In reply to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>'s message of Sun, 15 May 2005 11:08:49 -0400: Hi Steven, [snip] >> However If one takes into account relativistic increase >> in the mass of the electron, then the maximum shrinkage >> level is even less than 137. How much less depends on >> which model one adopts. > >Seems to me that the increase in mass implies that these theoretically tiniest >of all hydrino species should be heavier than their cousins, especially >hydrogen at its traditionally accepted ground state.
Relativistic mass increase is really just another way of saying kinetic energy. This energy has to come from somewhere. As the hydrino shrinks, it comes from the electric field energy of the electron relative to the proton. I can see no way in which this wouldn't result in a mass reduction of at least one of the two particles involved (electron proton or both). In short particle rest mass is converted into kinetic energy, and some is also lost externally (as energy made available to the environment, see energy from hydrino shrinkage). This means that the increase in relativistic mass of the electron is not even enough to compensate for the loss in rest mass. In short the hydrino as a whole gets lighter as it shrinks. > >Theoretically speaking, could the additional mass-weight of these exotic >hydrinos (approaching the limit of 137) be measurable on a macro scale? It is thus a mass loss rather than a gain, and would be very hard to measure, as it is still only a very small proportion of the overall mass (~0.027% at most). [snip] >It's my understanding that a "circuitous" description of hydrogen transformed >to Hydrino, transformed to neutron, and ultimately transformed back to >hydrogen scenario shouldn't occur precisely because of the endless extraction >of energy that would result. Well that's my opinion. >Instead of this scenario you and other hydrino theorists have speculated that >fusion may be the more likely fate precisely because these tiny critters have >shrunk to such a small diameter that statistically their chances of >interacting with other hydrino nuclei have been greatly improved. Indeed. Because they are shielded by their own shrunken electron, they can get much closer to another nucleus, which improves the chances of tunneling dramatically. > >While I understand, statistically speaking, why fusion may be more likely what >I still question would be the ramifications that the energy well would have >constructed around individual hydrinos. How would these energy wells play (or >not play as the case might be) into the theorized fusion mechanism. Wouldn't >they act as a formidable barrier to fusion that would have to be overcome IN >ADDITION TO the well-understood column barrier? I was wondering if this energy >well might ultimately cancel out any fusion advantage hydrinos might possess >as a result of their smaller diameters. The loss of energy during hydrino formation would simply mean that there would be slightly less energy available from any fusion reaction than one would get from the fusion of a normal proton with the same nucleus. The reduction in fusion energy would exactly equal the amount of energy that one had already received from the hydrino shrinkage, so overall, the results would be the same. IOW hydrinos simply make fusion easier, they don't yield any more, or any less, energy over all. Furthermore, the energy freed during hydrino formation is still quite small relative to the amount released during the fusion reaction. i.e. the maximum release during hydrino formation is 255 keV. The release from an average fusion reaction involving a proton is about 5000 keV, which is about 20 times more. Note however that this assumes that the hydrino is maximally shrunken before the fusion reaction takes place. In practice, it may happen much sooner than that, after e.g. release of only 3 keV, resulting in the fusion energy being about 1000 times larger than the hydrino release energy. This means that the energy loss during shrinkage will have very little effect on the fusion energy, and not be such as to hinder the fusion event to any appreciable extent. OTOH, the reduction in size brings about an incredible increase in the chance of fusion taking place (by many orders of magnitude). To give you a feel for how enormous this is, consider the following. Calculations show that the average time between fusion events for the D atoms in D2 is at least 1E80 years. When a negative muon is used to catalyze the reaction however, the distance between the nuclei shrinks by a factor of about 207. The time needed drops to about 1E-23 seconds. IOW a size reduction by 207 yields a time reduction by 110 orders of magnitude (i.e. 3E110). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk All SPAM goes in the trash unread.
