-----Original Message----- From: mix...@bigpond.com >There are secondary nuclear reactions but most of the energy gain is from accelerated protons.
> Robin: This implies close proximity between proton and target nucleus. Yes. That is essentially the gist of combining Miley/Holmlid with Lawandy. However, one does not need to subscribe to the full extent of either model. One can combine the two with adjustments. > However if such a proximity exists, then there is no reason a conventional fusion reaction would not take place. You are overlooking one huge reason. When there is negative binding energy between the two particles, fusion cannot take place. What happens next, in that case is open to interpretation, but there is a known example to go on - neutrons. > Besides which, you posit Coulomb force repulsion *after* strong force attraction, but this makes no sense, because the strong force goes as the sixth power of distance whereas the Coulomb force goes as the second power, so once the strong force gains the upper hand, it retains control. Well, it makes perfect sense because the strong force is known to operate only in one vector. It is the same thing when two neutrons come together. There is negative binding energy, and fusion cannot take place - yet the strong force brings them together and they immediately separate - EVEN WITHOUT COLOUMB repulsion (other than near-field). In short, my model combines the high energy of proton acceleration, following a strong force attraction scenario - in situations where there is negative binding energy and Coulomb repulsion. It is based on the neutron model. Jones
