On Dec 28, 2011, at 5:44 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
You were talking about protons. I can think of only two examples
where the
binding energy of a proton is negative.
1. Protium.
2. Helium.
Bingo. But do not miss the forest for the trees. The bottom line is
that we
are only interested in the strong force interaction of two protons in
2-space.
They cannot fuse. Surprisingly many vorticians apparently do not
realize
that this reaction is strongly endothermic.
This is false. Consider:
H + H --> D + e+ + v + 0.42 MeV
This is followed by:
e- + e+ --> 2 gamma + 1.02 MeV
This is not different in result from:
H + H --> D + v + 2 gamma + 1.44 MeV
The key to understanding the overcoming of the Coulomb barrier is the
realization that absorbed hydrogen is neither molecular or atomic.
Electrons can pass close to to the protons, and thus form strong
momentary magnetic bonds via spin coupling.
Of course the above reactions have a low probability of occurrence.
There are many reactions far more likely to occur if lattice elements
are involved. See:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RptH
These result in most cases with follow-on weak reactions that further
increase the net energy.
With the other elements involved
in Ni-H (nickel and/or a dielectric) there is almost zero
probability of a
proton getting close enough to react with any Ni nuclei (or other
high Z
nuclei).
This is wrong if you include the possibility that a proton and
electron jointly tunnel to the nucleus.
In short, the only thing we should be concerned with, in trying to
explaining Rossi/DGT thermal gain - is how do protons in dense
accumulations
interact with each other,
This is mistaken. See:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/NiProtonRiddle.pdf
in order to produce excess energy without much
gamma radiation (some but not much) and without much transmutation
(some but
not much).
If an electron is in the nucleus to begin with the EM field
disruption ejects the electron instead of radiating. The electron
then radiates the energy in smaller packets, because it is
energetically trapped.
Fusion is completely ruled out since the reactants are far too
cold.
This is false. This is a denial of LENR in general. There is
experimental evidence of heavy element transmutations in protium
experiments. This could not happen if "reactants being cold" were a
valid reason for denial.
It is a mistake to think that gammas can be shielded by low density
elements. This would be too easy to demonstrate, if it were true.
This I agree with. This kind of shielding was the only claim
permitted by the examiner in the W&L patent. It was accepted without
experimental evidence.
That is the point that my proposed dynamic interaction: "strong
force plus
negative binding energy" between protons, strives to explain. There is
excess energy in a way that convention nuclear physics cannot describe
because there is minimal mass->energy conversion per nuclei per
reaction.
Let me reiterate that it is not precisely a nuclear reaction, in
that the
energy comes from non-quark nuclear mass. I call it "subnuclear",
since
protium has substantial excess mass which is "non-quantized". Only
the quark
mass is quantized, and that is but a fraction of total nuclear
mass, even in
protium.
Jones
I must have missed this. I only read a portion of the posts now.
When the content no longer matches the thread name, or is preceded by
technical content free discussion, I am likely to miss it. Did you
calculate the energy of your proposed reactions?
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
