Interesting. Consider using higher multipoles of magnetic and electric interaction to explain variations in nuclear binding. Apparently there are a lot of experiences showing that nuclear binding is affected by electrodynamical conditions.
(It seems like the invention of the "strong force" to explain nuclear binding is a deception theory motivated by the international agreements on preventing proliferation of nuclear technology.) So, how does the electrodynamical conditions differ in space? I know that the E-filed on the Earth surface is like 90-150 V/m with a mean value (RMS?) of 120 V/m. This means that Earth has some net charge and if I remember the experiments correctly the nuclear binding is weakened by charges. Please update me on these experiments. Some researcher on Uppsala University is detecting electrical quadrupole radiation from atomic nuclei so apparently energy is lost from atomic nuclei in the presence of charges, which produces strong gradient E-fields where radiation from multipoles takes place. There is a similarity for the molecular spectrum (vibrational or rotational) in the presence of charges. They also interact with the free charges and loose their energy to them. This phenomena has been called electrostatic cooling. David David Jonsson Sweden phone callto:+46703000370 On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 10:36 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 15 Dec 2008 09:10:40 -0800 > (PST): > Hi Jones, > [snip] > > What's the real difference between your transmuton and Hydrinohydride? > > Consider also that a Hydrino molecule would also nicely "fill the bill", > supplying the required 2 protons in one hit, and being essentially neutral > such > as to possibly allow it to penetrate the electron shells of the Fe, much as > would a neutron. Furthermore, the two shrunken electrons allow for energy > dissipation via IC. > > [snip] > >In fact, the most probable route for the transmutation of iron to nickel > does NOT involve an alpha particle at all, and may have been relatively > recent in time - and probably involves the absorption of two proton > equivalents ! > > > >This is impossible in standard nuclear physics, so we also can suggest > that it "probably" involves LENR in the sense of a new and previously > unrecognized type of nuclear reaction which does NOT create much excess > energy, and therefore does not involve protracted nuclear decay (beta > decay). > > Considerable energy release doesn't necessarily result in radioactivity. As > you > so astutely point out Fe56 + 2P = Ni58, which is stable. In fact one might > argue > that the planetoid between Mars and Jupiter was blown apart by the energy > release. > [snip] > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk <[email protected]> > >
