In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sat, 17 May 2014 07:11:07 -0700: Hi, [snip] >Hi Robin, > >Sounds more like Randell Mills than Storms ... and now that you mention it, >I remember being surprised to hear this from Ed at the time - since it >raises more questions than it answers. The HUGE unsolved problem is that >with deuterium as the active gas, two deuterons cannot shed anywhere close >to enough mass-energy to eliminate gammas, at least not without reducing >their own nuclear mass significantly.
I agree, however I think the claim was that they do lose a significant portion of their own mass, though I'm not at all clear on how that is supposed to happen. > >The two electrons - even if completely converted to photons - are deficient >in mass energy - I don't think Ed was necessarily claiming that the method of energy loss was through conversion of electron mass. In fact I didn't notice any explanation at all. I do know that he thinks there is an electron capture reaction followed by a beta-decay, which I think is only possible if the electron capture reaction happens first outside the nucleus, à la WL, but Ed doesn't agree. He seems to think it happens inside the nucleus. I can't see why two opposite beta decay reactions would follow one another. >reducing the ~24 MeV known to occur in deuteron fusion by >only a few MeV (3 MeV if one e- remains to catalyze the fusion). Not sure where you get the 3 MeV from. BTW one would need to remove at least 4.033 MeV worth of mass from the participants in the reaction beforehand in order to prohibit the D+D -> T + p reaction. (Words chosen carefully.) >In short, >the deuterium fusion, if there is any via QM time reversal, needs to be >prompted by a massively larger "zone of depletion" - and not from simply the >two atoms. > >Now it gets interesting if one wants to stick to the two-atom-only >explanation. If some portion deuteron mass can be physically converted to >energy, say up to 11 MeV via UV/x-ray photon release - even in principle- >then there is no reason to proceed all the way to fusion to see spectacular >gain. Any gain prior to fusion should show up easily as an extremely intense >light source. ....unless the two are inextricably linked. I.e. no mass loss => no fusion no fusion => no mass loss. They would both need to be part and parcel of the same reaction. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
