--- Horace Heffner wrote: > The idea of a low energy bound hydrex, faux neutron, hydrino... acting like a neutron and drifting through the cloud of electrons about the uranium atom is simply not credible. The binding energy is too small. It's like trying to hold down a roof in a tornado with an ordinary rubber band.
Without agreeing or disagreeing with that description (Dufour would disagree)- there is a certain amount of logic there, for sure - and it is basically why I created an alternative premise: that being that the bound electron (2.095 eV) simply removes an acid proton from chemical "participation" for a short time frame - about one second. Such a transient charge-removal can have secondary effects which are greater than the energy of the electron which started the chain of events. Theoretically, if the "neutralized" acid proton moves a sufficient distance away from its formerly-mated sulfate negative ion - then - and without the necessity of penetrating any atom's electron cloud, on decay (disengagement from the electron) the free proton can have a potential of up to the Bohr atom energy (13.6 eV) ... even if in actuality that never happens ... IOW there could be a useful gain w/o a preceding nuclear reaction. This local energy "deficit" adds up and in time would force a QM probability shift, and accelerate real but delayed beta-decay within that same locus. Without a candidate for accelerated beta-decay being present (potassium, lead, etc) the chain of QM events cannot continue. At least that is QM rationalization, and the approximate way in which the "faux-beta-decay" postulate is shaping up, for now. Jones
