Ed, Well I think that we now have honed-down the differing points-of-view to Planck time <g>
You seem to be saying that even if a transmuton exists, it becomes a real unbound neutron (high mass) prior to becoming a bound (stable average mass) neutron. In contrast, I am suggesting that it never becomes an unbound neutron; and instead appears ab initio as a bound (stable mass) particle without ever going through the stage of "real neutron" so there is no (or only slight) additional energy to dissipate. Jones > > > >> When C12 is converted to C13 by addition of a neutron, the following > >> mass change occurs: > > > >> 12.0000000 + 1.0086649 = 13.0033548, which represent a loss of mass > >> equal to 0.0053101 AMU. This is equal to 4.95 MeV. The mechanism > >> does > >> not matter. If C12 is the starting material and C13 is the product, > >> this much energy MUST be removed. > > > > No one denies this Ed. You seem to be missing the point. > > > > The point is that C12 has a cross section for neutrons which is so > > very low that this reaction above will NEVER happen in practice, so > > the energy content before and after, of a real neutron, is > > absolutely meaningless to this situation. > > > > We are not dealing with a real neutron reaction. Period > > I agree, Jones. However, if C12 is converted to C13, a real neutron > must be added. This real neutron might have been a virtual neutron at > one time, but once it enters the C12 nucleus, it has to become a real > neutron to make C13 real C13. Once this happens, by whatever magic you > can imagine, the mass balance must take place. > > Ed > > > > > > OK let's move on from there. You may complain that my invention of a > > "transmuton" which derives from a proton initially but has far less > > mass to loose, when it is adsorbed by 12C as a neutral energy poor > > particle - has no basis of fact in prior science, and that is > > clearly true. > > > > I will agree that for now - the transmuton or virtual neutron or > > whatever one wishes to label it - is a "construct" or an invention > > which serves a specific purpose. It could easily be fiction. > > > > But it is a construct in exactly the same sense that the neutrino > > was for many decades a construct, a fiction and an invention - which > > served a specific purpose ... that is, until the neutrino was > > discovered to be both real and very close to having the physical > > properties that its inventors thought it would have when it was > > "constructed". > > > > Jones > >
