> Harry wrote: > Fair enough, but may be Ed's starting point is necessary for > your reversible proton fusion. Think of it as electron mediated reversible > proton fusion. > > > Jones wrote:
> Astute observation. It is all a matter of probability. > > But note in the prior post, the premise was stated, and the literature > fully > agrees with this - that when the two protons are brought together with > enough energy to surmount the fusion threshold the p-p reaction is 400 > times > more likely to happen than is p-e-p. We know this from solar observation. > In > a metal matrix the p-e-p reaction could be more favorable than p-p, but it > is still low probability when the fusion threshold is absent. It is absent > so neither will be seen very often. > > Please have a look at the p-e-p section on the Wiki site. Many scoff at > Wiki, on technical issues - but that is usually because the concise points > presented do not support their stance. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton%E2%80%93proton_chain_reaction > > Next, we must ask, how much more probable is RPF than is p-p or p-e-p ? > That number is astronomical (pun intended). It's estimated that for every > real proton fusion reaction on the sun (or any star) 10^20 RPF reactions > happen. This can be calculated by how fast the star burns through its fuel > - > and it would be in a few years instead of a billions of years without this > very high rate of reversibility. > > I would think the 10^20 figure is based on very high temperatures and pressures, so it would not be applicable to a lattice. > Thus, due to the sequential intensity of RPF, small packets of energy can > be > shed without recourse to any other theory. > > In effect, I agree that that RPF will also be electron mediated, but unlike > Ed, I am saying that both reaction can happen in the same experiment, but > that p-e-p will be far less likely to happen. Since the fusion threshold is > not met in LENR then the ratio for RPF could be much more favorable than > even 10^20. > > To be a little more precise, Ed's theory also implies that the active atoms > first achieve ground state collapse, to avoid the need of most of that > external input of 782 keV, somewhat like the Mills model. In fact the > implication is that the energy is first shed and then recovered IIRC. I > think this could be accurate, but the reaction is still rare compared to > the > reversible version. In fact, Ed's theory will be viewed by some pundits as > an improved version of Mills, since the ultimate energy source, which is > the > improvement - is the nucleus and not the electron orbital. All of Mills > skeptics agree that this is CQM's major flaw - suggesting a non-nuclear > nexus for gain. > > In short, my belief is that the p-e-p reaction will happen in LENR, but it > will be comparatively rare. Thus it is not needed to explain the gammaless > thermal gain seen in the Rossi effect. > > It should be impossible if extra energy is required to make the neutron that is to comprise comprise the resulting deuteron. > It is astronomically more probable, based on the evidence available from > the > solar model - to see many trillions of RPF reactions per second. The big > advantage in having lots of reversible reactions is that large net gain can > a happen via such minutiae as spin coupling of the proton to the nickel > nucleus via QCD. > > IMHO - spin coupling is the next frontier of LENR. Think "magnon." > > > > Harry
