The lack of google results concerning the value of the binding energy of a diproton is noteworthy. In fact I couldn't find any value. Can anyone?
Harry On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > From: [email protected] > > … that D/H is a long time well known artifact, that > newcommers and skeptics rediscover regularly because they don't have read > all….Can someone more competent check if my arguments/interpretation are > good ? > > If you can overlook my incompetence for a while, here are a few comments > against the completely bogus argument of an exchange reaction in LENR. > > 1) Exchange heating is a red herring for many reasons, and is > emblematic of the shallowness of skeptics who grasp at straws to avoid the > big issues. > 2) Most experiments use either D or H and not both together. Exchange > heating, to be significant, would involve both together in relatively equal > proportions > 3) Exchange heating is typically a one-time event. After a few hours > it > is over and of no further significance. LENR experiments continue for > months. > 4) Exchange heating is chemical energy, but if LENR does involves a > mechanism to make a chemical route repeatable in such a way as to be > gainful > and avoid (3) above, who cares? > 5) The strategy of some skeptics has been to suggest a chemical > pathway, overlook the long-term gain, and yet maintain that because a > chemical pathway exists, this reaction can’t be nuclear nor gainful. But > that is a logical fallacy. > 6) In fact, a gainful chemical pathway is preferable, if it exists is > a > compound process, like the Mizuno findings. This preference is one of > several logical fallacies which skeptics are falling into. > 7) In short, one cannot disparage the gain of LENR by simply finding a > chemical pathway. The long-term gain itself, when proved, negates > exchange-heating as the only input, and indeed suggests that a chemical > pathway is part of the nuclear process. To wit: > 8) If Mizuno has been correct all along, with his recent finding at > MIT > that D is being converted into H to produce gain, then this explains some > of > the unusual dynamics which have been completely missed by others and > considered to be an exchange reaction. > 9) If D is being converted into H, then it would look to the skeptic > like an exchange reaction, and that would be their knee-jerk criticism. > 10) The bottom line is that the only way to counter the skeptics is > with > good data, presented openly. > 11) Mizuno’s recent MIT presentation of good data was such an example > which may have opened up a facet of LENR which was overlooked for > twenty-plus years because even the cold-fusion advocates could not explain > how D converts to H gainfully. We still cannot, but we are finally seeing > glimpses. > 12) It is not out of the question that “deuterium fission” possibly > involving a new hype of positron “decay” - in order to effectively convert > the deuteron to two protons, has been a part of cold fusion from the early > days, which was ignored by everyone for this reason: > > QUOTE: from old physics textbook: > > Thus, although it is theoretically possible to observe a fourth mode of > beta > decay corresponding to the capture of a positron, this reaction does not > occur in nature. > > This could be wrong. In fact, in textbooks of the future, this paragraph > could eventually read something like this: beta decay corresponding to the > capture of a positron was not documented in nature until the advent of LENR > > Jones > >
