RE: [Vo]:Deflated P-e-P

2011-04-15 Thread OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson
>From Jones:

...


> By that, I also mean since H works well on its own - no way do you waste time
> with D, since it can never make commercial sense, even if it improves the
> reaction rate by a large amount. Ergo, when someone mentions D at all in the
> context of a Ni-H demonstration - then it is probably because deuterium has
> been a recurring problem in the recent past! Get it? Or do you find that logic
> too convoluted?

Thanks for the clarifications.

I’m still looking at the flickering shadows! ;-)

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks



RE: [Vo]:Deflated P-e-P

2011-04-15 Thread Jones Beene
Steven - the simulation does not go there.

It is too complicated for me to say if the simulation is accurate or not. I 
like it, and have not found anything obviously wrong with it yet. Everyone 
interprets the shadows on Plato's cave in their own way

If one doesn't mind admitting that he is, in effect, working backwards from 
real results- (which is the case here) and that the goal is trying to explain 
those anomalous results (of Rossi) in the most coherent way possible, then 
Nyman's SIM is the one key missing ingredient which would make the H -> D 
reaction feasible; and it is clear that this is the ideal reaction which best 
fits the results.

... that does not indicate that it is correct - just that it could be the best 
available choice to date (of many unlikely scenarios) 

To continue the Sherlock imitation, and in going back over some old comments on 
the blog, it seems Focardi said early-on that deuterium kills the Rossi 
reaction. Now to my thinking, one way that he would know this is: if it had 
been a recurring problem and that they had figured out a way to the purge of 
deuterium periodically, as it accumulates. 

There is not much rationale for every even trying the two isotopes together, 
since D costs a million times more, and moreover - Focardi is a "hydrogen man" 
(protium) all the way. 

By that, I also mean since H works well on its own - no way do you waste time 
with D, since it can never make commercial sense, even if it improves the 
reaction rate by a large amount. Ergo, when someone mentions D at all in the 
context of a Ni-H demonstration - then it is probably because deuterium has 
been a recurring problem in the recent past! Get it? Or do you find that logic 
too convoluted?


-Original Message-
From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson 


> 3) However, it is occasionally possible to shoot protons at each other with
> the right speed and quark positions so that they latch on to each other -
> held in place by the Strong Force.

Without one of the protons converting into a neutron? I thought that
was impossible.







Re: [Vo]:Deflated P-e-P

2011-04-15 Thread OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
>From Jones:

...


> 3) However, it is occasionally possible to shoot protons at each other with
> the right speed and quark positions so that they latch on to each other -
> held in place by the Strong Force.

Without one of the protons converting into a neutron? I thought that
was impossible.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks



RE: [Vo]:Deflated P-e-P

2011-04-15 Thread Jones Beene
Horace,

> Proton pairs don't bind by the strong force, so this eliminates the  
prospect for the follow-on weak reaction, at least at readily  
observable levels.  


Well - They can bind for an indeterminate period, according to Nyman.

http://dipole.se/

Go down to "Strong Force between Two Protons". Simulations made with two
different kinds of physics software show the following:
 
1) Two protons placed closely together will repel each other most of the
time.
2) Two protons shot at each other will repel each other most of the time.
3) However, it is occasionally possible to shoot protons at each other with
the right speed and quark positions so that they latch on to each other -
held in place by the Strong Force. 

Jones




Re: [Vo]:Deflated P-e-P

2011-04-15 Thread Horace Heffner


On Apr 15, 2011, at 7:38 AM, Jones Beene wrote:

There could be a reason why Horace's deflated fusion model doesn't  
work with

only hydrogen-



The model works fine.  The model explains heavy element fusion as  
well.  It is p-p or p-e-p that does not occur with observable, but  
not because the model does not work.


More comments below.



IOW a version of the proton fusion reaction - leading to
deuterium; BUT if it can fit, then it provides many clear  
advantages to a
Rossi-type of device, and cannot be ruled-out simply because the  
inventor

thinks otherwise.

As for expectations based on what has been reported: They seem to  
match,

since some slight radioactivity (with a built-in time delay) would be
expected - due to eventual deuterium fusion, once enough deuterium  
shows up
... and to Rothwell's delight (and Krivit's embarrassment), since  
in the end

the Rossi effect could still be hydrogen fusion followed by a delayed
deuterium fusion reaction. If some radioactivity is seen, most of  
it could
be from tritium - but it might take weeks for it to show. This  
seems to

explain reported results.

To put this into a Universal perspective - you must appreciate that  
the most
common reaction in the universe is the fusion of two protons into  
deuterium,
releasing a positron and a neutrino as one proton changes into a  
neutron.


Life on earth is absolutely dependent on this reaction.

H + H  →  D + e+(positron) + neutrino + .42 MeV

The reaction is extremely slow, even in the gravity well of a solar- 
sized

mass - because the protons must tunnel through an 'unmasked' Coulomb
barrier, which presumably would be absent - in the deflated model of a
trapped electron.

IOW the Coulomb barrier would be attenuated by the deflation,  
allowing a

greatly enhanced rate.

Warm and sunny regards,

Dr. Pepper


-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene

Horace

An immediate response is this: if that if two deflated protons can get
together in such a way as in the second reaction - then why would  
they not
simply emerge as deuterium most of the time? i.e. a deflated  
version of

P-e-P ?



Weak reactions take much longer then strong reactions. THe key to  
deflation fusion, when it comes to weak reactions, is the strong  
reaction occurs first, giving the weak reaction time to occur if  
there is an energy deficit, by trapping the electron.  I say this in  
my paper.


Proton pairs don't bind by the strong force, so this eliminates the  
prospect for the follow-on weak reaction, at least at readily  
observable levels.  See:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_helium
"Helium-2 is a hypothetical isotope of helium which according to  
theoretical calculations would have existed if the strong force had  
been 2% greater. This atom would have two protons without any neutrons."


"A diproton (or helium-2, symbol 2He) is a hypothetical type of  
helium nucleus consisting of two protons and no neutrons. Diprotons  
are not stable; this is due to spin-spin interactions in the nuclear  
force, and the Pauli exclusion principle, which forces the two  
protons to have anti-aligned spins and gives the diproton a negative  
binding energy.[7]"


I also explain why the deflated state does not form with measurable  
probability in plasma.



Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/






RE: [Vo]:Deflated P-e-P

2011-04-15 Thread Jones Beene
In addition to the fusion of deflated hydrogen, there is an alternative in
the possible fusion of IRH (inverted Rydberg hydrogen).

The difference between the two, as I understand it is that IRH is trapped in
2D (two dimensions) on a dielectric surface via 'mirror charge' while
according to Horace, the deflated hydrogen has its electron trapped in or
near the nucleus, and a dielectric is not necessary.

In fact, the two might be related or even identical, once everything is
understood. You can include in that category: the deeply-redundant hydrino.

... but many metal oxide surfaces present a “Lawandy-type” dielectric for
accumulation of ultra dense hydrogen IRH. This could be the predecessor
state for a modified P-e-P reaction and it would need to be different in a
number of details (such as: what happens to the positron).

IRH has been seen on zirconia, iron-oxide and nickel-oxide. This paper by
Miley is very important. He has actually documented the species.

www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MileyGHclusterswi.pdf

>From there on, the we can posit that hydrogen fuses into deuterium either
using energy borrowed from the zero point field or not, but in the end the
ash is deuterium, and this provides the falsifiability.


-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene

There could be a reason why Horace's deflated fusion model doesn't work with
only hydrogen- IOW a version of the proton fusion reaction - leading to
deuterium; BUT if it can fit, then it provides many clear advantages to a
Rossi-type of device, and cannot be ruled-out simply because the inventor
thinks otherwise.

As for expectations based on what has been reported: They seem to match,
since some slight radioactivity (with a built-in time delay) would be
expected - due to eventual deuterium fusion, once enough deuterium shows up
... and to Rothwell's delight (and Krivit's embarrassment), since in the end
the Rossi effect could still be hydrogen fusion followed by a delayed
deuterium fusion reaction. If some radioactivity is seen, most of it could
be from tritium - but it might take weeks for it to show. This seems to
explain reported results.

To put this into a Universal perspective - you must appreciate that the most
common reaction in the universe is the fusion of two protons into deuterium,
releasing a positron and a neutrino as one proton changes into a neutron.

Life on earth is absolutely dependent on this reaction.

H + H  →  D + e+(positron) + neutrino + .42 MeV

The reaction is extremely slow, even in the gravity well of a solar-sized
mass - because the protons must tunnel through an 'unmasked' Coulomb
barrier, which presumably would be absent - in the deflated model of a
trapped electron.

IOW the Coulomb barrier would be attenuated by the deflation, allowing a
greatly enhanced rate.

Warm and sunny regards,

Dr. Pepper


-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene

Horace

An immediate response is this: if that if two deflated protons can get
together in such a way as in the second reaction - then why would they not
simply emerge as deuterium most of the time? i.e. a deflated version of
P-e-P ?









[Vo]:Deflated P-e-P

2011-04-15 Thread Jones Beene
There could be a reason why Horace's deflated fusion model doesn't work with
only hydrogen- IOW a version of the proton fusion reaction - leading to
deuterium; BUT if it can fit, then it provides many clear advantages to a
Rossi-type of device, and cannot be ruled-out simply because the inventor
thinks otherwise. 

As for expectations based on what has been reported: They seem to match,
since some slight radioactivity (with a built-in time delay) would be
expected - due to eventual deuterium fusion, once enough deuterium shows up
... and to Rothwell's delight (and Krivit's embarrassment), since in the end
the Rossi effect could still be hydrogen fusion followed by a delayed
deuterium fusion reaction. If some radioactivity is seen, most of it could
be from tritium - but it might take weeks for it to show. This seems to
explain reported results.

To put this into a Universal perspective - you must appreciate that the most
common reaction in the universe is the fusion of two protons into deuterium,
releasing a positron and a neutrino as one proton changes into a neutron. 

Life on earth is absolutely dependent on this reaction.

H + H  →  D + e+(positron) + neutrino + .42 MeV

The reaction is extremely slow, even in the gravity well of a solar-sized
mass - because the protons must tunnel through an 'unmasked' Coulomb
barrier, which presumably would be absent - in the deflated model of a
trapped electron. 

IOW the Coulomb barrier would be attenuated by the deflation, allowing a
greatly enhanced rate.

Warm and sunny regards, 

Dr. Pepper


-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene 

Horace 

An immediate response is this: if that if two deflated protons can get
together in such a way as in the second reaction - then why would they not
simply emerge as deuterium most of the time? i.e. a deflated version of
P-e-P ?