Hi Horace, I noticed that the sums of the released photons plus the terms in brackets are close, but not really the same. Why?
What is the meaning of that sum? I cannot figure out, I'm sorry. 2011/12/17 Horace Heffner <[email protected]> > Deflation fusion theory provides a potential solution to the riddle of why > the radioactive byproducts 59CU29, 61Cu29 and 62Cu29 to the Ni + p > reactions do not appear in Rossi's byproducts. This solution of the > specific radioactive byproducts problem is manifest if the following rules > are obeyed by the environment, except in extremely improbable instances: > > > 1. The initial wavefunction collapse involves the Ni nucleus plus two p* > > 2. As with all LENR, radioactive byproducts are energetically > disallowed. > > Here p* represents a deflated hydrogen atom, consisting of a proton and > electron in a magnetically bound orbital, and v represents a neutrino. > > The above two rules result in the following energetically feasible > reactions: > > 58Ni28 + 2 p* --> 60Ni28 + 2 v + 18.822 MeV [-0.085] > > 60Ni28 + 2 p* --> 62Ni28 + 2 v + 16.852 MeV [-1.842] > 60Ni28 + 2 p* --> 58Ni28 + 4He2 + 7.909 MeV [-10.786] > 60Ni28 + 2 p* --> 61Ni28 + 1H1 + v + 7.038 MeV [-11.657] > > 61Ni28 + 2 p* --> 62Ni28 + 1H1 + v + 9.814 MeV [-8.777] > > 62Ni28 + 2 p* --> 64Ni28 + 2 v + 14.931 Mev [-3.560] > 62Ni28 + 2 p* --> 64Zn30 + 13.835 MeV [-4.656] > 62Ni28 + 2 p* --> 60Ni28 + 4He2 + 9.879 MeV [-8.612] > 62Ni28 + 2 p* --> 63Cu29 + 1H1 + 6.122 MeV [-12.369] > 62Ni28 + 2 p* --> 59Co27 + 4He2 + 1H1 + 00.346 MeV [-18.145] > > 64Ni28 + 2 p* --> 66Zn30 + 16.378 MeV [-1.918] > 64Ni28 + 2 p* --> 62Ni28 + 4He2 + 11.800 MeV [-6.497] > 64Ni28 + 2 p* --> 65Cu29 + 1H1 + 7.453 MeV [-10.843] > > Ni28 + 2 p* ---> 2 1H1 + 0 MeV > > Note that in the case where the second p* is rejected and results in 1H1, > ultimately a hydrogen atom, that the electron and proton are not ejected at > the same time. The large positive nuclear charge ejects the proton > immediately with approximately 6 MeV kinetic energy. > > This kind of zero point energy fueled proton ejection should result in > detectible brehmstrahlung. This energy is in addition to the mass change > energy listed above. The approximately 6 MeV free energy so gained is made > up from the zero point field via uncertainty pressure expanding any > remaining trapped electron's wavefunction. Such energy may also be obtained > from the direct magnetic attraction of a pair of deflated protons, without > the aid of a lattice nucleus. This is of the form: > > p* + P* --> 2 1H1 > > However, the repulsion of a proton from a proton is far less than from a > large nucleus, and the electrons in this case are not trapped when the > protons separate. However, some EuV radiation can be expected from the > ensemble breakup. A very very small rate of pep reactions may occur: > > p + p* --> D + e+ + v + 0.42 MeV > > p* + p* --> D + e- + e+ + v + 0.42 MeV > > > These are followed immediately by: > > e- + e+ --> 2 gamma + 0.59 MeV > > and this gamma producing reaction was not observed above background in the > Rossi E-cats. > > The following represent energetically feasible initial strong reactions > based on deflation fusion theory: > > Compare to 18.822 MeV: > > 58Ni28 + p* --> 59Cu29 * + 3.419 MeV [-4.867 MeV] > > 58Ni28 + 2 p* --> 56Ni28 * + 4He2 + 5.829 MeV [-10.650 MeV] > 58Ni28 + 2 p* --> 60Zn30 * + 8.538 MeV [-7.941 MeV] > > Compare to: 16.852 MeV: > > 60Ni28 + p* --> 61Cu29 * + 4.801 MeV [-3.394 MeV] > > 60Ni28 + 2 p* --> 58Ni28 + 4He2 + 7.909 MeV [-8.391 MeV] > 60Ni28 + 2 p* --> 62Zn30 * + 11.277 MeV [-5.022 MeV] > > Compare to: 9.814 MeV > > 61Ni28 + p* --> 58Co27 * + 4He2 + 00.489 MeV [-7.661 MeV] > 61Ni28 + p* --> 62Cu29 * + 5.866 MeV [-2.284 MeV] > > 61Ni28 + 2 p* --> 59Ni28 * + 4He2 + 9.088 MeV [-7.125 MeV] > 61Ni28 + 2 p* --> 62Cu29 * + 1H1 + 5.866 MeV [-10.347 MeV] > 61Ni28 + 2 p* --> 63Zn30 * + 12.570 MeV [-3.643 MeV] > > Compare to: 14.931 Mev > > 62Ni28 + p* --> 59Co27 + 4He2 + 00.346 MeV [-7.760 MeV] > 62Ni28 + p* --> 63Cu29 + 6.122 MeV [-1.984 MeV] > 62Ni28 + 2 p* --> 64Zn30 + 13.835 MeV [-2.293 MeV] > > Compare to: 16.378 MeV > > 64Ni28 + p* --> 65Cu29 + 7.453 MeV [-0.569 MeV] > 64Ni28 + 2 p* --> 66Zn30 + 16.378 MeV [00.415 MeV] > > In all cases the net reaction energies of the proposed reactions exceed > those the net energies from reactions that produce radioactive isotopes. > This makes rule 2 reasonable and understandable on an energy only basis. > The mechanism that enforces the rule is more difficult to understand. > Understanding the mechanism requires understanding the initial energy > deficit due to the trapped electron. This deficit is shown in brackets > above. This deficit provides a limit to how far an energetically ejected > electron can travel out of the coulomb well before being pulled back. If > an electron is in the nucleus at the site of the initial reaction, then a > large part of the energy that normally goes into ejecting a gamma goes into > ejecting the trapped electron. However, given that this energy is > insufficient, the electron has numerous delayed passes through the nucleus > in which to effect a weak reaction. The electron, when outside the nucleus > and accelerating, is free to radiate large numbers of gammas in much > smaller than normal energies. It is also notable that the electron energy > deficits noted are only initial lower limits. The actual initial energy > deficit can be much higher, depending on the radius of the deflated proton > or deflated quark involved. > > The tendency for Ni + 2 p* reactions to occur rather than Ni + p* > reactions may be due to a tunneling energy threshold. The tandem aligned 3 > poles configuration, N-S N-S N-S contains more potential than the > corresponding two pole configuration, N-S N-S. For this reason it seems a > strong magnetic field may benefit the reaction rate, even above the Debye > temperature. > > > For background on deflation fusion theory see: > > > http://www.mail-archive.com/**[email protected]/msg59132.**html<http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg59132.html> > > Best regards, > > Horace Heffner > http://www.mtaonline.net/~**hheffner/<http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/> > > > > > -- Daniel Rocha - RJ [email protected]
