Alright, so the most probable reactions are those that minimize the energy spent at any given time. That is, those that require the least binding energy for the deflated proton. But, shouldn't that mean that Ni58 is the one that gives more energy? After all the number in bracket is the smallest energy in the bracket.
2012/1/2 Horace Heffner <hheff...@mtaonline.net> > > On Jan 2, 2012, at 4:24 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: > > 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. >> > > The sums in brackets are estimates of the initial energy deficits due to > the trapped electrons. > > E = x*(Z-x)*(1.44E-9 ev m)/r > > r = 0.85*(1.25E-15 m) * A^(1/3) ] > > The reactions you discuss are posted and discussed in the "The Rossi Ni + > p Byproduct Riddle" article here: > > http://www.mtaonline.net/~**hheffner/NiProtonRiddle.pdf<http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/NiProtonRiddle.pdf> > > These deficits are calculated based on 2 simultaneous trapped electrons, > as opposed to one at a time trapping that I compute for thousands of of > potential initial strong reactions here: > > http://www.mtaonline.net/~**hheffner/dfRpt<http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/dfRpt> > > as well as the in the various "strong force only" equations in the The > Rossi Ni + p Byproduct Riddle article, and for Pd reactions here: > > http://www.mtaonline.net/~**hheffner/PdFusion.pdf<http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/PdFusion.pdf> > > The formula used for computing the initial electron trapping energy is > provided at the end of various reports in the dfRpt page. > > When more than one electron can be trapped at a time, or weak reactions > occur in the process, then things get complicated. Mutiple scenarios > evolve that end up with the same final reaction energy, but differing > trapping energies. I only provide one computation to check feasibility of > the trapping reaction, and thus the feasibility of follow-on weak reactions. > > I should note that the trapping energies I provide in brackets in my > equations are approximations. The trapping energy can be greatly > increased depending on the nature of the deflated state prior to tunneling > into the nucleus. Further, all the variables involved are stochastic. > > Electron trapping and the impact of the resulting energy deficit, > especially the impact on branching ratios, was discussed on pages 2-10 of: > > http://www.mtaonline.net/~**hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.**pdf<http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf> > > The trapping energy for single electron reactions, (Z-1) (1.44 x 10-9 ev > m) / r, is discussed in the above. This provides an energy deficit that > can only be made up from the zero point field. The energy deficit from > deflation fusion was also discussed on p. 10 ff of > > http://www.mtaonline.net/%**7Ehheffner/DeflationFusion2.**pdf<http://www.mtaonline.net/%7Ehheffner/DeflationFusion2.pdf> > > The initial Coulomb trapping energy formula for multiple simultaneous > electron trapping is given in the referenced report: > > http://www.mtaonline.net/~**hheffner/PdFusion2.pdf<http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/PdFusion2.pdf> > > as follows: > > Note: Deflated Electectron binding energy computed using E = > x*(Z-x)*(1.44E-9 ev m)/r > [ Initial average electron nuclear radius r estimated using r = > 0.85*(1.25E-15 m) * A^(1/3) ] > > Here x is the number of deflated hydrogen atoms added simultaneously. > This is the formula noted above. This estimate of the initial trapping > energy can be way too low, depending on the nature of the deflated state > prior to tunneling. > > I should also note, that if two electrons are initially involved, i.e. one > in the heavy nucleus, and one in the deflated state hydrogen, that the > initial magnetic potential probably should be subtracted from the binding > energy, because this energy may be imparted in part as kinetic to the > electron/proton pair upon tunneling. When only an electron and ordninary > heavy nucleus magnetic moment are involved I think this correction is not > important. > > I could of course have clerical errors. > > > > > >> 2011/12/17 Horace Heffner <hheff...@mtaonline.net> >> 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/**vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg59132.**html<http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg59132.html> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Horace Heffner >> http://www.mtaonline.net/~**hheffner/<http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Daniel Rocha - RJ >> danieldi...@gmail.com >> >> > Best regards, > > Horace Heffner > http://www.mtaonline.net/~**hheffner/<http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/> > > > > > -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
