Some years I noticed a curious parallel betweenl the shape of a typical stress strain curve and the shape of the binding energy curve. If the parallelism is more than just a coincidence then it suggests the standard binding energy curve is only "apparent" and the true binding energy does not have a maximum.
In this link I placed a stress strain curve beside a binding energy curve. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxxczzEYA5C5ZlUwRHNaaDQ0Qzg/view?usp=sharing Engineers speak of an apparent stress strain curve when they ignore changes in cross sectional area. Could physicists have been ignoring some equivalent area in their model of nuclei? At first I thought about changes to the shape of the whole nuclei but this has already been taken into account in their calculations. What has not been considered - I could be mistaken - is that the shape of a single proton is subject to deformation. Perhaps a proton experiences elastic deformation when fused into lighter elements but experiences plastic deformation when fused into heavier nuclei. This might be related to the fact that Jones has often pointed out that a certain property of protons (I forget which) is not known as definitely as other constants. Harry On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 9:05 PM Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > Reworded from the prior thread: > > > the % abundance of Ni-62 which we find in nature is surprisingly low at > only 3.6% of all nickel. This abundance should be much higher given its > inherent nuclear stability (binding energy). The solution to that mystery > may help explain something vital about LENR. > > Nickel-62 is an isotope which is singular in nature in having the very > highest binding energy per nucleon of all known nuclides. There is no > isotope in nature with greater binding energy. > > Side note: It is often stated that iron-56 is the "most stable nucleus" > but that is only because it has lower mass per nucleon than nickel, and > Ni-62 does indeed have slightly higher binding energy and higher mass. > > OK. Why should this matter? > > Well maybe it doesn't matter, but here is the convoluted logic of why I > believe that this low abundance in nature combined with the highest > possible binding energy - is completely counter-intuitive and actually does > matter ... and moreover, it may lead us to an explanation of why LENR is > more far likely with this isotope than any other. You may not agree with > the logic, but it needs to be voiced as it has not been considered prior to > now. > > Lets begin with iron-56 which is the most common isotope of iron, > comprising about 92% of all iron with a 8.8 MeV binding energy per nucleon > second only to Ni-62. This could mean, among other things, that following a > supernova - where all heavy elements are created, higher binding energy > signals higher natural abundance. Nickel and iron are extremely similar in > almost all physical properties except this relationship. There is also a > good fit with other isotopes which have high binding energy - they tend to > be more abundant within their element compared to other isotopes. > > Now, look at copper. Cu-63 (which can appear following proton interaction > with Ni-62). It is the most abundant isotope of the element copper, at > almost 60% enrichment - and in a supernova, it forms after nickel. > > One unavoidable conclusion from all of this is that in a supernova, with > the protons interacting at high energy, we see a unexpected preference for > Ni-62 making copper instead of becoming more abundant in nickel... which > could mean that in some heretofore unknown way - the reaction of Ni-62 + P > > Cu-63 could be massively favored naturally. This is counter-intuitive. > > I realize that this logic is difficult to word properly, their are missing > pieces to the puzzle, and there could be a mundane rationale for it all. > But if not - here we have a bit of evidence that suggest that in fusion > with protons - Ni-62 is indeed "special" in allowing the reaction to > proceed at lower energy and higher probability than expected, based on what > happens with other transition metals. > > If it weren't so easy to do in nature, then there would be far less copper > in the form of Cu-63 and far more Ni-62 in natural nickel (about 15 times > more, based on isotopes of similar metals). > > Jones > > > > > > > >
