Re: [Vo]:P-e-P is a no-go ! Get over it !
*I would think the 10^20 figure is based on very high temperatures and pressures, so it would not be applicable to a lattice. * Unless we consider the unlimited squeeze placed on accumulating photons and electrons by the uncertainty principle. On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 5:17 PM, H Veeder wrote: > > > > > > > >> Harry wrote: >> > Fair enough, but may be Ed's starting point is necessary for >> your reversible proton fusion. Think of it as electron mediated reversible >> proton fusion. >> >> >> > Jones wrote: > >> Astute observation. It is all a matter of probability. >> >> But note in the prior post, the premise was stated, and the literature >> fully >> agrees with this - that when the two protons are brought together with >> enough energy to surmount the fusion threshold the p-p reaction is 400 >> times >> more likely to happen than is p-e-p. We know this from solar observation. >> In >> a metal matrix the p-e-p reaction could be more favorable than p-p, but it >> is still low probability when the fusion threshold is absent. It is absent >> so neither will be seen very often. >> >> Please have a look at the p-e-p section on the Wiki site. Many scoff at >> Wiki, on technical issues - but that is usually because the concise points >> presented do not support their stance. >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton%E2%80%93proton_chain_reaction >> >> Next, we must ask, how much more probable is RPF than is p-p or p-e-p ? >> That number is astronomical (pun intended). It's estimated that for every >> real proton fusion reaction on the sun (or any star) 10^20 RPF reactions >> happen. This can be calculated by how fast the star burns through its >> fuel - >> and it would be in a few years instead of a billions of years without this >> very high rate of reversibility. >> >> > I would think the 10^20 figure is based on very high temperatures and > pressures, > so it would not be applicable to a lattice. > > > >> Thus, due to the sequential intensity of RPF, small packets of energy can >> be >> shed without recourse to any other theory. >> >> In effect, I agree that that RPF will also be electron mediated, but >> unlike >> Ed, I am saying that both reaction can happen in the same experiment, but >> that p-e-p will be far less likely to happen. Since the fusion threshold >> is >> not met in LENR then the ratio for RPF could be much more favorable than >> even 10^20. >> >> To be a little more precise, Ed's theory also implies that the active >> atoms >> first achieve ground state collapse, to avoid the need of most of that >> external input of 782 keV, somewhat like the Mills model. In fact the >> implication is that the energy is first shed and then recovered IIRC. I >> think this could be accurate, but the reaction is still rare compared to >> the >> reversible version. In fact, Ed's theory will be viewed by some pundits as >> an improved version of Mills, since the ultimate energy source, which is >> the >> improvement - is the nucleus and not the electron orbital. All of Mills >> skeptics agree that this is CQM's major flaw - suggesting a non-nuclear >> nexus for gain. >> >> In short, my belief is that the p-e-p reaction will happen in LENR, but it >> will be comparatively rare. Thus it is not needed to explain the gammaless >> thermal gain seen in the Rossi effect. >> >> > It should be impossible if extra energy is required to make the neutron > that is to comprise > comprise the resulting deuteron. > > >> It is astronomically more probable, based on the evidence available from >> the >> solar model - to see many trillions of RPF reactions per second. The big >> advantage in having lots of reversible reactions is that large net gain >> can >> a happen via such minutiae as spin coupling of the proton to the nickel >> nucleus via QCD. >> >> IMHO - spin coupling is the next frontier of LENR. Think "magnon." >> >> >> >> > Harry > >
Re: [Vo]:P-e-P is a no-go ! Get over it !
> Harry wrote: > Fair enough, but may be Ed's starting point is necessary for > your reversible proton fusion. Think of it as electron mediated reversible > proton fusion. > > > Jones wrote: > Astute observation. It is all a matter of probability. > > But note in the prior post, the premise was stated, and the literature > fully > agrees with this - that when the two protons are brought together with > enough energy to surmount the fusion threshold the p-p reaction is 400 > times > more likely to happen than is p-e-p. We know this from solar observation. > In > a metal matrix the p-e-p reaction could be more favorable than p-p, but it > is still low probability when the fusion threshold is absent. It is absent > so neither will be seen very often. > > Please have a look at the p-e-p section on the Wiki site. Many scoff at > Wiki, on technical issues - but that is usually because the concise points > presented do not support their stance. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton%E2%80%93proton_chain_reaction > > Next, we must ask, how much more probable is RPF than is p-p or p-e-p ? > That number is astronomical (pun intended). It's estimated that for every > real proton fusion reaction on the sun (or any star) 10^20 RPF reactions > happen. This can be calculated by how fast the star burns through its fuel > - > and it would be in a few years instead of a billions of years without this > very high rate of reversibility. > > I would think the 10^20 figure is based on very high temperatures and pressures, so it would not be applicable to a lattice. > Thus, due to the sequential intensity of RPF, small packets of energy can > be > shed without recourse to any other theory. > > In effect, I agree that that RPF will also be electron mediated, but unlike > Ed, I am saying that both reaction can happen in the same experiment, but > that p-e-p will be far less likely to happen. Since the fusion threshold is > not met in LENR then the ratio for RPF could be much more favorable than > even 10^20. > > To be a little more precise, Ed's theory also implies that the active atoms > first achieve ground state collapse, to avoid the need of most of that > external input of 782 keV, somewhat like the Mills model. In fact the > implication is that the energy is first shed and then recovered IIRC. I > think this could be accurate, but the reaction is still rare compared to > the > reversible version. In fact, Ed's theory will be viewed by some pundits as > an improved version of Mills, since the ultimate energy source, which is > the > improvement - is the nucleus and not the electron orbital. All of Mills > skeptics agree that this is CQM's major flaw - suggesting a non-nuclear > nexus for gain. > > In short, my belief is that the p-e-p reaction will happen in LENR, but it > will be comparatively rare. Thus it is not needed to explain the gammaless > thermal gain seen in the Rossi effect. > > It should be impossible if extra energy is required to make the neutron that is to comprise comprise the resulting deuteron. > It is astronomically more probable, based on the evidence available from > the > solar model - to see many trillions of RPF reactions per second. The big > advantage in having lots of reversible reactions is that large net gain can > a happen via such minutiae as spin coupling of the proton to the nickel > nucleus via QCD. > > IMHO - spin coupling is the next frontier of LENR. Think "magnon." > > > > Harry
RE: [Vo]:P-e-P is a no-go ! Get over it !
From: H Veeder BTW - take an electron and proton at rest, that system has a mass of 0.511 + 938.272 = 938.8 MeV/c^2. That is the total mass available to that system. It cannot increase above that level unless substantial energy comes from outside the system. A neutron has a mass of 939.6 MeV/c^2. So, to make a neutron from an electron and a proton, the extra 782 keV has to come from outside the electron-proton system. It cannot come from the acceleration of the particles toward each other by their own attraction. One simply MUST make the neutron first - even if the deuteron, the end product of p+n does have a usable mass deficit. Fair enough, but may be Ed's starting point is necessary for your reversible proton fusion. Think of it as electron mediated reversible proton fusion. Harry, Astute observation. It is all a matter of probability. But note in the prior post, the premise was stated, and the literature fully agrees with this - that when the two protons are brought together with enough energy to surmount the fusion threshold the p-p reaction is 400 times more likely to happen than is p-e-p. We know this from solar observation. In a metal matrix the p-e-p reaction could be more favorable than p-p, but it is still low probability when the fusion threshold is absent. It is absent so neither will be seen very often. Please have a look at the p-e-p section on the Wiki site. Many scoff at Wiki, on technical issues - but that is usually because the concise points presented do not support their stance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton%E2%80%93proton_chain_reaction Next, we must ask, how much more probable is RPF than is p-p or p-e-p ? That number is astronomical (pun intended). It's estimated that for every real proton fusion reaction on the sun (or any star) 10^20 RPF reactions happen. This can be calculated by how fast the star burns through its fuel - and it would be in a few years instead of a billions of years without this very high rate of reversibility. Thus, due to the sequential intensity of RPF, small packets of energy can be shed without recourse to any other theory. In effect, I agree that that RPF will also be electron mediated, but unlike Ed, I am saying that both reaction can happen in the same experiment, but that p-e-p will be far less likely to happen. Since the fusion threshold is not met in LENR then the ratio for RPF could be much more favorable than even 10^20. To be a little more precise, Ed's theory also implies that the active atoms first achieve ground state collapse, to avoid the need of most of that external input of 782 keV, somewhat like the Mills model. In fact the implication is that the energy is first shed and then recovered IIRC. I think this could be accurate, but the reaction is still rare compared to the reversible version. In fact, Ed's theory will be viewed by some pundits as an improved version of Mills, since the ultimate energy source, which is the improvement - is the nucleus and not the electron orbital. All of Mills skeptics agree that this is CQM's major flaw - suggesting a non-nuclear nexus for gain. In short, my belief is that the p-e-p reaction will happen in LENR, but it will be comparatively rare. Thus it is not needed to explain the gammaless thermal gain seen in the Rossi effect. It is astronomically more probable, based on the evidence available from the solar model - to see many trillions of RPF reactions per second. The big advantage in having lots of reversible reactions is that large net gain can a happen via such minutiae as spin coupling of the proton to the nickel nucleus via QCD. IMHO - spin coupling is the next frontier of LENR. Think "magnon." <>
Re: [Vo]:P-e-P is a no-go ! Get over it !
Sent from my iPad > On Feb 14, 2014, at 12:31 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote: > > about tritium, and NiH, in your vision, > does this mean some > d+e+p, or d+e+d happen like p+e+p depending on the available reactant (and I > imagine the "geometric" structure of the fields around). > the fact that d and p have different mass, make the reaction p+e+d very > different from p+e+p or d+e+d, more asymetrical... maybe it is more > collective to make it symmetrical again? Yes Alain, that is my claim. I assume that all hydrogen isotopes experience the same mechanism. How this happens is a different issue. > > I remember that some tritium experiments show that maximum tritium was > produced with 50%D 50%H... > in that vision NiH reactors would produce D, then some T (anv much less He4) > after some time if the fuel is much consumed. > That is true. This observation has now been replicated. > by the way, why is p+p impossible ? too much energy needed ? even in > collective context (hard to imagine MeV piled upon thousands of coherent p) p-p is not possible using LENR because too much energy is required to get over the barrier and the expected products are not observed. > > The idea that gamma or neutrons cannot be filtered at 10^-6 whatever is the > mechanism is anyway a strong point... I feel now that it cannot be produced. Neutrons can not be easily removed but neutrons are not produced. The weak photon s that are detected can be easily removed by the walls of the apparatus. People need to read what is know to occur rather than speculate from ignorance. > > the way the reaction behave in lattice, near the surface, in abnormal places > (vacancies, cracks, nanostructures) say geometry and electronic field > geometry are important... There is something about interference... I have no idea what interference means. Ed Storms > > > > 2014-02-14 1:23 GMT+01:00 Edmund Storms : >> Alain, Math is useless because it is based on conventional mechanisms. The >> process CAN NOT occur in a lattice without violating the laws of >> thermodynamics. The p+e+p is the only form that can also explain tritium >> production. These requirements limit what is possible. Please take them into >> account. >> >> Ed Storms. >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >>> On Feb 13, 2014, at 5:03 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote: >>> >>> Seing the idea of p+e+p plus the fact it can only happen in lattice, in >>> some very specific situations, I naturally think about geometry, symmetry... >>> >>> the error of free space nuclear physicist was to think in free space. >>> >>> It seems Takahashi have similar ideas, but with different details... >>> >>> and symmetry can forbid some events, why not p+p? now have to check the >>> math... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 2014-02-13 23:57 GMT+01:00 Edmund Storms : Jones, you keep saying no theory explains LENR and keep suggesting reasons to reject while suggesting your own explanation that is isolated to one part of the process. On the other hand, I suggest a comprehensive mechanism that not only can explain all observations wthout adhoc assumptions but can predict many new behaviors and where to look for the NAE. Is a model that can do this not worth considering seriously rather than reject based on incomplete understanding and arbitrary reasons? Ed Storms Sent from my iPad > On Feb 13, 2014, at 3:02 PM, "Jones Beene" wrote: > > From: H Veeder > > (this also answers Robin’s more recent posting) > > > >> The most elegant answer begins with the obvious assertion that there > >> are no > gammas ab initio, which means that no reaction of the kind which your > theory > proposes can be valid because gammas are expected. > > > RvS: Actually not only would I not expect to detect any gammas from a > > p-e-p > reaction, I wouldn't expect to detect any energy at all. That's because > the > energy of the p-e-p reaction is normally carried away by the neutrino, > which > is almost undetectable. > > JB: the p+p reaction produces a positron, which annihilates with an > electron producing 2 gammas. The net energy is over 1 MeV and easily > detectable. > > > > Electron capture is real, but seldom by a proton at low energy. There is > a real reaction in physics, but the ratio of that to p+p is 400:1 … so we > have the insurmountable problem of exclusivity (see below). > > > > HV: The process of p-e-p fusion is suppose to be different from the > process of p-p fusion. The outcome may be the same, but the processes > differ. > > > > JB: Again, this is a very rare reaction - and my contention about it is > twofold > > > > 1) there is no robust reaction in the real world where protons go > directly to a deuteron without first
Re: [Vo]:P-e-P is a no-go ! Get over it !
about tritium, and NiH, in your vision, does this mean some d+e+p, or d+e+d happen like p+e+p depending on the available reactant (and I imagine the "geometric" structure of the fields around). the fact that d and p have different mass, make the reaction p+e+d very different from p+e+p or d+e+d, more asymetrical... maybe it is more collective to make it symmetrical again? I remember that some tritium experiments show that maximum tritium was produced with 50%D 50%H... in that vision NiH reactors would produce D, then some T (anv much less He4) after some time if the fuel is much consumed. by the way, why is p+p impossible ? too much energy needed ? even in collective context (hard to imagine MeV piled upon thousands of coherent p) The idea that gamma or neutrons cannot be filtered at 10^-6 whatever is the mechanism is anyway a strong point... I feel now that it cannot be produced. the way the reaction behave in lattice, near the surface, in abnormal places (vacancies, cracks, nanostructures) say geometry and electronic field geometry are important... There is something about interference... 2014-02-14 1:23 GMT+01:00 Edmund Storms : > Alain, Math is useless because it is based on conventional mechanisms. The > process CAN NOT occur in a lattice without violating the laws of > thermodynamics. The p+e+p is the only form that can also explain tritium > production. These requirements limit what is possible. Please take them > into account. > > Ed Storms. > > Sent from my iPad > > On Feb 13, 2014, at 5:03 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote: > > Seing the idea of p+e+p plus the fact it can only happen in lattice, in > some very specific situations, I naturally think about geometry, symmetry... > > the error of free space nuclear physicist was to think in free space. > > It seems Takahashi have similar ideas, but with different details... > > and symmetry can forbid some events, why not p+p? now have to check the > math... > > > > > 2014-02-13 23:57 GMT+01:00 Edmund Storms : > >> Jones, you keep saying no theory explains LENR and keep suggesting >> reasons to reject while suggesting your own explanation that is isolated to >> one part of the process. On the other hand, I suggest a comprehensive >> mechanism that not only can explain all observations wthout adhoc >> assumptions but can predict many new behaviors and where to look for the >> NAE. Is a model that can do this not worth considering seriously rather >> than reject based on incomplete understanding and arbitrary reasons? >> >> Ed Storms >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On Feb 13, 2014, at 3:02 PM, "Jones Beene" wrote: >> >> *From:* H Veeder >> >> *(this also answers Robin's more recent posting)* >> >> >> >> The most elegant answer begins with the obvious assertion that there >> are no >> gammas ab initio, which means that no reaction of the kind which your >> theory >> proposes can be valid because gammas are expected. >> >> > RvS: Actually not only would I not expect to detect any gammas from a >> p-e-p >> reaction, I wouldn't expect to detect any energy at all. That's because >> the >> energy of the p-e-p reaction is normally carried away by the neutrino, >> which >> is almost undetectable. >> >> JB: the p+p reaction produces a positron, which annihilates with an electron >> producing 2 gammas. The net energy is over 1 MeV and easily detectable. >> >> >> >> Electron capture is real, but seldom by a proton at low energy. There is >> a real reaction in physics, but the ratio of that to p+p is 400:1 ... so we >> have the insurmountable problem of exclusivity (see below). >> >> >> >> HV: The process of p-e-p fusion is suppose to be different from the >> process of p-p fusion. The outcome may be the same, but the processes >> differ. >> >> >> >> JB: Again, this is a very rare reaction - and my contention about it is >> twofold >> >> >> >> 1) there is no robust reaction in the real world where protons go >> directly to a deuteron without first forming a neutron, and that first step >> is energetically impossible, so the rarity of this p-e-p reaction is >> ingrained and systemic. >> >> >> >> 2) Therefore ... even if there were such a reaction in LENR, at ten >> or even 100 times greater probability than the known p+p version, consider >> the obvious problem of exclusivity. >> >> >> >> Either way it does NOT happen in practice since we know there are no >> gammas ! >> >> >> >> Consider exclusivity. For the sake of argument - even if there are found >> to be two possible proton reactions, and one reaction is "supposed to be >> different" from the known solar reaction, but the outcome is the same >> except for the gamma - the problem always comes back to one of perfect >> exclusivity. Exclusivity is the logical fallacy that cannot be overcome. >> >> >> >> When a gamma reaction is known to happen with the same reactant, how can >> that reaction be excluded from happening, in a new scenario when both >> reactions are given enough energy to overcome the fus
Re: [Vo]:P-e-P is a no-go ! Get over it !
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > > > > BTW - take an electron and proton at rest, that system has a mass of 0.511 > + 938.272 = 938.8 MeV/c^2. That is the total mass available to that system. > It cannot increase above that level unless substantial energy comes from > outside the system. A neutron has a mass of 939.6 MeV/c^2. > > > > So, to make a neutron from an electron and a proton, the extra 782 keV has > to come from outside the electron-proton system. It cannot come from the > acceleration of the particles toward each other by their own attraction. > One simply MUST make the neutron first - even if the deuteron, the end > product of p+n does have a usable mass deficit. > > > > People who should know better are in denial about the rarity of p-e-p ! > > > > Let's get over it and move on. P-e-p is dead-in-the-water for adequately > explaining the Rossi effect. > Fair enough, but may be Ed's starting point is necessary for your reversible proton fusion. Think of it as electron mediated reversible proton fusion. Harry
Re: [Vo]:P-e-P is a no-go ! Get over it !
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Thu, 13 Feb 2014 19:00:00 -0800: Hi Jones, [snip] >-Original Message- >From: mix...@bigpond.com > >>> When a gamma reaction is known to happen with the same reactant, how can >that reaction be excluded from happening, in a new scenario when both >reactions are given enough energy to overcome the fusion threshold? >Especially if one (the desired reaction) is much rarer than the other? > >> In Ed's scenario, this may be possible. Namely, if sufficient mass is lost >before the reaction occurs, such that there is insufficient remaining to >form a positron. > >Hi, > >That seems unlikely. Slight mass can perhaps be lost in ground state >collapse, but not enough. You say "mass loss before the p-e-p reaction >occurs" and the positron, which must be avoided - has .511 MeV so that means >the energy radiated by ground state collapse cannot derive from the >electron, so how is it lost from the proton? > >What mechanism is involved? > >Jones ..that's really a question that Ed should answer, as it's his theory, however I would go so far as to suggest that perhaps field cancellation by the approaching electron might do the job. However...The most energy lost through formation of a Hydrino molecule is 593 keV, slightly more than an electron mass. Creation of a deuteron via p-e-p liberates 1.44 MeV. 1.44 - 0.593 = 846 keV, which is more than enough to form a positron. Bottom line:- It seems unlikely to me that that this is the mechanism, so I'm anxious to see Ed's response. (I mention Hydrinos only because the minimum electron orbit is determined by the speed of light.) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:P-e-P is a no-go ! Get over it !
Close only counts in horse shoes. There is always a small amount of deuterium in water. That tritium could be coming from contamination. On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:44 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: > Axil, tritium has been made using H2O, which is close enough. Tritium has > been made in the absence of lithium. > > Ed Storms > > Sent from my iPad > > On Feb 13, 2014, at 5:49 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > > I have not heard of any reports of tritium being generated by the NiH > reactor. Is tritium a dot that we need to concern ourselves about? > > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 7:23 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: > >> Alain, Math is useless because it is based on conventional mechanisms. >> The process CAN NOT occur in a lattice without violating the laws of >> thermodynamics. The p+e+p is the only form that can also explain tritium >> production. These requirements limit what is possible. Please take them >> into account. >> >> Ed Storms. >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On Feb 13, 2014, at 5:03 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote: >> >> Seing the idea of p+e+p plus the fact it can only happen in lattice, in >> some very specific situations, I naturally think about geometry, symmetry... >> >> the error of free space nuclear physicist was to think in free space. >> >> It seems Takahashi have similar ideas, but with different details... >> >> and symmetry can forbid some events, why not p+p? now have to check the >> math... >> >> >> >> >> 2014-02-13 23:57 GMT+01:00 Edmund Storms : >> >>> Jones, you keep saying no theory explains LENR and keep suggesting >>> reasons to reject while suggesting your own explanation that is isolated to >>> one part of the process. On the other hand, I suggest a comprehensive >>> mechanism that not only can explain all observations wthout adhoc >>> assumptions but can predict many new behaviors and where to look for the >>> NAE. Is a model that can do this not worth considering seriously rather >>> than reject based on incomplete understanding and arbitrary reasons? >>> >>> Ed Storms >>> >>> Sent from my iPad >>> >>> On Feb 13, 2014, at 3:02 PM, "Jones Beene" wrote: >>> >>> *From:* H Veeder >>> >>> *(this also answers Robin's more recent posting)* >>> >>> >>> >> The most elegant answer begins with the obvious assertion that there >>> are no >>> gammas ab initio, which means that no reaction of the kind which your >>> theory >>> proposes can be valid because gammas are expected. >>> >>> > RvS: Actually not only would I not expect to detect any gammas from a >>> p-e-p >>> reaction, I wouldn't expect to detect any energy at all. That's because >>> the >>> energy of the p-e-p reaction is normally carried away by the neutrino, >>> which >>> is almost undetectable. >>> >>> JB: the p+p reaction produces a positron, which annihilates with an electron >>> producing 2 gammas. The net energy is over 1 MeV and easily detectable. >>> >>> >>> >>> Electron capture is real, but seldom by a proton at low energy. There is >>> a real reaction in physics, but the ratio of that to p+p is 400:1 ... so we >>> have the insurmountable problem of exclusivity (see below). >>> >>> >>> >>> HV: The process of p-e-p fusion is suppose to be different from the >>> process of p-p fusion. The outcome may be the same, but the processes >>> differ. >>> >>> >>> >>> JB: Again, this is a very rare reaction - and my contention about it is >>> twofold >>> >>> >>> >>> 1) there is no robust reaction in the real world where protons go >>> directly to a deuteron without first forming a neutron, and that first step >>> is energetically impossible, so the rarity of this p-e-p reaction is >>> ingrained and systemic. >>> >>> >>> >>> 2) Therefore ... even if there were such a reaction in LENR, at ten >>> or even 100 times greater probability than the known p+p version, consider >>> the obvious problem of exclusivity. >>> >>> >>> >>> Either way it does NOT happen in practice since we know there are no >>> gammas ! >>> >>> >>> >>> Consider exclusivity. For the sake of argument - even if there are found >>> to be two possible proton reactions, and one reaction is "supposed to be >>> different" from the known solar reaction, but the outcome is the same >>> except for the gamma - the problem always comes back to one of perfect >>> exclusivity. Exclusivity is the logical fallacy that cannot be overcome. >>> >>> >>> >>> When a gamma reaction is known to happen with the same reactant, how can >>> that reaction be excluded from happening, in a new scenario when both >>> reactions are given enough energy to overcome the fusion threshold? >>> Especially if one (the desired reaction) is much rarer than the other. >>> >>> >>> >>> Simplest answer: the known reaction cannot be excluded from happening, >>> when the energy threshold is met - and there will be gammas even if the >>> hypothetical p-e-p reaction has none by itself. >>> >>> >>> >>> ERGO. We really have no realistic option in framing a proper LENR theory >>> - other than to find a gainful reaction which NE
Re: [Vo]:P-e-P is a no-go ! Get over it !
Axil, tritium has been made using H2O, which is close enough. Tritium has been made in the absence of lithium. Ed Storms Sent from my iPad > On Feb 13, 2014, at 5:49 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > > I have not heard of any reports of tritium being generated by the NiH > reactor. Is tritium a dot that we need to concern ourselves about? > > >> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 7:23 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: >> Alain, Math is useless because it is based on conventional mechanisms. The >> process CAN NOT occur in a lattice without violating the laws of >> thermodynamics. The p+e+p is the only form that can also explain tritium >> production. These requirements limit what is possible. Please take them into >> account. >> >> Ed Storms. >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >>> On Feb 13, 2014, at 5:03 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote: >>> >>> Seing the idea of p+e+p plus the fact it can only happen in lattice, in >>> some very specific situations, I naturally think about geometry, symmetry... >>> >>> the error of free space nuclear physicist was to think in free space. >>> >>> It seems Takahashi have similar ideas, but with different details... >>> >>> and symmetry can forbid some events, why not p+p? now have to check the >>> math... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 2014-02-13 23:57 GMT+01:00 Edmund Storms : Jones, you keep saying no theory explains LENR and keep suggesting reasons to reject while suggesting your own explanation that is isolated to one part of the process. On the other hand, I suggest a comprehensive mechanism that not only can explain all observations wthout adhoc assumptions but can predict many new behaviors and where to look for the NAE. Is a model that can do this not worth considering seriously rather than reject based on incomplete understanding and arbitrary reasons? Ed Storms Sent from my iPad > On Feb 13, 2014, at 3:02 PM, "Jones Beene" wrote: > > From: H Veeder > > (this also answers Robin’s more recent posting) > > > >> The most elegant answer begins with the obvious assertion that there > >> are no > gammas ab initio, which means that no reaction of the kind which your > theory > proposes can be valid because gammas are expected. > > > RvS: Actually not only would I not expect to detect any gammas from a > > p-e-p > reaction, I wouldn't expect to detect any energy at all. That's because > the > energy of the p-e-p reaction is normally carried away by the neutrino, > which > is almost undetectable. > > JB: the p+p reaction produces a positron, which annihilates with an > electron producing 2 gammas. The net energy is over 1 MeV and easily > detectable. > > > > Electron capture is real, but seldom by a proton at low energy. There is > a real reaction in physics, but the ratio of that to p+p is 400:1 … so we > have the insurmountable problem of exclusivity (see below). > > > > HV: The process of p-e-p fusion is suppose to be different from the > process of p-p fusion. The outcome may be the same, but the processes > differ. > > > > JB: Again, this is a very rare reaction - and my contention about it is > twofold > > > > 1) there is no robust reaction in the real world where protons go > directly to a deuteron without first forming a neutron, and that first > step is energetically impossible, so the rarity of this p-e-p reaction is > ingrained and systemic. > > > > 2) Therefore … even if there were such a reaction in LENR, at ten or > even 100 times greater probability than the known p+p version, consider > the obvious problem of exclusivity. > > > > Either way it does NOT happen in practice since we know there are no > gammas ! > > > > Consider exclusivity. For the sake of argument - even if there are found > to be two possible proton reactions, and one reaction is “supposed to be > different” from the known solar reaction, but the outcome is the same > except for the gamma - the problem always comes back to one of perfect > exclusivity. Exclusivity is the logical fallacy that cannot be overcome. > > > > When a gamma reaction is known to happen with the same reactant, how can > that reaction be excluded from happening, in a new scenario when both > reactions are given enough energy to overcome the fusion threshold? > Especially if one (the desired reaction) is much rarer than the other. > > > > Simplest answer: the known reaction cannot be excluded from happening, > when the energy threshold is met - and there will be gammas even if the > hypothetical p-e-p reaction has none by itself. > > > > ERGO. We really have no realist
Re: [Vo]:P-e-P is a no-go ! Get over it !
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Prove me wrong. Tritium production only happens in the Pd/D system and not > in a Ni/H system. > I don't disagree. This seems like a promising conclusion. I'm not aware of any hard evidence one way or the other. Eric
Re: [Vo]:P-e-P is a no-go ! Get over it !
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:29 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > Prove me wrong. Tritium production only happens in the Pd/D system and not > in a Ni/H system. I think this is obvious.
Re: [Vo]:P-e-P is a no-go ! Get over it !
Prove me wrong. Tritium production only happens in the Pd/D system and not in a Ni/H system. On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:23 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 4:23 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: > > The p+e+p is the only form that can also explain tritium production. >> > > There are other possible explanations for tritium -- my own favorite lead > is that it arises when there is lithium. It is true that some LENR > researchers have conjectured a hypothetical relationship between the ratio > of H/D and the levels of tritium, but (1) I'm not sure this conjecture has > been put on a firm foundation and (2) it's not necessarily incompatible > with an explanation that involves lithium. > > Eric > >
Re: [Vo]:P-e-P is a no-go ! Get over it !
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 4:23 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: The p+e+p is the only form that can also explain tritium production. > There are other possible explanations for tritium -- my own favorite lead is that it arises when there is lithium. It is true that some LENR researchers have conjectured a hypothetical relationship between the ratio of H/D and the levels of tritium, but (1) I'm not sure this conjecture has been put on a firm foundation and (2) it's not necessarily incompatible with an explanation that involves lithium. Eric
RE: [Vo]:P-e-P is a no-go ! Get over it !
-Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com >> When a gamma reaction is known to happen with the same reactant, how can that reaction be excluded from happening, in a new scenario when both reactions are given enough energy to overcome the fusion threshold? Especially if one (the desired reaction) is much rarer than the other? > In Ed's scenario, this may be possible. Namely, if sufficient mass is lost before the reaction occurs, such that there is insufficient remaining to form a positron. Hi, That seems unlikely. Slight mass can perhaps be lost in ground state collapse, but not enough. You say "mass loss before the p-e-p reaction occurs" and the positron, which must be avoided - has .511 MeV so that means the energy radiated by ground state collapse cannot derive from the electron, so how is it lost from the proton? What mechanism is involved? Jones
Re: [Vo]:P-e-P is a no-go ! Get over it !
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:02:06 -0800: Hi, [snip] >Consider exclusivity. For the sake of argument - even if there are found to >be two possible proton reactions, and one reaction is "supposed to be >different" from the known solar reaction, but the outcome is the same except >for the gamma - the problem always comes back to one of perfect exclusivity. >Exclusivity is the logical fallacy that cannot be overcome. > > > >When a gamma reaction is known to happen with the same reactant, how can >that reaction be excluded from happening, in a new scenario when both >reactions are given enough energy to overcome the fusion threshold? >Especially if one (the desired reaction) is much rarer than the other. In Ed's scenario, this may be possible. Namely, if sufficient mass is lost before the reaction occurs, such that there is insufficient remaining to form a positron. However this implies that whatever the mechanism that disperses the energy prior to the reaction, it must always get rid of a minimal amount each time, in order to ensure that no positrons are formed. (Perhaps they are occasionally, and this is what Rossi found originally?) > > > >Simplest answer: the known reaction cannot be excluded from happening, when >the energy threshold is met - and there will be gammas even if the >hypothetical p-e-p reaction has none by itself. > > > >ERGO. We really have no realistic option in framing a proper LENR theory - >other than to find a gainful reaction which NEVER produces gammas nor >indicia which are not in evidence (bremsstrahlung ). UV or soft x-rays are >ok but no gammas The obvious conclusion here would be that no nuclear reaction takes place. Just f/H formation. Note: I have previously proposed nuclear reactions where the energy is carried by a heavy charged particle, and stated that these were gamma-less. That's not quite true, as occasionally a heavy particle will collide with a nucleus and excite it, such that it emits a gamma when it decays back to the ground state. These secondary gammas should be detectable, and the fact that they are missing virtually rules out fast particles as the means by which energy is dispersed. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:P-e-P is a no-go ! Get over it !
I have not heard of any reports of tritium being generated by the NiH reactor. Is tritium a dot that we need to concern ourselves about? On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 7:23 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: > Alain, Math is useless because it is based on conventional mechanisms. The > process CAN NOT occur in a lattice without violating the laws of > thermodynamics. The p+e+p is the only form that can also explain tritium > production. These requirements limit what is possible. Please take them > into account. > > Ed Storms. > > Sent from my iPad > > On Feb 13, 2014, at 5:03 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote: > > Seing the idea of p+e+p plus the fact it can only happen in lattice, in > some very specific situations, I naturally think about geometry, symmetry... > > the error of free space nuclear physicist was to think in free space. > > It seems Takahashi have similar ideas, but with different details... > > and symmetry can forbid some events, why not p+p? now have to check the > math... > > > > > 2014-02-13 23:57 GMT+01:00 Edmund Storms : > >> Jones, you keep saying no theory explains LENR and keep suggesting >> reasons to reject while suggesting your own explanation that is isolated to >> one part of the process. On the other hand, I suggest a comprehensive >> mechanism that not only can explain all observations wthout adhoc >> assumptions but can predict many new behaviors and where to look for the >> NAE. Is a model that can do this not worth considering seriously rather >> than reject based on incomplete understanding and arbitrary reasons? >> >> Ed Storms >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On Feb 13, 2014, at 3:02 PM, "Jones Beene" wrote: >> >> *From:* H Veeder >> >> *(this also answers Robin's more recent posting)* >> >> >> >> The most elegant answer begins with the obvious assertion that there >> are no >> gammas ab initio, which means that no reaction of the kind which your >> theory >> proposes can be valid because gammas are expected. >> >> > RvS: Actually not only would I not expect to detect any gammas from a >> p-e-p >> reaction, I wouldn't expect to detect any energy at all. That's because >> the >> energy of the p-e-p reaction is normally carried away by the neutrino, >> which >> is almost undetectable. >> >> JB: the p+p reaction produces a positron, which annihilates with an electron >> producing 2 gammas. The net energy is over 1 MeV and easily detectable. >> >> >> >> Electron capture is real, but seldom by a proton at low energy. There is >> a real reaction in physics, but the ratio of that to p+p is 400:1 ... so we >> have the insurmountable problem of exclusivity (see below). >> >> >> >> HV: The process of p-e-p fusion is suppose to be different from the >> process of p-p fusion. The outcome may be the same, but the processes >> differ. >> >> >> >> JB: Again, this is a very rare reaction - and my contention about it is >> twofold >> >> >> >> 1) there is no robust reaction in the real world where protons go >> directly to a deuteron without first forming a neutron, and that first step >> is energetically impossible, so the rarity of this p-e-p reaction is >> ingrained and systemic. >> >> >> >> 2) Therefore ... even if there were such a reaction in LENR, at ten >> or even 100 times greater probability than the known p+p version, consider >> the obvious problem of exclusivity. >> >> >> >> Either way it does NOT happen in practice since we know there are no >> gammas ! >> >> >> >> Consider exclusivity. For the sake of argument - even if there are found >> to be two possible proton reactions, and one reaction is "supposed to be >> different" from the known solar reaction, but the outcome is the same >> except for the gamma - the problem always comes back to one of perfect >> exclusivity. Exclusivity is the logical fallacy that cannot be overcome. >> >> >> >> When a gamma reaction is known to happen with the same reactant, how can >> that reaction be excluded from happening, in a new scenario when both >> reactions are given enough energy to overcome the fusion threshold? >> Especially if one (the desired reaction) is much rarer than the other. >> >> >> >> Simplest answer: the known reaction cannot be excluded from happening, >> when the energy threshold is met - and there will be gammas even if the >> hypothetical p-e-p reaction has none by itself. >> >> >> >> ERGO. We really have no realistic option in framing a proper LENR theory >> - other than to find a gainful reaction which NEVER produces gammas nor >> indicia which are not in evidence (bremsstrahlung ). UV or soft x-rays are >> ok but no gammas >> >> >> >> Jones >> >> >> >> BTW - take an electron and proton at rest, that system has a mass of >> 0.511 + 938.272 = 938.8 MeV/c^2. That is the total mass available to that >> system. It cannot increase above that level unless substantial energy comes >> from outside the system. A neutron has a mass of 939.6 MeV/c^2. >> >> >> >> So, to make a neutron from an electron and a proton, the extra 782 keV >>
Re: [Vo]:P-e-P is a no-go ! Get over it !
Alain, Math is useless because it is based on conventional mechanisms. The process CAN NOT occur in a lattice without violating the laws of thermodynamics. The p+e+p is the only form that can also explain tritium production. These requirements limit what is possible. Please take them into account. Ed Storms. Sent from my iPad > On Feb 13, 2014, at 5:03 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote: > > Seing the idea of p+e+p plus the fact it can only happen in lattice, in some > very specific situations, I naturally think about geometry, symmetry... > > the error of free space nuclear physicist was to think in free space. > > It seems Takahashi have similar ideas, but with different details... > > and symmetry can forbid some events, why not p+p? now have to check the > math... > > > > > 2014-02-13 23:57 GMT+01:00 Edmund Storms : >> Jones, you keep saying no theory explains LENR and keep suggesting reasons >> to reject while suggesting your own explanation that is isolated to one part >> of the process. On the other hand, I suggest a comprehensive mechanism that >> not only can explain all observations wthout adhoc assumptions but can >> predict many new behaviors and where to look for the NAE. Is a model that >> can do this not worth considering seriously rather than reject based on >> incomplete understanding and arbitrary reasons? >> >> Ed Storms >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >>> On Feb 13, 2014, at 3:02 PM, "Jones Beene" wrote: >>> >>> From: H Veeder >>> >>> (this also answers Robin’s more recent posting) >>> >>> >>> >> The most elegant answer begins with the obvious assertion that there are >>> >> no >>> gammas ab initio, which means that no reaction of the kind which your theory >>> proposes can be valid because gammas are expected. >>> >>> > RvS: Actually not only would I not expect to detect any gammas from a >>> > p-e-p >>> reaction, I wouldn't expect to detect any energy at all. That's because the >>> energy of the p-e-p reaction is normally carried away by the neutrino, which >>> is almost undetectable. >>> >>> JB: the p+p reaction produces a positron, which annihilates with an >>> electron producing 2 gammas. The net energy is over 1 MeV and easily >>> detectable. >>> >>> >>> >>> Electron capture is real, but seldom by a proton at low energy. There is a >>> real reaction in physics, but the ratio of that to p+p is 400:1 … so we >>> have the insurmountable problem of exclusivity (see below). >>> >>> >>> >>> HV: The process of p-e-p fusion is suppose to be different from the process >>> of p-p fusion. The outcome may be the same, but the processes differ. >>> >>> >>> >>> JB: Again, this is a very rare reaction - and my contention about it is >>> twofold >>> >>> >>> >>> 1) there is no robust reaction in the real world where protons go >>> directly to a deuteron without first forming a neutron, and that first step >>> is energetically impossible, so the rarity of this p-e-p reaction is >>> ingrained and systemic. >>> >>> >>> >>> 2) Therefore … even if there were such a reaction in LENR, at ten or >>> even 100 times greater probability than the known p+p version, consider the >>> obvious problem of exclusivity. >>> >>> >>> >>> Either way it does NOT happen in practice since we know there are no gammas >>> ! >>> >>> >>> >>> Consider exclusivity. For the sake of argument - even if there are found to >>> be two possible proton reactions, and one reaction is “supposed to be >>> different” from the known solar reaction, but the outcome is the same >>> except for the gamma - the problem always comes back to one of perfect >>> exclusivity. Exclusivity is the logical fallacy that cannot be overcome. >>> >>> >>> >>> When a gamma reaction is known to happen with the same reactant, how can >>> that reaction be excluded from happening, in a new scenario when both >>> reactions are given enough energy to overcome the fusion threshold? >>> Especially if one (the desired reaction) is much rarer than the other. >>> >>> >>> >>> Simplest answer: the known reaction cannot be excluded from happening, when >>> the energy threshold is met - and there will be gammas even if the >>> hypothetical p-e-p reaction has none by itself. >>> >>> >>> >>> ERGO. We really have no realistic option in framing a proper LENR theory - >>> other than to find a gainful reaction which NEVER produces gammas nor >>> indicia which are not in evidence (bremsstrahlung ). UV or soft x-rays are >>> ok but no gammas >>> >>> >>> >>> Jones >>> >>> >>> >>> BTW - take an electron and proton at rest, that system has a mass of 0.511 >>> + 938.272 = 938.8 MeV/c^2. That is the total mass available to that system. >>> It cannot increase above that level unless substantial energy comes from >>> outside the system. A neutron has a mass of 939.6 MeV/c^2. >>> >>> >>> >>> So, to make a neutron from an electron and a proton, the extra 782 keV has >>> to come
Re: [Vo]:P-e-P is a no-go ! Get over it !
Seing the idea of p+e+p plus the fact it can only happen in lattice, in some very specific situations, I naturally think about geometry, symmetry... the error of free space nuclear physicist was to think in free space. It seems Takahashi have similar ideas, but with different details... and symmetry can forbid some events, why not p+p? now have to check the math... 2014-02-13 23:57 GMT+01:00 Edmund Storms : > Jones, you keep saying no theory explains LENR and keep suggesting reasons > to reject while suggesting your own explanation that is isolated to one > part of the process. On the other hand, I suggest a comprehensive mechanism > that not only can explain all observations wthout adhoc assumptions but can > predict many new behaviors and where to look for the NAE. Is a model that > can do this not worth considering seriously rather than reject based on > incomplete understanding and arbitrary reasons? > > Ed Storms > > Sent from my iPad > > On Feb 13, 2014, at 3:02 PM, "Jones Beene" wrote: > > *From:* H Veeder > > *(this also answers Robin's more recent posting)* > > > >> The most elegant answer begins with the obvious assertion that there > are no > gammas ab initio, which means that no reaction of the kind which your > theory > proposes can be valid because gammas are expected. > > > RvS: Actually not only would I not expect to detect any gammas from a > p-e-p > reaction, I wouldn't expect to detect any energy at all. That's because the > energy of the p-e-p reaction is normally carried away by the neutrino, > which > is almost undetectable. > > JB: the p+p reaction produces a positron, which annihilates with an electron > producing 2 gammas. The net energy is over 1 MeV and easily detectable. > > > > Electron capture is real, but seldom by a proton at low energy. There is a > real reaction in physics, but the ratio of that to p+p is 400:1 ... so we > have the insurmountable problem of exclusivity (see below). > > > > HV: The process of p-e-p fusion is suppose to be different from the > process of p-p fusion. The outcome may be the same, but the processes > differ. > > > > JB: Again, this is a very rare reaction - and my contention about it is > twofold > > > > 1) there is no robust reaction in the real world where protons go > directly to a deuteron without first forming a neutron, and that first step > is energetically impossible, so the rarity of this p-e-p reaction is > ingrained and systemic. > > > > 2) Therefore ... even if there were such a reaction in LENR, at ten or > even 100 times greater probability than the known p+p version, consider the > obvious problem of exclusivity. > > > > Either way it does NOT happen in practice since we know there are no > gammas ! > > > > Consider exclusivity. For the sake of argument - even if there are found > to be two possible proton reactions, and one reaction is "supposed to be > different" from the known solar reaction, but the outcome is the same > except for the gamma - the problem always comes back to one of perfect > exclusivity. Exclusivity is the logical fallacy that cannot be overcome. > > > > When a gamma reaction is known to happen with the same reactant, how can > that reaction be excluded from happening, in a new scenario when both > reactions are given enough energy to overcome the fusion threshold? > Especially if one (the desired reaction) is much rarer than the other. > > > > Simplest answer: the known reaction cannot be excluded from happening, > when the energy threshold is met - and there will be gammas even if the > hypothetical p-e-p reaction has none by itself. > > > > ERGO. We really have no realistic option in framing a proper LENR theory - > other than to find a gainful reaction which NEVER produces gammas nor > indicia which are not in evidence (bremsstrahlung ). UV or soft x-rays are > ok but no gammas > > > > Jones > > > > BTW - take an electron and proton at rest, that system has a mass of 0.511 > + 938.272 = 938.8 MeV/c^2. That is the total mass available to that system. > It cannot increase above that level unless substantial energy comes from > outside the system. A neutron has a mass of 939.6 MeV/c^2. > > > > So, to make a neutron from an electron and a proton, the extra 782 keV has > to come from outside the electron-proton system. It cannot come from the > acceleration of the particles toward each other by their own attraction. > One simply MUST make the neutron first - even if the deuteron, the end > product of p+n does have a usable mass deficit. > > > > People who should know better are in denial about the rarity of p-e-p ! > > > > Let's get over it and move on. P-e-p is dead-in-the-water for adequately > explaining the Rossi effect. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [Vo]:P-e-P is a no-go ! Get over it !
Jones, you keep saying no theory explains LENR and keep suggesting reasons to reject while suggesting your own explanation that is isolated to one part of the process. On the other hand, I suggest a comprehensive mechanism that not only can explain all observations wthout adhoc assumptions but can predict many new behaviors and where to look for the NAE. Is a model that can do this not worth considering seriously rather than reject based on incomplete understanding and arbitrary reasons? Ed Storms Sent from my iPad > On Feb 13, 2014, at 3:02 PM, "Jones Beene" wrote: > > From: H Veeder > (this also answers Robin’s more recent posting) > > >> The most elegant answer begins with the obvious assertion that there are no > gammas ab initio, which means that no reaction of the kind which your theory > proposes can be valid because gammas are expected. > > > RvS: Actually not only would I not expect to detect any gammas from a p-e-p > reaction, I wouldn't expect to detect any energy at all. That's because the > energy of the p-e-p reaction is normally carried away by the neutrino, which > is almost undetectable. > > JB: the p+p reaction produces a positron, which annihilates with an electron > producing 2 gammas. The net energy is over 1 MeV and easily detectable. > > Electron capture is real, but seldom by a proton at low energy. There is a > real reaction in physics, but the ratio of that to p+p is 400:1 … so we have > the insurmountable problem of exclusivity (see below). > > HV: The process of p-e-p fusion is suppose to be different from the process > of p-p fusion. The outcome may be the same, but the processes differ. > > JB: Again, this is a very rare reaction - and my contention about it is > twofold > > 1) there is no robust reaction in the real world where protons go > directly to a deuteron without first forming a neutron, and that first step > is energetically impossible, so the rarity of this p-e-p reaction is > ingrained and systemic. > > 2) Therefore … even if there were such a reaction in LENR, at ten or > even 100 times greater probability than the known p+p version, consider the > obvious problem of exclusivity. > > Either way it does NOT happen in practice since we know there are no gammas ! > > Consider exclusivity. For the sake of argument - even if there are found to > be two possible proton reactions, and one reaction is “supposed to be > different” from the known solar reaction, but the outcome is the same except > for the gamma - the problem always comes back to one of perfect exclusivity. > Exclusivity is the logical fallacy that cannot be overcome. > > When a gamma reaction is known to happen with the same reactant, how can that > reaction be excluded from happening, in a new scenario when both reactions > are given enough energy to overcome the fusion threshold? Especially if one > (the desired reaction) is much rarer than the other. > > Simplest answer: the known reaction cannot be excluded from happening, when > the energy threshold is met - and there will be gammas even if the > hypothetical p-e-p reaction has none by itself. > > ERGO. We really have no realistic option in framing a proper LENR theory - > other than to find a gainful reaction which NEVER produces gammas nor indicia > which are not in evidence (bremsstrahlung ). UV or soft x-rays are ok but no > gammas > > Jones > > BTW - take an electron and proton at rest, that system has a mass of 0.511 + > 938.272 = 938.8 MeV/c^2. That is the total mass available to that system. It > cannot increase above that level unless substantial energy comes from outside > the system. A neutron has a mass of 939.6 MeV/c^2. > > So, to make a neutron from an electron and a proton, the extra 782 keV has to > come from outside the electron-proton system. It cannot come from the > acceleration of the particles toward each other by their own attraction. One > simply MUST make the neutron first – even if the deuteron, the end product of > p+n does have a usable mass deficit. > > People who should know better are in denial about the rarity of p-e-p ! > > Let’s get over it and move on. P-e-p is dead-in-the-water for adequately > explaining the Rossi effect. > > > > > >
