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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNO_cycle
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 <mailto:l...@thedyers.org.uk>
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?