Does anyone know how (or if) in theory the proton's radius would effect rates of fusion? Would the proton have to be larger or smaller to increase rates of fusion?
A smaller charge radius means less coulomb repulsion. When enough electrons shield enough positive charge from the proton, two protons will bind together in a pair; coulomb repulsion is neutralized. This is the basis for the Shukla,-Eliasson effect. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=6&sqi=2&ved=0CD8QFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1209.0914&ei=OSBQUO6SJKnF0AH5uoG4CA&usg=AFQjCNHGAqMvSJxjgufVpRf7kYFcJtBBIw&sig2=8fhHq-SEQvQCAJKvWP4j2A What shields the charge of the proton is unclear. It can’t be the charge, because the electron can approach very close to the proton without coulomb repulsion cancelation. But the muon shields the protons charge more than the electron. Could it be that the mass of the negative particle(s) must be increased to have increased shielding effects? It could be. Heavy (more energetic) electrons provide more shielding effects than do lighter (less energetic) ones at ground state. The trick to LENR might be not to ionize it into plasma but to pack as many electrons into hydrogen as possible. Rossi's reactor has high numbers of electrons packed inside; so many that they can be removed as a high powered current. DGT uses a spark to pack heavy electrons into their reactor. These extra electrons will be energetic and heavy because of the Pauli Exclusion Principle where no two identical fermions (particles with half-integer spin) may occupy the same quantum state simultaneously. The only place that these extra electrons can go is up in energy. These heavy electrons will have a high frequency. A heavy electron(s) may approach the mass of a muon. It might be the mass that is the key to this conundrum. Cheers: Axil On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 9:52 PM, Harry Veeder <[email protected]> wrote: > Perhaps the proton's radius can be both increased and descreased under > certain conditions. > Does anyone know how (or if) in theory the proton's radius would > effect rates of fusion? > Would the proton have to be larger or smaller to increase rates of fusion? > Harry > > On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Eric Walker <[email protected]> > wrote: > > We've already gone over the new Science paper on muonic hydrogen > elsewhere, > > but I saw a comment on E-Cat World that I thought was worth bringing up > > here. According to a summary of the Science article in Ars Technica [1], > > the problem I alluded to in the title is that the charge radius of the > > proton has been measured very accurately to be both 0.84fm and 0.88fm. > This > > would not be a big deal if the accuracy of the measurements allowed both > of > > these values. But the measurements are extremely accurate, and > > incompatible, unless there is something unexplained going on. > > > > The comment by Gerrit in E-Cat World elaborates [2]: > > > > Have we discussed the recent finding of the shrunken proton yet ? > > > > The proton in muonic hydrogen is 4% smaller that normal hydrogen. They > > cannot explain it with current understanding, yet the new measurements > are > > very high accuracy. > > > > > http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/01/hydrogen-made-with-muons-reveals-proton-size-conundrum/ > > > > “The proton structure is important because an electron in an S [ground] > > state has a nonzero probability to be inside the proton.” > > > > Oh wait a minute, if the electron is inside the proton, doesn’t the whole > > structure look like a neutron, ie it won’t see a coulomb barrier and can > > fuse with another hydrogen at will ? > > > > The next question that “established” science should target is measuring > the > > proton size of a hydrogen in a metal lattice. > > > > I think it is inevitable that “established” science will eventually > stumble > > over the same phenomenon that has been shown to exists for over 23 years. > > > > In a few years we’ll probably be hearing “Well, with the current > > understanding of physics we can no longer claim that Fleischmann and Pons > > were wrong” > > > > > > So it seems that under certain conditions, physicists are measuring > > something vaguely like Mills's fractional hydrogen -- it might be that > it is > > Mills's fractional hydrogen, or it might be something entirely different. > > Gerrit asks whether you could get screening, e.g., sufficient to lead to > the > > anomalous behavior in metal hydrides we've been following here, from > > whatever it is that is going on. The Ars Technica article ends with this > > interesting comment: "The one option they [the research team] seem to > like > > is the existence of relatively light force carriers that somehow remained > > undiscovered until now." New force carriers is an interesting thought. > > Would that imply a heretofore unknown interaction? > > > > Eric > > > > [1] > > > http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/01/hydrogen-made-with-muons-reveals-proton-size-conundrum/ > > [2] > > > http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/01/robotics-and-lenr/comment-page-1/#comment-105365 > > > >
