :-) _ The next question is how much energy is really carried away by the neutrino, when hydrogen fuses into deuterium, or is there another route ? Can the net thermal gain be explained without redundant ground states or is that too part of the setup for allowing lots of hydrogen to fuse into deuterium? It just gets curiouser and curiouser... Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Fralick 2011 slides uploaded
Thanks, Slide #14, entitled Hypotheses, lists the major theories - - Electron Screening (Parmenter Lamb) - Band States (Chubb Chubb) - Shrunken Hydrogen (Maly, Vavra Mills) - Ultra Low Momentum Neutrons (Widom Larsen) - Dislocation Loops (Hora Miley) - Bose-Einstein Condensates (Kim) - and ends with the conjecture: Do any of these encompass all reported observations? More than one effect may be occurring Unfortunately, some LENR-believers are just as partisan, and closed-minded as the lynch mob who persecuted Fleischmann and Pons. Jed Rothwell wrote: See: Fralick, G.C., et al., *LENR at GRC (PowerPoint slides)*. 2011, NASA Glenn Research Center: Cleveland, OH. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FralickGClenratgrcp.pdf Lots of good photos and graphs. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Nickel-hydrogen nuclear ash
I think the difference in tritium production is electrical discharge. Degenerate electrons might open some path or channel to the production of tritium. Remember that there is always some Deuterium in water. Electrolysis might be the path to produce tritium. Thermacore – no Electrolysis – no tritium is found. Mills – Electrolysis – tritium is found. On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Sorry, but I find none of these reports believable – especially in light of the fact that a major High-Tech company, Thermacore, ran Ni + K2CO3 cells continuously for over on year – with over a hundred thousand watt-hours of net thermal gain, and with top notch radiation detection equipment - and yet they never reported 3H. ** ** Did they hold back that information? I suspect BLP has even more run time with Ni + K2CO3 … are they hiding the results? ** ** As for Srinivasan, Rothwell reported that he has directly contradicted, in verbal discussions, some of his own prior paper’s conclusions. I do not know anything about Notoya. But neither of them has the credibility of the Thermacore team, and they were operating under DARPA contracts. ** ** The cost of tritium - which the USA is willing to pay to keep its weapons functional - is in the neighborhood of $100,000 gram, and our yearly expenditure is in between $1-2 billions (based on the Savannah River reports and the UCLA study). ** ** A few countries who want to become players in the Arms race, will pay much more. Do you give up on a simple process for making it - with this kind of economic incentive? ** ** True, maybe you do go underground with it, but there is no evidence of that either, at least not that I am aware of. ** ** OTOH – it does explain why Thermacore could have been persuaded to “get outta town” with the technology - by their largest customer. And also why India might want to encourage others to disavow the possibility. ** ** Come to think of it, if I were a conspiracy nut, I would actually take another closer look at that scenario ... ** ** Jones ** ** *From:* Eric Walker ** ** Eric - perhaps the original post should have been phrased as “zero believable evidence”… instead of zero evidence. The paper does constitute putative “evidence” after all – actually rather convincing if it could be taken at face value. ** ** You forced me. :) ** ** Ni + K2CO3 + H2O: tritium 26 * background. Notoya et al., Tritium generation and large excess heat evolution by electrolysis in light and heavy water-potassium carbonate solutions with nickel electrodes, Fusion Technology, 26,179, 1994; Alkali-hydrogen cold fusion accompanied by tritium production on nickel, Trans. Fusion Technology, 26, 205, 1994.*** * ** ** Ni + K2CO3 + H2O: tritium 10-100 * background. Notoya, Alkali-hydrogen cold fusion accompanied by tritium production on nickel, in the proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion, 1993.** ** ** ** Ni + K2CO3 + D2O, H2O: tritium 339 * background. Srinivasan et al., Tritium and excess heat generation during electrolysis of aqueous solutions of alkali salts with nickel cathode, in the proceedings of the Third International Conference on Cold Fusion, 1992. ** ** Ni + Li2CO3 + H2O: tritium 145 * background. Srinivasan et al., op cit.** ** ** ** Please confirm either that these references do not meet your evidentiary standards or that the Ni-H2O electrolytic system is different in some basic way from the Ni-H2 system when considering the question of radiation. ** ** Eric ** **
Re: [Vo]:Nickel-hydrogen nuclear ash
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: As for Srinivasan, Rothwell reported that he has directly contradicted, in verbal discussions, some of his own prior paper’s conclusions. That may be overstating it. I sent a memo to Srinivasan, copied to Beene. I describing what I recall about Srinivasan's lecture: I think your attitude [Srinivasan's attitude] was that the results could not be reproduced [at SRI], so that made them puzzling, or unsatisfactory, or -- you might say -- kind of useless. There are many irreproducible results in cold fusion. It is hard to judge the significance or validity of such results. I would say they are open questions. I do not recall that he disavowed or retracted the ICCF-3 results. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Press release Blacklightpower : Weinberg
At 02:19 PM 5/22/2012, Alan J Fletcher wrote: At 07:40 AM 5/22/2012, Daniel Rocha wrote: And it is extremely ambitious to talk about 1KJ. 6 orders of magnitude of improvement within a few months. The Weinberg report : http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/WeinbergReport.pdf indicates that it's straight-forward electro-chemical engineering. I see that Rowan U has had quite a long association with BLP. eg Their Blacklight Rocket Engine http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/studies/final_report/752Marchese.pdf Weinberg says it's not unheard of to get a 10^5 increase from first hit to production .. but BLP has been at it quite a while. Or is the main change that they're no longer aiming at heat, but direct electricity, and THAT is unoptimized? Also, Weinberg's calculation of reactions/area assume it's hydrinos -- so the reaction rate from some other mechanism could be quite different. So ... since these are mostly consultant reports (except the anonymous Fortune 500 company) .. how independent are they?
Re: [Vo]:Press release Blacklightpower : Rowan U
At 01:20 PM 5/23/2012, Alan J Fletcher wrote: I see that Rowan U has had quite a long association with BLP. eg Their Blacklight Rocket Engine http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/studies/final_report/752Marchese.pdf It's Ramanujachary who's from Rowan. http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/RamanujacharyCV.pdf http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/RamanujacharyReport.pdf
Re: [Vo]:Press release Blacklightpower : Copeland / Fortune 500
Copeland : http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/CopelandReport.pdf spills the beans (Manual cut and paste ...) Some of those were validation cells under test by Sanmina-SCI scientists, another validation team. http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2012/snapshots/10805.html Rank: 376 http://www.sanmina-sci.com/ (They've had previous partnerships in the solar area.)
Re: [Vo]:Press release Blacklightpower : Sanmina-SCI
At 01:46 PM 5/23/2012, Alan J Fletcher wrote: Copeland : http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/CopelandReport.pdf spills the beans Some of those were validation cells under test by Sanmina-SCI scientists, another validation team. http://www.sanmina-sci.com/ (They've had previous partnerships in the solar area.) http://www.sanmina-sci.com/sections/industries/clean-technology/index.php Sanmina-SCI is committed to serving companies leading the energy revolution in the solar, wind, fuel cell, battery systems and clean tech industries. Looks as if they should be able to figure out if it's fake pretty quickly.
[Vo]:Featured speakers at ICCF17
See: http://iccf17.org/sub04_03.php I gotta say it . . . What a collection of old farts! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Press release Blacklightpower : Sanmina-SCI
At 02:03 PM 5/23/2012, Alan J Fletcher wrote: http://www.sanmina-sci.com/sections/industries/clean-technology/index.php Sanmina-SCI is committed to serving companies leading the energy revolution in the solar, wind, fuel cell, battery systems and clean tech industries. http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/F500Study.pdf Lists VP of Engineering Defense and Aerospace Sanmina has a Defense and Aerospace Systems (DAS) Division http://www.sanmina-sci.com/sections/industries/defense-aerospace/
Re: [Vo]:New WLT Transmutation : Tungsten (W) to Gold
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Wed, 23 May 2012 01:03:59 -0400: Hi, [snip] No neutrons please. The fusion of one or two protons will transmute tungsten(N) into elements in the platinum group(n+1) or (N+2). ...well almost. ;) There is a slight D contamination in H, so reactions like: M^A(D,p)M^A+1 are possible. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Nickel-hydrogen nuclear ash
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: If we wanted to get really twisted here ... we could propose not only Brown's paired-protons, operating a unit - but also to have them mate with a Mills' hydrino hydride, at deep redundancy so you go all the way from protons to tritium in a single step with charge and spin balanced. Stanger things have happened. But not much stranger :-) I feel that the miracles are multiplying. :) Not that I have the slightest problem with miracles. The scientists working from 1890 to 1940 were conjuring up miracles left and right, and some of them turned out to be true ones. Eric
Re: [Vo]: Proton Fusion Ni58 to Cu59 Endothermic?
*It isn't clear to me why a cooper pair of protons would be of nuclear dimensions, nor why they would be able to surmount the Coulomb barrier.* Essentially, there exists no Coulomb barrier at the point of charge concentration if that concentration is dense enough. These days, I am interested in concentration of electron charge in a small volume. This is how the Chin reaction works. Rossi’s reaction is inferior in my opinion as hard to control. In the Chin reaction, this negative electric charge concentration on a nano tube will induce a large number of positive charge holes of equal by opposite charge. Now See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric-field_screening *Electric-field screening* The main point here is that as long as there are many positive ions between two positive charges; say a proton and a nucleus, their interaction is * screened* strongly, simply because these many positive charge carriers can terminate electric field lines. So a free ion attracts ions of opposite sign, making a little `counter ion cloud' which neutralizes its charge, and therefore by Gauss's law, basically eliminates the electric field. The size of this `cloud' is roughly the screening length yD, the parameter that determines when the exponential `cuts off' the Coulomb interaction in U(r). A useful formula for yD is due to Debye, which comes from a certain relatively-easy-to-solve limiting case of interaction of charges with free ions present where the sum over j is over *all* the ions, and where j counts the number of ions. As you can see, as you add more and more positve charges, because the induced charges enter squared, the screening length goes down, down, down. See the function for the Debye-Hückel length where Zj = Qj/C is the integer charge numberhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_numberthat relates the charge on the j-th ionic species to the elementary chargehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_charge . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debye_length *Debye length*** ** This formula is often called the *Debye screening length*, and provides a good first estimate of the distance beyond which Coulomb interactions can be essentially ignored, as well as the size of the region near a point charge where opposite-charge counter ions can be found. On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 10:08 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Tue, 22 May 2012 21:44:13 -0400: Hi, [snip] The cooper pair of protons speculation It isn't clear to me why a cooper pair of protons would be of nuclear dimensions, nor why they would be able to surmount the Coulomb barrier. (They only have a reasonable chance of tunneling through it if they get close enough). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
