Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion Catalyzed Hot Fission - A promising hybridorjust hand-waving?

[mixent]

In reply to  bobcook39...@hotmail.com's message of Mon, 23 Apr 2018 23:38:15
+:
Hi Bob,

Unfortunately such a reaction would be endothermic. However adding a couple of
protons might do the trick, and have the advantage of compensating for any
excess neutrons at the same time.

The sort of thing I had in mind is:-
90Zr+1H+1H => 92Mo + 12.616 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 91Nb + 1H + 5.154 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 88Zr + 4He + 7.009 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 4He + 4He + 84Sr + 1.513 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 80Kr + 12C + 3.703 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 76Se + 16O + 5.800 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 70Ge + 22Ne + 4.398 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 71Ge + 21Ne + 1.450 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 72Ge + 20Ne + 5.439 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 67Ga + 25Na + 2.048 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 68Ga + 24Na + 1.315 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 69Ga + 23Na + 4.668 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 64Zn + 28Mg + 6.833 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 65Zn + 27Mg + 6.309 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 66Zn + 26Mg + 10.925 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 67Zn + 25Mg + 6.884 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 68Zn + 24Mg + 9.751 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 61Cu + 31Al + 2.748 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 62Cu + 30Al + 4.481 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 63Cu + 29Al + 9.606 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 64Cu + 28Al + 8.085 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 65Cu + 27Al + 10.271 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 66Cu + 26Al + 4.279 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 67Cu + 25Al + 2.046 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 58Ni + 34Si + 5.995 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 59Ni + 33Si + 7.459 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 60Ni + 32Si + 14.364 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 61Ni + 31Si + 12.981 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 62Ni + 30Si + 16.990 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 63Ni + 29Si + 13.218 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 64Ni + 28Si + 14.403 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 65Ni + 27Si + 3.321 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 56Co + 36P + 2.101 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 57Co + 35P + 10.013 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 58Co + 34P + 10.214 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 59Co + 33P + 14.377 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 60Co + 32P + 11.765 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 61Co + 31P + 13.150 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 62Co + 30P + 7.442 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 63Co + 29P + 4.603 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 54Fe + 38S + 8.925 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 55Fe + 37S + 10.186 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 56Fe + 36S + 17.080 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 57Fe + 35S + 14.837 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 58Fe + 34S + 17.896 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 59Fe + 33S + 13.060 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 60Fe + 32S + 13.238 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 61Fe + 31S + 3.777 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 51Mn + 41Cl + 1.363 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 52Mn + 40Cl + 4.070 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 53Mn + 39Cl + 10.299 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 54Mn + 38Cl + 11.164 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 55Mn + 37Cl + 15.283 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 56Mn + 36Cl + 12.242 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 57Mn + 35Cl + 12.311 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 58Mn + 34Cl + 6.159 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 59Mn + 33Cl + 2.294 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 48Cr + 44Ar + 1.303 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 49Cr + 43Ar + 3.151 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 50Cr + 42Ar + 10.493 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 51Cr + 41Ar + 10.327 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 52Cr + 40Ar + 16.267 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 53Cr + 39Ar + 14.338 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 54Cr + 38Ar + 17.458 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 55Cr + 37Ar + 11.866 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 56Cr + 36Ar + 11.323 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 57Cr + 35Ar + 1.382 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 47V + 45K + 4.421 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 48V + 44K + 6.092 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 49V + 43K + 10.360 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 50V + 42K + 10.054 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 51V + 41K + 13.571 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 52V + 40K + 10.787 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 53V + 39K + 11.466 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 54V + 38K + 4.502 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 44Ti + 48Ca + 7.573 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 45Ti + 47Ca + 7.157 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 46Ti + 46Ca + 13.069 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 47Ti + 45Ca + 11.555 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 48Ti + 44Ca + 15.767 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 49Ti + 43Ca + 12.778 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 50Ti + 42Ca + 15.784 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 51Ti + 41Ca + 10.676 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 52Ti + 40Ca + 10.122 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 46Sc + 46Sc + 9.325 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 47Sc + 45Sc + 11.211 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 48Sc + 44Sc + 8.123 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 49Sc + 43Sc + 8.551 MeV
90Zr+1H+1H => 50Sc + 42Sc + 2.469 MeV


...of course, one would have to experiment to see just which products were
produced.
[snip]
>Robin--
>
>I agree with your assessment of potential fission reactions.   A tuned 
>magnetic dipole or quadrupole EM signal may give two Al-27 nuclei from Fe or 
>Ni natural metal.  No neutrons is a key objective for any new fission reactor 
>design IMHO.
>
>Bob Cook
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

RE: [Vo]:Cold Fusion Catalyzed Hot Fission - A promising hybridorjust hand-waving?

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Robin--

I agree with your assessment of potential fission reactions.   A tuned magnetic 
dipole or quadrupole EM signal may give two Al-27 nuclei from Fe or Ni natural 
metal.  No neutrons is a key objective for any new fission reactor design IMHO.

Bob Cook



Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: mix...@bigpond.com
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 1:25 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion Catalyzed Hot Fission - A promising hybridorjust 
hand-waving?

In reply to  bobcook39...@hotmail.com's message of Mon, 23 Apr 2018 14:44:53
+:
Hi,




>Jones—
>
>IT’S JUST HAND WAVING.
>
>Fission reactions with U and the like are  nasty—hard to manage—processes.  
>The high energy gammas and the variety of fission products are the problem not 
>to mention the possibility of runaway reactions.   There are NO silk purses 
>that will come out of those sows ears!
>
>I DO NOT CONSIDER THERE IS ANY FUTURE IN HYBRED FISSION USING ANYTHING HEAVIER 
>THAN NI OR FE.

Actually, fission of elements not much heavier than Ni/Fe could be interesting
because the daughter isotopes may well be stable. I say this because the
instability of the Uranium fission daughter products is primarily due to the
large number of excess neutrons. For elements not much heavier than Ni/Fe OTOH,
there are far fewer excess neutrons, so any resulting fission products are
consequently less likely to be unstable.
The down side is that such elements are also much more difficult to fission,
i.e. the "hump" that has to be overcome is higher.

Prompt gammas are not really a problem, as they can be shielded, more or a
concern are gammas resulting from the daughter isotopes as they decay. If there
are far fewer (or no) radioisotopes among the daughter products then this also
becomes less of a (or no) problem.
[snip]
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion Catalyzed Hot Fission - A promising hybridorjust hand-waving?

[mixent]

In reply to  bobcook39...@hotmail.com's message of Mon, 23 Apr 2018 14:44:53
+:
Hi,




>Jones—
>
>IT’S JUST HAND WAVING.
>
>Fission reactions with U and the like are  nasty—hard to manage—processes.  
>The high energy gammas and the variety of fission products are the problem not 
>to mention the possibility of runaway reactions.   There are NO silk purses 
>that will come out of those sows ears!
>
>I DO NOT CONSIDER THERE IS ANY FUTURE IN HYBRED FISSION USING ANYTHING HEAVIER 
>THAN NI OR FE.

Actually, fission of elements not much heavier than Ni/Fe could be interesting
because the daughter isotopes may well be stable. I say this because the
instability of the Uranium fission daughter products is primarily due to the
large number of excess neutrons. For elements not much heavier than Ni/Fe OTOH,
there are far fewer excess neutrons, so any resulting fission products are
consequently less likely to be unstable.
The down side is that such elements are also much more difficult to fission,
i.e. the "hump" that has to be overcome is higher.

Prompt gammas are not really a problem, as they can be shielded, more or a
concern are gammas resulting from the daughter isotopes as they decay. If there
are far fewer (or no) radioisotopes among the daughter products then this also
becomes less of a (or no) problem.
[snip]
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion Catalyzed Hot Fission - A promising hybrid orjust hand-waving?

[Ron Wormus]

Bob,
Could post more info. on the Fort Collins seminar as that is my home.
Thanks,
Ron





- Original Message -
From: 
Reply-To: 
To: 
Cc: Philippe Hatt 
Sent: 4/23/2018 9:09:53 AM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cold Fusion Catalyzed Hot Fission - A promising hybrid orjust 
hand-waving?



Andrew—
 
Thanks for that response to my question for Robin.  Philippe will be 
interested.  Maybe we can address this issue at the seminar in Fort Collins.
 
 
 
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
 



From: Andrew Meulenberg 
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 4:48:28 AM
To: VORTEX; Andrew Meulenberg
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion Catalyzed Hot Fission - A promising hybrid orjust 
hand-waving? 

Bob,


The experimentally-determined charge distribution of a neutron shows an outer 
"shell" of negative charge and thus the neutron should be polarizable. Had this 
been known early on, when the neutron was considered to be a proton + electron, 
I think the battle for that view would never have been lost and the result of  
relativistic-QM equations indicating deep-electron orbits would have been 
accepted 80 years ago. 

[The recently observed 'peak' in negative charge density at the very center of 
the neutron would result from the overlap of electron 'charge' density from the 
greater than nuclear-size deep-orbit electrons. Of course such musing of 
"nuclear electrons" is not allowed in publication because it would violate holy 
writ.]


Andrew



On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 10:41 PM, bobcook39...@hotmail.com 
 wrote:

Robin

I did not know neutrons have a negative (I assume negative electric field) and 
hence negative charge in any observable time frame.  st there experimental 
evidence for this feature of a neutron?

Bob Cook

Sent from Mail for Windows 10




From: mix...@bigpond.com 
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2018 6:43:00 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion Catalyzed Hot Fission - A promising hybrid orjust 
hand-waving? 

In reply to  bobcook39...@hotmail.com's message of Sun, 22 Apr 2018 20:30:21
+:
Hi,
[snip]
>
>Jones—
>
>You state:
>
>“Coupling is not needed. Neutrons are created in the fission of U,”
>
>I doubt this is the case.  Normal understanding is neutrons exist as an entity 
>in the a nucleus.

...he obviously means "free neutrons" as opposed to bound neutrons.

>
>Further you state:
>
>“No mystery there. The free neutrons  start out fast….”
>
>I assume you mean they have linear momentum before the reaction that carries 
>over and stays with them.
>
>I doubt it.

...he means that they acquire energy from the fission reaction. However you are
obviously trying to emphasize the fact that neutral particles should be
difficult to accelerate using electrostatics only. That could be true, were it
not for the fact that neutrons have a negative near field, and are in close
proximity to many charged nucleons. Furthermore as you previously mentioned, the
magnetic field probably also plays a role, perhaps even the dominant role.
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

RE: [Vo]:Cold Fusion Catalyzed Hot Fission - A promising hybridorjusthand-waving?

[JonesBeene]

Understandably, a lot of folks in the USA  are against nuclear fission energy - 
no matter what. 

It is a no-win effort to argue the good points - since the high profile 
accidents like Fukushima are the only factor which is considered by many here. 
Low cost is no longer assured.

Yet - over the next 50 years, the World will need to produce more electrical  
energy than it has consumed in the entire history of man before the year 2000. 
Solar and wind will grow fastest but will fall far short of needs and are more 
costly than anyone wants to admit.

The USA does not need new power, so we can sound-off as being as self-righteous 
as we want to -  but that is not the real issue. The reality is that most of 
the World’s future power (from about 2025 onward) – especially in China, India 
and a few other countries will have to come from nuclear  - whether or not we 
in the USA object. There is no other feasible alternative other than low grade 
coal. Look at the current fission projects in China ! These will accelerate.

The best thing which can be done at the planning level -  by any of us in the 
West - given these hard numbers and future need -  is to help Asia develop a 
safer and cheaper system. 

If we can make reactors subcritical they will be safer. If we can use 
unenriched fuel the risks and costs will be much lower.

The French and their smart use of nuclear power should be an example to build 
on - but they have stagnated in this century.  We need new thinking on fission 
and that is why bringing in LENR makes sense. 

It is a mistake to ignore the fact that nuclear fission power will be with us 
for a long time, and the best strategy to cope with that is to make it as safe 
as possible. 

No one refuses to go to France because they make most of their electrical power 
from fission. We must start to think globally on these issues.

Jones


From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com

Jones—

IT’S JUST HAND WAVING. 

Fission reactions with U and the like are  nasty—hard to manage—processes.  The 
high energy gammas and the variety of fission products are the problem not to 
mention the possibility of runaway reactions.   There are NO silk purses that 
will come out of those sows ears!

I DO NOT CONSIDER THERE IS ANY FUTURE IN HYBRED FISSION USING ANYTHING HEAVIER 
THAN NI OR FE.  

As was noted on E-Cat World recently, even NAVSEA has seen the light and 
discretely identified LENR as a new disruptive technology.  I believe they have 
the facts.  And the light they are seeing is not new for them. 

Bob Cook


From: JonesBeene 
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 6:43:33 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cold Fusion Catalyzed Hot Fission - A promising hybridorjust 
hand-waving? 
 
Speaking of neutron identity in the context of Widom/Larsen (ultra low momentum 
neutron) or in the context of Meulenberg dense hydrogen (DDL) – which may be 
identical if the truth be known… ;-}

… there is the possibility that an advanced and small fission design could 
benefit greatly  from an “alternative neutron”. That is the important point.

Perhaps this outcome is a wishful thinking interpretation of the Didyk and 
Wisniewski paper-  since it is not clear what they are talking about with 
palladium.

BTW Peter Hagelstein mentions their paper in  “Anomalies in Fracture 
Experiments, and Energy Exchange Between Vibrations and Nuclei.”
Hagelstein and Chaudhary - Meccanica 50, no. 5 (July 15, 2014): 1189–1203, so 
the information did not go uncommented wrt LENR.

In short, all that one needs to bring nuclear fission into a new paradigm of 
cost effectiveness is to include an extra DDL into the picture below (assuming 
dense hydrogen is similar enough to a neutron to induce fission in the heavy 
target. A chain reaction is far easier to engineer with an extra avenue of 
propagation (4:1 instead of 3:1).

Re: [Vo]:New research on the gambler's and hot hand fallacy

[H LV]

Momentum isn’t magic – vindicating the hot hand with the mathematics of
streaks
https://theconversation.com/momentum-isnt-magic-vindicating-the-hot-hand-with-the-mathematics-of-streaks-74786

On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 11:31 AM, H LV  wrote:

> New research sheds light on the so-called Hot Hand Fallacy. Links to
> papers below video.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPZFQ6i759g
>
>
> Harry
>
>
>

[Vo]:New research on the gambler's and hot hand fallacy

[H LV]

 New research sheds light on the so-called Hot Hand Fallacy. Links to
papers below video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPZFQ6i759g


Harry

RE: [Vo]:Cold Fusion Catalyzed Hot Fission - A promising hybrid orjust hand-waving?

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Andrew—

Thanks for that response to my question for Robin.  Philippe will be 
interested.  Maybe we can address this issue at the seminar in Fort Collins.



Sent from Mail for Windows 10


From: Andrew Meulenberg 
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 4:48:28 AM
To: VORTEX; Andrew Meulenberg
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion Catalyzed Hot Fission - A promising hybrid orjust 
hand-waving?

Bob,

The experimentally-determined charge distribution of a neutron shows an outer 
"shell" of negative charge and thus the neutron should be polarizable. Had this 
been known early on, when the neutron was considered to be a proton + electron, 
I think the battle for that view would never have been lost and the result of  
relativistic-QM equations indicating deep-electron orbits would have been 
accepted 80 years ago.

[The recently observed 'peak' in negative charge density at the very center of 
the neutron would result from the overlap of electron 'charge' density from the 
greater than nuclear-size deep-orbit electrons. Of course such musing of 
"nuclear electrons" is not allowed in publication because it would violate holy 
writ.]

Andrew

On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 10:41 PM, 
bobcook39...@hotmail.com 
mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com>> wrote:

Robin



I did not know neutrons have a negative (I assume negative electric field) and 
hence negative charge in any observable time frame.  st there experimental 
evidence for this feature of a neutron?



Bob Cook



Sent from Mail for Windows 10




From: mix...@bigpond.com 
mailto:mix...@bigpond.com>>
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2018 6:43:00 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion Catalyzed Hot Fission - A promising hybrid orjust 
hand-waving?

In reply to  bobcook39...@hotmail.com's 
message of Sun, 22 Apr 2018 20:30:21
+:
Hi,
[snip]
>
>Jones—
>
>You state:
>
>“Coupling is not needed. Neutrons are created in the fission of U,”
>
>I doubt this is the case.  Normal understanding is neutrons exist as an entity 
>in the a nucleus.

...he obviously means "free neutrons" as opposed to bound neutrons.

>
>Further you state:
>
>“No mystery there. The free neutrons  start out fast….”
>
>I assume you mean they have linear momentum before the reaction that carries 
>over and stays with them.
>
>I doubt it.

...he means that they acquire energy from the fission reaction. However you are
obviously trying to emphasize the fact that neutral particles should be
difficult to accelerate using electrostatics only. That could be true, were it
not for the fact that neutrons have a negative near field, and are in close
proximity to many charged nucleons. Furthermore as you previously mentioned, the
magnetic field probably also plays a role, perhaps even the dominant role.
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

RE: [Vo]:Cold Fusion Catalyzed Hot Fission - A promising hybridorjust hand-waving?

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Jones—

IT’S JUST HAND WAVING.

Fission reactions with U and the like are  nasty—hard to manage—processes.  The 
high energy gammas and the variety of fission products are the problem not to 
mention the possibility of runaway reactions.   There are NO silk purses that 
will come out of those sows ears!

I DO NOT CONSIDER THERE IS ANY FUTURE IN HYBRED FISSION USING ANYTHING HEAVIER 
THAN NI OR FE.

As was noted on E-Cat World recently, even NAVSEA has seen the light and 
discretely identified LENR as a new disruptive technology.  I believe they have 
the facts.  And the light they are seeing is not new for them.

Bob Cook


From: JonesBeene 
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 6:43:33 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cold Fusion Catalyzed Hot Fission - A promising hybridorjust 
hand-waving?

Speaking of neutron identity in the context of Widom/Larsen (ultra low momentum 
neutron) or in the context of Meulenberg dense hydrogen (DDL) – which may be 
identical if the truth be known… ;-}

… there is the possibility that an advanced and small fission design could 
benefit greatly  from an “alternative neutron”. That is the important point.

Perhaps this outcome is a wishful thinking interpretation of the Didyk and 
Wisniewski paper-  since it is not clear what they are talking about with 
palladium.

BTW Peter Hagelstein mentions their paper in  “Anomalies in Fracture 
Experiments, and Energy Exchange Between Vibrations and Nuclei.”
Hagelstein and Chaudhary - Meccanica 50, no. 5 (July 15, 2014): 1189–1203, so 
the information did not go uncommented wrt LENR.

In short, all that one needs to bring nuclear fission into a new paradigm of 
cost effectiveness is to include an extra DDL into the picture below (assuming 
dense hydrogen is similar enough to a neutron to induce fission in the heavy 
target. A chain reaction is far easier to engineer with an extra avenue of 
propagation (4:1 instead of 3:1).

[Image result for images fission]

RE: [Vo]:Cold Fusion Catalyzed Hot Fission - A promising hybridorjust hand-waving?

[JonesBeene]

Speaking of neutron identity in the context of Widom/Larsen (ultra low momentum 
neutron) or in the context of Meulenberg dense hydrogen (DDL) – which may be 
identical if the truth be known… ;-}

 … there is the possibility that an advanced and small fission design could 
benefit greatly  from an “alternative neutron”. That is the important point.

Perhaps this outcome is a wishful thinking interpretation of the Didyk and 
Wisniewski paper-  since it is not clear what they are talking about with 
palladium.

BTW Peter Hagelstein mentions their paper in  “Anomalies in Fracture 
Experiments, and Energy Exchange Between Vibrations and Nuclei.”
Hagelstein and Chaudhary - Meccanica 50, no. 5 (July 15, 2014): 1189–1203, so 
the information did not go uncommented wrt LENR.

In short, all that one needs to bring nuclear fission into a new paradigm of 
cost effectiveness is to include an extra DDL into the picture below (assuming 
dense hydrogen is similar enough to a neutron to induce fission in the heavy 
target. A chain reaction is far easier to engineer with an extra avenue of 
propagation (4:1 instead of 3:1).

Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion Catalyzed Hot Fission - A promising hybrid orjust hand-waving?

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Bob,

The experimentally-determined charge distribution of a neutron shows an
outer "shell" of negative charge and thus the neutron should be
polarizable. Had this been known early on, when the neutron was considered
to be a proton + electron, I think the battle for that view would never
have been lost and the result of  relativistic-QM equations indicating
deep-electron orbits would have been accepted 80 years ago.

[The recently observed 'peak' in negative charge density at the very center
of the neutron would result from the overlap of electron 'charge' density
from the greater than nuclear-size deep-orbit electrons. Of course such
musing of "nuclear electrons" is not allowed in publication because it
would violate holy writ.]

Andrew

On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 10:41 PM, bobcook39...@hotmail.com <
bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Robin
>
>
>
> I did not know neutrons have a negative (I assume negative electric field)
> and hence negative charge in any observable time frame.  st there
> experimental evidence for this feature of a neutron?
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail  for
> Windows 10
>
>
> --
> *From:* mix...@bigpond.com 
> *Sent:* Sunday, April 22, 2018 6:43:00 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion Catalyzed Hot Fission - A promising
> hybrid orjust hand-waving?
>
> In reply to  bobcook39...@hotmail.com's message of Sun, 22 Apr 2018
> 20:30:21
> +:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >
> >Jones—
> >
> >You state:
> >
> >“Coupling is not needed. Neutrons are created in the fission of U,”
> >
> >I doubt this is the case.  Normal understanding is neutrons exist as an
> entity in the a nucleus.
>
> ...he obviously means "free neutrons" as opposed to bound neutrons.
>
> >
> >Further you state:
> >
> >“No mystery there. The free neutrons  start out fast….”
> >
> >I assume you mean they have linear momentum before the reaction that
> carries over and stays with them.
> >
> >I doubt it.
>
> ...he means that they acquire energy from the fission reaction. However
> you are
> obviously trying to emphasize the fact that neutral particles should be
> difficult to accelerate using electrostatics only. That could be true,
> were it
> not for the fact that neutrons have a negative near field, and are in close
> proximity to many charged nucleons. Furthermore as you previously
> mentioned, the
> magnetic field probably also plays a role, perhaps even the dominant role.
> Regards,
>
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> local asymmetry = temporary success
>
>