Jones, Once again you slapped your glove on Hotson's face. Your comment, "No one needs to be convinced that matter and antimatter can be made to annihilate" is just such a slap. Regarding electrons and positrons in particular, Hotson rightly points out that these two particles are fermions. As fermions, they are forbidden to be in the same place at the same time, and so cannot annihilate. Instead of annihilation, they fall into orbit around each other. When (if) they reach a DDL orbit, the become a part of Dirac's negative energy sea.
If supposed quark and anti-quark pairs could annihilate, we should be seeing the effects of that in the half life of the proton, reputed to contain quark-anti-quark pairs. Quarks are also believed to be fermions. Of course, Hotson says that the sub-nucleon constituents are electron-positron epos. On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > There are a number of LENR observers who are skeptical of the past finding > s that with Pd-D electrolysis, helium has been detected which is > commensurate with excess heat. > > Notably, this stance has been taken and staunchly defended by Steve Krivit > - and has a certain amount of (wait-and-see) support from those who otherwise > believe in excess heat. The rationale of this argument is that in subwatt > electrolysis, the helium produced is necessarily well below background > levels and must enriched before it can be detected in any device – and > even after enrichment, it can be confused with molecular deuterium (less > of a problem). It is the enrichment step which is the problem. > > This is not the place to continue that argument, which has been hashed > and rehashed ad nauseum, but it is the place to suggest something more > important - a way in which excess heat – as a general rule - can be > observed without nuclear fusion of any kind. > > That way is Holmlid’s finding of nucleon disintegration following laser > irradiation of dense deuterium clusters. Ironically, it provides far more > net energy than does nuclear fusion. > > The most cogent argument for nucleon disintegration is that in the > standard model, every nucleon contains matter and antimatter in close > proximity. No one needs to be convinced that matter and antimatter can be > made to annihilate. > > An external stimulus, especially an intense coherent stimulus of photons, > forming plasmon polaritons (SPP), need only find a coupling window where any > of the matter/antimatter component of the nucleus is annihilated. This > disruption will trigger a further instability resulting in complete > disintegration. The evidence is somewhat compelling. Replication is > demanded. > > _____________________________________________ > Deuteron disintegration which supplies about 1 GeV per nucleon is about > 167 times more energy dense than nuclear fusion of deuterium to helium. > Assumption: 1 GeV per nucleon vs 24 MeV per 4 nucleons (in the He-4 > nucleus). > > However, a sizeable percentage of that disintegration energy will > disappear as neutrinos, and thus the usable energy is still a mystery. The > bad news for LENR: If the muon pathway is favored, as seems to be the case > from Holmlid’s studies, then most of the excess energy will indeed > disappear as neutrinos. > > The good news for LENR is that even if 90% of the energy disappears, the > fraction which remains is about 16.7 times more energetic than fusion of > deuterium to helium. And if 99% disappears as neutrinos – the reaction is > still more energetic than what is expected in palladium D+D fusion to > helium, and yet could be easily confused with that reaction… EXCEPT there > would be little helium detected (the occasional alpha particle). > >
