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