Yes, the protons are far apart, however because the protons are in orbit they experience a relatively lengthy period of association compared to the brief encounter experienced by two protons randomly wandering about. The amount time they spend in orbit would tend to increase the probability of fusion by QM tunneling, although this temporal advantage might be completely offset by a probability
reduction due to the large separation. Harry ----- Original Message ---- > From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Wed, June 15, 2011 12:42:52 AM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Third Way > > In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Tue, 14 Jun 2011 21:30:27 -0700 (PDT): > Hi, > > In order for the ion to be negative it would have to have more electrons than > are required of the neutral atom. Such ions are larger than atoms (quite a bit > larger), and so the proton would be even further away than normal. IOW fusion > would be less likely, rather than more likely. Furthermore, as the proton > approached it would get inside the outer electrons of the ion, and would > "see" >a > net positive body rather than a negative one, hence would be repelled. > > > >Would a proton *orbiting* a negatively charged ion be more likely to undergo > >spontaneous fusion with ion's nucleus > >than two free protons wondering around at room temperature? > > > >Harry > > > >> > >>From: Harry Veeder <[email protected]> > >>To: [email protected] > >>Sent: Tue, June 14, 2011 9:29:04 PM > >>Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Third Way > >> > >> > >>This have very large orbits, but might heavy rydberg systems play role? > >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_Rydberg_system > >> > >>(They were first observed in 2000) > >> > >>Harry > >> > >>> > >>>From: Axil Axil <[email protected]> > >>>To: [email protected] > >>>Sent: Tue, June 14, 2011 8:07:55 PM > >>>Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Third Way > >>> > >>>I believe that the Randell L. Mills hydrino technology and the Rossi H-Ni > >>>technology are one in the same. > >>> > >>> > >>>From the mills patent application: > >>> > >>>http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20110114075 > >>> > >>>[quote]The power source of claim 2 wherein the reaction mixture comprising >an > > >>>oxidation-reduction reaction to cause the catalysis reaction comprises: > >>>(i) >at > > >>>least one catalyst chosen from Li, LiH, K, KH, NaH, Rb, RbH, Cs, and >CsH[/quote] > >>> > >>>As a general statement, the catalyst for H-Ni technology is one or more > >>>of >the > > >>>following compounds Li, LiH, K, KH, NaH, Rb, RbH, Cs, and CsH. the > >>>catalyst > >is > > >>>one among the alkali metals including lithium (Li), sodium (Na), > >>>potassium > > > >>>(K), rubidium (Rb), caesium (Cs). These elements will produce Rydberg > >>>matter > >in > > >>>abundance when exposed to a hot hydrogen atmosphere. > >>> > >>> > >>>Because Rydberg matter is hard to detect and categorize, I believe that >Mills is > > >>>producing Rydberg matter and misinterpreting it as being fractionally >charged > > >>>hydrogen. > >>> > >>>It looks to me that Mills has every possible combination of catalysts and > >>>lattice material locked down and it will be an interesting legal battle > >>>for > >the > > >>>courts to determine who controls the rights to the H-Ni technology. > >>> > >>>Mills has not yet recognized that Rydberg matter is at the bottom of his >reactor > > >>>just like it is for the reactors of Rossi and the rest. > >>> > >>> > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk > > http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html > >
