Correction: Rossi now believes that proton decay powers the Sun
should read Holmlid believes that proton decay powers the Sun On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/ > journal.pone.0169895#pone.0169895.ref007 > > In his latest article, Holmlid rejects fusion as too weak to power the > energy output that he is seeing in his experiments. > > Holmlid states: > > "The origin of the particle signals observed here is clearly > laser-induced nuclear processes in H(0). The first step is the > laser-induced transfer of the H2(0) pairs in the ultra-dense material > H(0) from excitation state *s* = 2 (with 2.3 pm H-H distance) to *s* = 1 > (at 0.56 pm H-H distance) [2 > <http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169895#pone.0169895.ref002>]. > The state *s* = 1 may lead to a fast nuclear reaction. It is suggested > that this involves two nucleons, probably two protons. The first particles > formed and observed [16 > <http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169895#pone.0169895.ref016> > ,17 > <http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169895#pone.0169895.ref017>] > are kaons, both neutral and charged, and also pions. From the six quarks in > the two protons, three kaons can be formed in the interaction. Two protons > correspond to a mass of 1.88 GeV while three kaons correspond to 1.49 GeV. > Thus, the transition 2 p → 3 K is downhill in internal energy and releases > 390 MeV. If pions are formed directly, the energy release may be even > larger. The kaons formed decay normally in various processes to charged > pions and muons. In the present experiments, the decay of kaons and pions > is observed directly normally through their decay to muons, while the muons > leave the chamber before they decay due to their easier penetration and > much longer lifetime." > > Holmlid is now saying that proton decay is where all the energy and mesons > are derived from. > > Holmlid states: > > The time variation of the collector signals was initially assumed to be > due to time-of-flight of the ejected particles from the target to the > collectors. Even the relatively low particle velocity of 10–20 MeV u-1 found > with this assumption [21 > <http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169895#pone.0169895.ref021> > –23 > <http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169895#pone.0169895.ref023>] > is not explainable as originating in ordinary nuclear fusion. The highest > energy particles from normal D+D fusion are neutrons with 14.1 MeV and > protons with 14.7 MeV [57 > <http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169895#pone.0169895.ref057>]. > The high-energy protons are only formed by the D + 3He reaction step, > which is relatively unlikely and for example not observed in our > laser-induced D+D fusion study in D(0) [14 > <http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169895#pone.0169895.ref014>]. > Any high-energy neutrons would not be observed in the present experiments. > Thus, ordinary fusion D+D cannot give the observed particle velocities. > Further, similar particle velocities are obtained also from the > laser-induced processes in p(0) as seen in Figs 4 > <http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169895#pone-0169895-g004> > , 6 > <http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169895#pone-0169895-g006> > and 7 > <http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169895#pone-0169895-g007> > etc, > where no ordinary fusion process can take place. Thus, it is apparent that > the particle energy observed is derived from other nuclear processes than > ordinary fusion. It is clear that such laser-induced nuclear processes > exist in p(0) as well as in D(0). The low laser intensity used here, of the > order of 3×10^12 W cm-2 makes it impossible to directly accelerate the > particles (especially the neutral ones) to high energies. For example, in > Refs. [58 > <http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169895#pone.0169895.ref058> > ,59 > <http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169895#pone.0169895.ref059>] > more than 10^19 W cm-2 was used to accelerate heavy ions to > 1 MeV u-1 > energies, > thus close to 10^7 higher intensity than used here. > > In contradiction to the PP fusion theory of the Sun's nuclear reaction, > proton decay is the true source of the Sun's energy. > > Rossi now beleives that proton decay powers the Sun > > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017JA024498/abstract > > Abstract > > Ultradense hydrogen H(0) is a very dense hydrogen cluster phase with H-H > distances in the picometer range. It has been studied experimentally in > several publications from our group. A theoretical model exists which > agrees well with laser-pulse-induced time-of-flight spectra and with > rotational spectroscopy emission spectra. Coulomb explosions in H(0) in > spin state *s* = 1 generate protons with kinetic energies larger than the > retaining gravitational energy at the photosphere of the Sun. The required > proton kinetic energy above 2 keV has been directly observed in published > experiments. Such protons may be ejected from the Sun and are proposed to > form the solar wind. The velocity distributions of the protons are > calculated for three different ejecting modes from spin state *s* = 1. > They agree well with both the fast and the slow solar winds. The best > agreement is found for H(0) cluster sizes of 3 and 20–50 atoms; such > clusters have been studied experimentally previously. The properties of > ultradense hydrogen H(0) give also a few novel possibilities to explain the > high corona temperature of the Sun. > Plain Language Summary > > The solar wind contains protons from the Sun with high velocity. The > mechanism for their ejection from the strong gravitation at the Sun's > surface has been debated for a long time. Protons with high enough energy > can be ejected from a condensed form of hydrogen called ultradense > hydrogen, which is stable even at the temperature of the Sun. Experiments > show that such a mechanism exists. Calculations now give good agreement > with the velocities of both the slow and the fast solar winds. > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:22 AM, JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net> 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. >> >> >> >> *https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/615/1/012016/pdf >> <https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/615/1/012016/pdf>* >> >> >> >> >> >> *From: *Nigel Dyer <l...@thedyers.org.uk> >> >> >> >> In the text of the wikipedia page about proton proton fusion >> >> >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton%E2%80%93proton_chain_reaction >> >> >> >> 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? >> >> >> >> Nigel >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
