In fact I have unilaterally removed the offending gamma from the Wikipedia page. I dont expect it to return.  The only gamma rays that it continues correctly to mention are those associated with the annihilation of the positron with an electron.

The Mark Davidson paper is very good.  I will have to get my son to go over the variable mass hypothesis as it is very much in his territory.   Indeed he has some ideas and a paper that he is working on that may be very relevant.  The roundup of nuclear anomalies is very good.  I was reassured that there were no surprises in the list.

I agree that proton-proton fusion would appear to be low probability.  However there are still some situations, all of which are included in the list where I think it would be premature to rule this out at this stage.  I spent some time looking at thunder storm related anomalies, which are a lot more complex and 'poorly understood' than the one paragraph in the paper would suggest and still think that proton-proton fusion might be part of the story.

Bringing the two together, given that the Davidson paper also includes radioactive decay variation (ie weak force effects) in the list of anomalies, then perhaps he should have included neutrinos and their mass in his thinking.  This could then be of relevance if there does turn out to be some proton-proton fusion scenarios,  which is why I came to be looking at the Wikipedia page in the first place


On 31/08/2017 15:22, JonesBeene wrote:

Proton-proton fusion is of such low probability that it is almost a waste of time to think that it has relevance in the real world, despite the mainstream view. We see gamma radiation in stars with or without fusion (even Jupiter and the gas giants have lots of gamma emission) but this usually derives from positron/electron events, not fusion. A related phenomenon used to be called Wheeler’s “quantum foam” but the term has gone out of favor. (Wiki has an entry). A real proton/proton fusion event would be akin to winning every prize in the lottery on every draw for a year in a row… and has no applicability to LENR because of rarity.

There has to be a better crossover explanation - but proton fusion in so engrained that it will be difficult to weed out. Even Ed Storms has fallen for it.

As an alternative to proton-proton fusion, there is a fully reversible diproton reaction with asymmetry. The diproton reaction is the most common reaction in the universe but it always reverses quickly. It is assumed to be net neutral in energy, mainly because of the assumption that proton mass is quantized - but that assumption is probably wrong - and each reaction event could have small gain contributory to stellar CNO fusion which is real:

Bottom line, if the proton has variable mass, then the reversible diproton reaction alone can power a star or it can be contributory . A population of protons which is not quantized can capture and convert mass to energy in several ways including the complete annihilation event of Holmlid. This has relevance to LENR and at one time here, I was promoting an alternative hypothesis for Ni-H gain called RPF – or Reversible Proton Fusion... but, alas - there is nothing new under the sun, as they say and someone had already thought of it.

In the “small world” category, or maybe it is in the meme category – a theorist who lives not far away, came up with the same suggestion earlier. “Variable mass theories in relativistic quantum mechanics as an explanation for anomalous low energy nuclear phenomena” by Mark Davidson. Worth a read.


/ <>/


*From: *Nigel Dyer <>

In the text of the wikipedia page about proton proton fusion

It says that in the first stage, when two protons fuse, a gamma ray

proton is produced.  However this is not shown in the diagram, or in

anyone elses diagram, or in anyone else's text.   Is the wikipedia page

incorrect.   If no gamma ray photon is produced then where does the

excess energy (0.42MeV) from this first stage go?


Reply via email to