In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 21 May 2012 07:26:19 -0700: Hi Jones, [snip] >-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] > >Hi Robin, > >> Either shrinking releases energy or it consumes energy. If it "can no >longer >absorb EUV radiation to further shrink" then it consumes energy. > >Yes, of course. Mills believes that below a certain level this process can >be autocatalytic (if he has not changed that view).
Actually Mills has always said that it can be autocatalytic (disproportionation) at *any* level. >It is what happens at >the end of this progression that determines the harder spectrum gammas, >since as you say, "on the way down" it is EUV or soft x-rays only. The energy of the EM that is emitted depends on the difference between initial and final levels for any given transition. In order to create EM with gamma-ray energy, the difference in levels would have to be about 100. IOW the Hydrino would have go from level 1 to level 100 in a single transition. This implies a catalyst with an m=100 value. The only such catalysts are likely to be other already severely shrunken Hydrinos, and even then I think the transition would be highly unlikely. Far more likely would be a transition of lesser magnitude, e.g. with a change in level on the order of 1-4. > >> A far more likely source of true gammas is the occasional actual fusion >reaction... > >This is where we now disagree: what happens at the "end game" of hydrogen >reducing to maximum redundancy. Your view is essentially the "virtual >neutron" scenario - or a variety thereof. At one time this was my view as >well. > >However, in a revised look at the evidence, I don't think that actual fusion >can happen with any regularity, and consequently the "end result" of the >progression to picometer geometry has to be fast proton expulsion from >another Rydberg nucleus (i.e. another fully reduced hydrino) - which cannot >fuse exothermically. > >Those who believe that two protons can fuse to deuterium must depend on the >miracle of an astoundingly heavy electron - for which there is no proof. >Otherwise it is endothermic.... This is demonstrably not true, or we wouldn't exist. The start of the fusion reaction chain in the Sun is two protons fusing to become a deuteron. This is an *exothermic* reaction which produces 1.44 MeV overall. It may follow either of two paths: 1) Electron capture. (=> 1.44 MeV directly) 2) Positron emission. (produces 0.42 MeV directly then another 1.02 MeV upon positron annihilation). IMO Hydrinos would facilitate the EC path due to the proximity of the electron. (However the cross section of the reaction is so low that this is not likely to be occurring to any noticeable degree.) >or, with a putative nickel to copper >reaction (Focardi's error) where it is easy to see that the forces >preventing fusion are orders of magnitude higher than hydrogen to deuterium. While true that the Coulomb barrier is vastly higher for Nickel there are two mitigating circumstances. 1) The fusion reaction itself is a straight forward fusion reaction, no weak force mediation required (unlike p+p => D). This makes a huge difference to the cross section). 2) In my model of the Hydrino, the smallest Hydrinos are small enough to approach within range of the nuclear force, making the Coulomb barrier irrelevant. This is also true of Horace's model. >Ed Storms champions the hydrogen to deuterium camp, and he could be correct >if he can find the numbers to support this without a massively heavy >electron (if I understand his hypothesis). See above. > >In any event, gamma emission most often involve nuclear mass being converted >into energy, but there is no necessity for fusion or actually transmutation- >merely fast protons and a pathway involving mass depletion. The gammas that >result from fast protons are bremsstrahlung, Any such bremsstrahlung is likely to be very low energy because the proton is much heavier (1800 times) than the electron, hence travels much more slowly (for the same kinetic energy). IOW the acceleration it undergoes is far less, and consequently the radiation much less). >so they are not the highest >energy fusion variety. You can say that again! :) >This alternate viewpoint depends on nuclear mass, >especially from the proton itself, being available without fusion. Since it >is an average mass (with a range) heavier protons can give up mass (from >internal bosons - pion, gluon etc) and still retain atomic identity. IOW the >mass of hydrogen is not a quantum value, and there is no rationale that >predicts it will be a single value instead of a range. In fact, mass >determination of hydrogen, from various labs in various countries varies all >over the place. You may well be correct in this regard, however it's debatable whether this is due to measurement error, or due to an intrinsic variation in mass. > >Since there is zero evidence of high energy gammas in Ni-H reaction, and >zero evidence of radioactivity in the ash - and only slight evidence of soft >spectrum radiation, we need a scenario that fits the available evidence. The >evidence could change, with more test results becoming public, but as of >now- this "average mass depletion hypothesis" is the only hypothesis which >manages to cover all the facts, IMHO. > >It also explains quiescence, which no other hypothesis can handle :) I think you may be overstating the case somewhat. :) BTW, as I have pointed out previously, a small neutral Hydrino molecule may approach a heavy nucleus close enough for one of the two protons to tunnel into the nucleus, releasing energy that rips the electron "cloak" to shreds, resulting in the other proton being ejected by the Coulomb force of the heavy nucleus. In short this results in a fast proton that has approximately the energy of a the fusion reaction of a single proton i.e. 6-8 MeV. It is far more likely that one proton would tunnel than that both of them would, because tunneling probabilities are affected by the mass of the tunneling particle, and one only weighs half as much as two. (The mass appears in the exponent, so one is much more than twice as likely as both of them). IMO what is desperately needed is to measure the actual "gamma" spectrum from a working reactor inside the shielding. This would tell us a great deal about the actual process. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
