It seems the description of the reaction involves the generation of an electron and a positron that are repelled from the reaction site in odd “unexpected” angles. This suggests to me that the two particles are not created (released from the reacting entity) at the same time. That may explain why there are no coincident gammas from nihilation (p+e) .
I have often wondered about the pair production reaction without immediate nihilation. It may be possible if magnetic dipoles are such at pair production so as to repel the e-p new particles. I suspect that a neutrino is involved initially that keeps the p-e pair together without reacting. This mediation of a neutrino probably happens in nucleons to keep the positrons and electrons together. Regarding a 5th force—I doubt it. What looks like a new force is really is really dipole or quadrupole attractions between small groups of positron-electron pairs in nucleons. Forces ( IMHO forces of the other 3 forces are also E-M related in their essence.) Bob Cook From: Andrew Meulenberg<mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2019 10:15 AM To: VORTEX<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Vo]:X17, UDH and a fifth force (or dark matter) While the presence of a ~17 MeV decay path, from excited 4He could explain aspects of the D+D => 4He of CF by avoiding both the fragmentation and lack of >20 MeV photons from this fusion, there are other problems with this solution. The main problem is the lack of 511 keV annihilation radiation from the positrons posited. An associated problem is the quantity of lepton energy, required to produce the observed excess heat, would mean vast quantities of the positrons to produce said radiation. On the other hand, there are arguments for why such a decay path could be possible for CF, if we consider the two ~100 MeV deep-orbit electrons created in the fusing of the deuterium pair. A better test of the X17 hypothesis might be the photo-excitation to the first excited states of 4He. Present results of such work yield the dominant proton + tritium fragmentation of those excitations. However, it is unlikely that such experiments sought, or were even equipped to selectively detect and identify, the energetic leptons proposed for the X17 model Andrew _ _ _ On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 9:56 AM Jones Beene <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: As fate would have it, the identity of a "fifth force" of nature is becoming closely tied to LENR and the findings of Holmlid about proton annihilation. Five years ago in Hungary, Attila Krasznahorkay at the Hungarian Inst.for Nuclear Research presented evidence for a previously undescribed light boson (17 MeV) - which is about 34 times heavier than the electron. This particle is similar to what Holmlid suggests are muons. Muons are 200 times heavier but there is some doubt about what Holmlid has found and it could be that there is a connection between the two. Here is the announcement which it should be noted was not subject to peer review. https://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-claim-a-they-ve-found-even-more-evidence-of-a-new-force-of-nature In short, the prior X17 finding was updated in a new context and is still being promoted as a related fifth force. BTW - Wiki now has an entry on the X17 particle. In the new work, the proposed (fifth) force (or particle) may better explain a known muon anomaly and also provide a dark matter candidate, so it seems that several disparate phenomena are being merged into a single line of research. Krasznahorkay has now observed the anomaly in helium atoms similar to what had been observed in beryllium-8, strengthening the case for the X17 particle's existence - and also stronger but not mentioned is a further cross-connection to cold fusion since Be-8 has for 25 years or more been proposed as the reaction pathway way to expalin the absence of a strong gamma in the P-F effect. The implications of the possible merger of the X17 particle and a fifth force and ultra dense hydrogen and dark matter into a single phenomenon would be astounding. It would answer so many questions, previously written off as "pathological science" that it is easy to get excited about this additional finding.
