I think that a double proton reaction is possible for a brief period of time until a beta plus decay occurs bringing stability. The energy released can be easily determined by looking at the energy released when a neutron is added to H1. This is a common energy level at 2.22402 MeV. My hypothesis is that there would be a two part energy release. The first would occur immediately after the protons joined and the second would be at the beta decay time. A positron and neutrino would escape during the second release. This concept is based upon the behavior of numerous different elements which hopefully continues in this unique condition.
Dave -----Original Message----- From: Axil Axil <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, Jun 11, 2012 3:47 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: Nuclear Stability and Proton or Neutron Addition Do you think that a double proton reaction is possible as per Kim http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2746057/posts I offer this possibility because Piantelli has seen protons at an energy of 6 MeV emanate from the nickel bars that he uses in his reactor when they are placed in a cloud chamber after they are removed from his reactor immediately after use. Cheers: Axil On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 2:49 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: I have been reviewing a table of nuclides in an attempt to make sense of the process suggested by W&L proponents and those of Rossi. In the W&L theory a neutron is formed by the combination of an electron and a proton with the .78 MeV of energy being supplied by their process. This neutron then finds its way into a nucleus of nickel in this version of devices and energy is released. The final result is the next heavier isotope of nickel plus a significant amount of energy. The Rossi process involves the insertion of a proton into the nucleus of the subject nickel atom forming a new copper atom along with release of energy. Some of the copper isotopes formed by addition of a proton into their parent nickel isotopes decay by beta plus action into the next heavier nickel isotope along with a release of additional energy. The above two paragraphs offer an extremely brief description of the two theories. They are not intended to get into details which can be located within many documents. My purpose for writing this document is to reveal an interesting observation that I have made concerning the two processes. This may be well known to many of the people on the list, but it is new to me and I offer it as a refresher. If you take any stable isotope of an element, for example nickel 60 and either add a neutron as with the W&L process or overcome the Coulomb barrier by forcing a proton into the nucleus you find an interesting result. In virtually every case only one of these processes leads to a stable isotope in a single reaction. There are only a couple of exceptions to this observation and that appears to be when neither process results in a single step stable new atom. Of course the newly created atoms will all eventually decay in steps until a stable result is obtained. I further notice that the end result of the two processes is the same nuclide. An example is as follows: Start with Ni60 and add a proton to it by forcing the particle against the Coulomb barrier and you obtain Cu61. Some immediate energy is released by the new element and at a half life later a Beta Plus decay process occurs which releases more energy. The Beta Plus decay leaves us with Ni61. The energy release is composed of two parts as we progress from Ni60 to Ni61. Now, instead of adding a proton, let’s allow a neutron to encounter the Ni60 nucleus. In this case a stable isotope of nickel Ni61 is directly formed and a significant amount of energy is released. I followed both of these processes through several different elements and can state that the same total energy is released regardless of the path taken when I start with an isotope of an element and end at the same final product. I consider this an important and useful observation. A second issue I would like to discuss is also interesting and leads to some neat results. The above rule that I found makes it impossible to have two stable isotopes of elements with the same number of nucleons that are one level apart. An example of this rule would be that since He3 is stable, then H3 cannot be. Or, since Ni61 is stable, then Cu61 is unstable. This appears to apply throughout the entire list of elements and I would appreciate it for others to verify this conclusion. I have a couple of additional concepts that I plan to present at a later time, so for now review what I have observed and please make relevant comments. Dave
