Don't want to be-LABOR a certain issue, but... One final thought on "impossible" nuclear fusion of higher Z elements, electrostatic repulsion, strong force attraction and the Kervan findings of biological transmutations. BTW these findings are not suspect - the deeper one looks, the findings appear to be solid. After all these years, there are few counter-claims to the evidence of Kervan and other; and their main contention that in cellular live, potassium seems to "appear from nowhere" in many different ways and the most likely source can be traced back to sodium... or maybe calcium, but most likely sodium (unless one wishes to invoke magic or divine intervention).
It is "common knowledge" that fusion in heavier elements can not take place because of electrostatic repulsion, but is that really completely accurate? Could it be that a secondary (maybe primary) reason is related to the issue of proton/neutron ratio, which is much more demanding to achieve in one step, the higher up one goes in atomic weights. There are some reasons to suspect that EM interactions, at that the angstrom scale, are much less a consideration than is currently imagined by the mainstream. The only two common ways in which Coulomb repulsion can be overcome is by the strong force, which is 137 times stronger but operates only at close range - and by relativistic effects - such as letting self-generated magnetic attraction work against charge repulsion. Both of these may be based on spin. I would also mention here for consideration a "hierarchical aether" based on the work of F. Grimer - and in particular an aether layer which he may have only recently been trying to insert into his scheme. That being an aether on a sub-Casimir but supra-nuclear scale - IOW the e-10 to e-14 scale. It would likely be felt as a lattice-like pressure. Think about trying to bring strong magnets together at like poles. With NIB magnets it is difficult unless one inserts a thin metal foil - which seems to negate the opposing forces. In the nucleus the neutron serves the same purpose. One just cannot fuse together larger nuclei unless there are enough neutron available in the two preceding atoms *from the start.* Forget Coulomb - this ratio could dominate everything else. So this final thought, and admittedly it comes with way too much spontaneity. You can look at potassium vis-a- vis the other elements all day long and not come up with a better fit than oxygen and sodium from the perspective of biological ubiquity and more importantly, in needing no change in proton/neutron ration in the resultant nucleus... as well as the reaction being rather close to energy-neutral. There are resons to suspect that it is definitely energy-neutral when you consider all the variables. Perhaps that is the real reason that, after billions of years of evolution, cells can transmute elements at the nuclear level, when needed, but yet we still have to eat! Speaking of which, an omelet is sounding mighty-fine now... with plenty of salt of course, so that I don't have any problems with a potassium deficiency. Jones
