On Apr 13, 2011, at 9:07 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:
Not problematic at all! That is exactly what my theory predicts.
The energy deficits of deflation fusion prevent isomers form
forming and thus (large) gammas. The combination of strong force
reactions with large energy deficits followed by weak reactions
when feasible makes for non-radioactive products too.
On Apr 14, 2011, at 5:26 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
Well, yes the energy production involving zero point energy is the
best part about it for me! but the problem is the following weak
reaction and the fast electron.
Ironic! That's a part Robin finds objectionable. Everyone brings
their own perspective to the theory, and that makes communication
difficult. Communication is most difficult with people who have
their own pet theory of LENR.
How does a fast electron not produce gamma radiation?
Keep in mind the fast electron is trapped, it can not escape the
nucleus. The electron is initially trapped in the composite
nucleus. When it is outside the nucleus it does not radiate,
because spin flipping is required to get the spin for the photon. Its
kinetic energy can be expected to be thermalized in the nucleus, with
near light speed hops between hadrons. The thermalization can be
expected to extract kinetic energy from both the hadrons and the
electron, via the cooling mechanism of photon emission. Those hops
involve spin flips and photon generation. This process is similar
to, but the exact reverse of, the process of electron "tile jumping"
on graphine. See:
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/is-space-like-a-
chessboard-199015.aspx
It is also similar to the quantum mechanism by which nuclei radiate
in nuclear magnetic resonance applications. The electron and the
particles it interacts with are massive, due to high gammas. The
radiation energy available to the photon from this process are
small. Also, the electron inside a nucleus is highly shielded, so
much of the radiation results in nuclear heat, which is kept in
balance by interaction of nuclear particles with the zero point
field. It is notable the hydrogen nucleus, be it protium or
deuterium, has significant kinetic energy in the pre-fusion deflated
state as well - a kinetic energy nearly matching that of the
electron, which has a similar mass due to a high gamma. In the case
of Ni-P fusion, both the proton and electron contribute to the
initial nuclear heat, but it is the interaction with the electron
that causes the radiation. This radiation comes in small
incremental chunks of energy, not in large increments that result
from nuclear isomer state changes.
Is there an example of beta decay that does not register on a
sensitive meter?
What beta decay? My theory predicts only electron capture when the
large deficit is present. The electron does not even have the energy
to escape. Yet another electron release, if that were energetically
feasible, would result in a similarly but even further de-energized
nucleus. When electron capture occurs post deflation fusion, there
is not even the x-ray emission due to electron orbital adjustments,
or the possible resulting auger electron. That is because the
electron being captured is *from outside the orbitals" of the heavy
atom. When the neutral deflated hydrogen tunnels into the Ni
nucleus, it does so from outside the Ni atom. There are no
adjustments to the electron cloud necessary to accommodate the
tunneling. This is part of what makes the tunneling so probable, the
hopping rate so high. There is no electrostatic energy barrier, no
energy required to distort the lattice, and magnetic energy provides
the energy to enable the tunneling event.
My unsophisticated meters pick up beta decays from bananas! And
I’ve noticed that several vorticians including Robin seem to
overlook that a fast electron (from a deep hydrino reaction) should
easily show up. Nothing in the form of detectable radiation
(notwithstanding Rossi’s assurance to the contrary) has turned up
in sophisticated testing in Bologna AFAIK.
My understanding is small counts of radiation have been detected at
start-up and power down in at least the initial demo, as well as up
to a day later in the fuel. This is not important to the bulk of the
reactions required to produce the observed enthalpy though, nor
critical to whether my theory applies.
If you look at Levi’s CV and papers (sparse to being with) – he is
an instrument specialist ! We can pretty much be certain that there
were no appreciable weak force reactions in that demo since his
probe was under the shielding.
Not according to my theory. According to my theory there may be
small amounts of radiation detected, due to the stochastic nature of
the energy deficit, but in the bulk no high energy radiation will be
produced because to the large energy deficits prevent it.
Perhaps I missed something, which is not hard to do with so much
information coming in from all directions in 2011. Having said
that, I think you are definitely on the right track. I will only be
a matter of time before Larsen incorporates what he likes about it
into his theory, if he hasn’t already J
Jones
Yes, and others no doubt, but the terminology will undoubtedly be
changed. This is a case of a few simple concepts answering a lot of
otherwise unanswerable questions. The principle concept of use is
that no high degree of binding energy is required for the Coulomb
barrier to be breached. It is easily breached by the simultaneous
*joint* tunneling of an electron and hydrogen nucleus as an ensemble,
be that hydrogen protium or deuterium.
When the fusion causing wavefunction collapse occurs, i.e. the small
hydrogen ensemble tunnels to the target nucleus location, the kinetic
energy of the members of the ensemble, and the respective distances
between members of that ensemble, can be assumed to (initially)
remain essentially unchanged. This happens I think when ordinary
protons tunnel, and protons are clearly ensembles. I think this also
happens, when superconductor pairs tunnel across a Josephson
junction. About 50 percent of Josephson Junction (JJ) electron
tunneling events occur as pairs, even though the binding energy of
such pairs is a small fraction of an eV, and even though such a close
pair of electrons outside a superconductor, in the junction gap for
example, would fly apart at great energies. What is interesting
about this is that the kinetic energy of the components can be
expected to remain constant at the values initially present distant
from the target nucleus, while the potential energy of the electron
declines by millions of eV from the tunneling process. The kinetic
energy of neither the electron nor the ensemble hydrogen nucleus
changes, nor does the ensemble potential energy, but the electron
potential energy is made far more negative in the transaction, due to
its sudden proximity to a highly charged nucleus. The potential
energy of the hydrogen nucleus increases by an exactly offsetting
amount to the amount of potential energy lost by the electron, but
this increase does not require any radiation or acceleration of any
kind, because the hydrogen nucleus is bound by the target nucleus via
the strong force. THe strong force then releases energy by binding
the incoming hydrogen nucleus. The net result is both an apparent and
very real energy deficit in the process. There is the appearance
that conservation of energy is violated. Actually, conservation of
energy is not violated by this tunneling part of the process. Energy
from the field energy of the electron was simply removed from the
vacuum by diminishing its EM field by superposition of the composite
nuclear field. The lost vacuum field energy is replaced by the
vacuum field energy associated with the incremental Coulomb force
potential energy of the new proton trapped in the nucleus, which can
not be released unless the new nucleus fissions. The electron is
trapped in the composite nucleus. Its kinetic energy can be expected
to be thermalized in the nucleus, with near light speed hops between
nucleons. The thermalization can be expected to extract kinetic
energy from both the hadrons and the electron, via the cooling
mechanism of photon emission.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
