There is a process that is strong enough to overcome the coulomb barrier between the fermions in a cooper pair. In type II superconductors, this process is called fractionalization. When a large group of electrons are packed so tightly together by the arrangement of atoms in the superconductor material (Mott insulator), in order for one to move one beyond another, they must tunnel to where they are forced to go. And quantum tunneling is the only thing that they can do in such a tightly confined situation.
The need to tunnel negates charge repulsion. Charge is negated by the rigid confinement of the group of electrons. These packed fermions only process spin and are now called spinons. see http://phys.org/news200828132.html In LENR+ systems, one dimensional nano wire is what causes fractionalization. Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractionalization http://arxiv.org/abs/0911.1782 Fractionalization in Superconductor Josephson Junction Arrays Hinged by Quantum Spin Hall edges Abstract In this paper we study a novel superconductor-ferromagnet-superconductor (SC-FM-SC) Josephson junction array deposited on top of a two-dimensional quantum spin Hall (QSH) insulator. The existence of Majorana bound states at the interface between SC and FM gives rise to charge-e tunneling, in addition to the usual charge-2e Cooper pair tunneling, between neighboring superconductor islands. Moreover, because Majorana fermions encode the information of charge number parity, an exact Z_2 gauge structure naturally emerges and leads to many new insulating phases, including a deconfined phase where electrons fractionalize into charge-e bosons and topological defects. A new superconductor-insulator transition has also been found. On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > > A newly-found paper, coincidence, metaphor and side notes are converging > into a new "diproton plus halo" explanation for deuterium-to-helium "slow > fusion" sans gamma. > > My apology to Ed Storms if this reflects his own viewpoint, but in fact it > came up as an alternative way to arrive at a defensible end-result without > the intractable problems of borrowing from either Randell Mills or Peter > Hagelstein. > > 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 > > This neutron star situation could be envisioned as not unlike the LENR > scenario where two deuterons cannot fuse on initial approach as the > threshold for fusion is not met. Instead, the two protons could form into a > transient Cooper pair (or a diproton) such that the neutrons remain nearby > in what becomes a collapsing halo orbital around this diproton, all the > while radiating EUV until such time (sub nanosecond) as ~24 MeV has been > shed as EUV photons or increasing energy in a vortex collapse. > > This is the "cold fusion version" of a neutron star phenomenon, which has > at > least a real metaphor in the star being an intrinsic emitter of EUV on > gravitational collapse, which should happen nearly identically as > electrogravitational collapse. This involves ToE unification, which we will > save for another time. Then we have the Pairing anti-halo effect of the > cited paper above (last paragraph of page 4). There is the possibility that > this kind of fusion will involve 3 deuterons, instead of two but that is a > future refinement which might help explain Mizuno's recent results. > > The rest of the hypothesis was tossed around earlier today - on a lark. On > further consideration, a transient halo may be closer to accurate then > first > imagined, especially if future testing of deuterium LENR uncovers the > predicted intense EUV radiation. The photon quanta are predictable from > halo > collapse, possibly using a cosmology tool. > > On earth this spectrum of radiation is "universally absorbed", and > difficult > to document inside a reactor - Mills has done so in the context of his own > theory, using a pinhole UV detector. Despite that success, his theory does > not involve fusion nor emission due to electrogravity. All of the pieces > need to be brought together. Note: this hypothesis is NOT Millsean, despite > the UV similarity ... and in fact is completely contrary to the CQM theory. > Mills thinks that the EUV which he documents comes from electron orbital > redundancy, with no fusion. > > Instead, the "diproton plus halo" explanation sees EUV coming from > electrogravitational collapse of transient halo neutrons into a diproton > core. > > > > > If we want to help out "another" theory with a plausible > scenario - i.e. to invent a kludge which would make the "pre-radiation of > adequate UV photons before the actual fusion event [DD->He]" explanation > work, especially in the context of antenna theory, this can be done. > However, I doubt anyone will borrow this: > > This explanation would be that D+D occasionally forms > incompletely, not as 4He but instead as a two proton core - the diproton > species (2He) with neutrons only slightly bound to this core, and at a > substantial distance away (in short as a "halo"). This species can be > called > the "diproton with halo" and could shed the full 24 MeV, which cannot be > done via electrons. > > The 2He nucleus does have a short lifetime, which is > possibly extended long enough by having a halo to do the following: the two > neutrons become separated in a remote halo orbital, from whence the > circumference is adequate for them to shed UV photons (possibly in the > 100+eV range) which are easily thermalized. This species (which will be > called the "diproton with halo") could then be positioned to shed the full > 24 MeV in as a few as 250,000 sequential photons, at the same time as the > halo orbital is shrinking down. This would all transpire sub-nanosecond. > > In the end, the two halo neutrons spiral down to collapse > into the 2He core, forming an alpha, but with almost no excess mass. > > The falsifiability is a matter of documenting the EUV > emission. > >
