On 12/28 Jones Beene said [snip] Fusion is completely ruled out since the reactants are far too cold. 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.[/snip]
Jones, although I don't think this is "fusion" either I can't entirely rule it out like you appear to be doing. You know of my conviction regarding Naudt's relativistic interpretation and I have to consider a reaction that only occurs in extreme relativistic warp induced by suppression of larger virtual particles - the resulting radiation would have to likewise translate from this extreme warp back to normal space before we could detect it and therefore be downshifted. Fran -----Original Message----- From: Jones Beene [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 9:45 PM To: [email protected] Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:LENR & 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi? -----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. 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). 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, in order to produce excess energy without much gamma radiation (some but not much) and without much transmutation (some but not much). Fusion is completely ruled out since the reactants are far too cold. 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. 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
