*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 <[email protected]> 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 > >
