In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sun, 18 May 2014 11:36:19 -0700: Hi, [snip] >It builds on the insight of Bob, Dave and Robin that "exclusivity" to one >channel can be ingrained if the QM reaction can happen only in a reversed >mode where energy release precedes actual fusion as an operative condition, >instead of the other way around- but not in the Mills way using electron >orbitals. In fact, a "diproton plus halo" method can be described as >uniquely positioned between those two main theories IF we can set the stage >properly for a neutron halo configuration. > >Neutron stars are known to be copious emitters of EUV - the source of which >was assumed to be gravitational. There is more to that story, if and when >electrogravity replaces gravity alone, which happens at the Fermi level. The >neutrons in neutron stars are supported against further collapse by quantum >degeneracy pressure due to the phenomenon described by the Pauli exclusion >principle, and the mass spacing in young neutron stars is consistent with >halo nuclei as seen on earth. That may be more metaphor than coincidence. >However, another piece of the puzzle is that helium on earth is known to >have isotopes with a halo nucleus of the correct size for the EUV hypothesis >which has been offered. See: "Charge radii and neutron correlations in >helium halo nuclei" Papadimitriou, et al. 2011 >http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.0223
Why invoke electrogravity when the normal nuclear force will do just fine? Note that the neutrons in the deuterons are already within range of this force, as the deuteron is already bound. BTW, the mass of the neutrons exceeds that of the protons, so a spiraling collapse isn't likely to involve only the neutrons, and rotational collapse of the charged protons in a magnetic field would result in cyclotron radiation too. (Probably at frequencies from radio up into the THz, depending on the strength of the local magnetic field.) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
