http://ipdiscover.com/pipermail/newcandle_ipdiscover.com/2007-September/001017.html
Back in 2007, Jones Beene asked a very good question that needed an answer. Where exactly is that pot of energy that nuclear repulsion uses ultimately comes from? In all good comradeship I felt his question needed an answer, so I decided to anticipate and pre-answer his natural and essential objection to the nuclear repulsion theory up front. Such an important objection must be cleared away before this alternate theory that contradicts the standard model can be taken seriously. Manuel has been developing and zealously popularizing his theory consistently since 2000 and no one to my knowledge has undercut the fundamentals of his theory. I don’t yet buy the neutron core sun aspect of his theory. He developed that idea to explain why meteorites have heavy isotopes signatures in them that look to have been produced locally in the solar system. The shaky part of Manuel’s theory is that the sum formed over a neutron star core which I find hard to believe. This could all be explained if cold fusion is introduced as a rapid and easy way of producing heavy elements in clouds of nebular gas through the action of charge accumulation and coulomb barrier breakdown causing cold fusion. This is to say that heavy elements were not produced in a super-nova explosion but by the action of cold fusion in a pre-stellar nebula. This is also why ash from cold fusion reactors all look like they produce isotopes that are consistent with natural abundance ratios as per the magic number theories of Gorge Miley and Heinrich Hora. The other important question to answer is as follows: How come there is so many light elements found in the ash of cold fission reactions when the base material is heavy. What can be chopping up the nickel into such tiny pieces? P theory, hydrinos, ZPE or the many other theories discussed on this site do supply the answer to my satisfaction. Cheers: Axil On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > I see that this quark mass value in question - comes from Wiki’s entry > on quarks. **** > > ** ** > > Here is the significant problem with using that value: there is one > hypothetical figure for “naked” or “current” quarks– unbound quarks which > cannot exist for long on their own, and another very different value for > quarks in a nucleus- “constituent quarks” … The difference is substantial. > **** > > ** ** > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constituent_quark_mass**** > > ** ** > > The problem in using the naked quarks values, or really any value outside > a nucleus - is that there is no useful physical reality - and essentially > “no one has a clue” since the lifetime is so short.**** > > ** ** > > Being precise on this is not a trivial pursuit. There is a fair chance > that the statistical deviation in “average proton mass” can account for the > energy seen in nickel hydrogen reactions – without the need for fusion, > beta decay, low momentum neutrons - or any of the other problems brought on > by “lack of gamma radiation.”**** > > ** ** > > IOW, in the Ni-H reaction, and only in reactions involving hydrogen > (deuterium is excluded for other reasons) it can be reasonably asserted > that gain can derived from a statistical reduction in “overage” in the > average mass of the proton. It does not take much mass reduction, > multiplied by lightspeed to provide sufficient energy that is hundreds of > time in excess of chemical energy … (which is also dependent of a deviation > in average molecular mass of reactants).**** > > ** ** > > The leap of faith is that that there is a significant range in proton mass > which can be reduced slightly without consequence … by the tenets of > quantum chromodynamics (QCD).**** > > ** ** > > In a way this is “nuclear” energy, and in a way it is not. The identity of > the proton does not change, but its average mass is slightly reduced.**** > > ** ** > > I’m now calling this the “P-Power Hypothesis” (“p” is for both pion and > proton). **** > > ** ** > > The hypothesis is evolving into a useful competitor for the other > explanations for gain in Ni-H involving fusion or decay, which should > involve gamma radiation; yet in which gammas are not seen. Those hypotheses > require two or more miracles to “hold water” so to speak…**** > > ** ** > > This name also gives Terry an opportunity to power-up with a p-pun, or if > not…**** > > ** ** > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0P8mELzqQd0**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* Jones Beene **** > > ** ** > > This is off by more than an order of magnitude. **** > > ** ** > > Where did the quark mass value come from?**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* Axil Axil **** > > ** ** > > For example, a proton has a mass of approximately 938 MeV/c2, of which > the rest mass of its three valence quarks only contributes about 11 MeV/c2; > most of the remainder can be attributed to the gluons' QCBE.**** > > ** ** > > ** ** >
