>From Jones: > The most interesting distinction in all of physics comes into focus with > Ni-H, assuming that it is NOT a nuclear reaction (as normally understood). > There is no proof that Ni-H is primarily nuclear, and many indications that > it is not, and there are also indications that there is some secondary > nuclear activity which cannot account for more than a tiny fraction of the > excess energy seen. If not primarily nuclear, then how does chemistry enter > the picture? > > Short answer: non-Newtonian gravity at femtometer geometry. Long answer, QCD > mass-to-energy conversion. The two are interrelated.
... Interesting read, Jones. It inspired me in some weird way to write the following thoughts. Nevertheless, I fear I'm probably going end up responding in a tangential way. (If so, My apologies.). I find myself asking: Why must we feel obliged to assign a specific mass to individual protons and neutrons within the atomic nuclei of all elements? It makes more sense to me to look at the whole process as a group effort pertaining to individual atomic nuclei. IOW, it's not individual protons or neutrons within the nucleus that we must feel obliged to assign specific individual mass to. That's silly! The actual unit of mass we ought to be focusing on is the entire mass of the atomic nuclei. IOW, it's a collective effort pertaining to the entire nucleus - and not the "mass" of individual protons and neutrons flitting about within the nucleus. I concur that this mass/energy conversion process is probably based on specific distances involved, as you seem to be implying. Trying to chart out the unique nexuses points of where these distances seem to switch back and forth from attractive to repulsive forces seems to be the trillion dollar question we'd all love answered. I'm inclined to visualize this process in the form of waves, like a static snapshot of a pebble being thrown into pond. I'm also inclined to speculate that these positive/negative waves of influence become exponentially longer at greater distances. Likewise the same wave of influence becomes exponentially shorter the closer one gets to the center of the nuclei. Mathematically speaking, I think one can sort of visualize this process using a simple polynomial equation... something similar to: F = + 1/(r^n) - 1/(r^n+1) + 1/(r^n+2) - 1/(r^n+3) ... Notice the sign flips back and forth between "+" and "-" with each exponential increase. Let me also add: The shorter the distance the greater the exponential number used. Well, that's my chemical influence for the day. Tonight I'll weigh myself after my nightly shower. Lose some mass??? (I wish) ;-) Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
