*I would think the 10^20 figure is based on very high temperatures and
pressures, so it would not be applicable to a lattice. *
Unless we consider the unlimited squeeze placed on accumulating photons
and electrons by the uncertainty principle.
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 5:17 PM, H Veeder wrote:
> Harry wrote:
>
Fair enough, but may be Ed's starting point is necessary for
> your reversible proton fusion. Think of it as electron mediated reversible
> proton fusion.
>
>
>
Jones wrote:
> Astute observation. It is all a matter of probability.
>
> But note in the prior post, the premise was st
From: H Veeder
BTW - take an electron and proton at rest,
that system has a mass of 0.511 + 938.272 = 938.8 MeV/c^2. That is the total
mass available to that system. It cannot increase above that level unless
substantial energy comes from outside the
Sent from my iPad
> On Feb 14, 2014, at 12:31 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote:
>
> about tritium, and NiH, in your vision,
> does this mean some
> d+e+p, or d+e+d happen like p+e+p depending on the available reactant (and I
> imagine the "geometric" structure of the fields around).
> the fact that d a
about tritium, and NiH, in your vision,
does this mean some
d+e+p, or d+e+d happen like p+e+p depending on the available reactant (and
I imagine the "geometric" structure of the fields around).
the fact that d and p have different mass, make the reaction p+e+d very
different from p+e+p or d+e+d, m
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
>
>
>
> BTW - take an electron and proton at rest, that system has a mass of 0.511
> + 938.272 = 938.8 MeV/c^2. That is the total mass available to that system.
> It cannot increase above that level unless substantial energy comes from
> outside
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Thu, 13 Feb 2014 19:00:00 -0800:
Hi Jones,
[snip]
>-Original Message-
>From: mix...@bigpond.com
>
>>> When a gamma reaction is known to happen with the same reactant, how can
>that reaction be excluded from happening, in a new scenario when both
>react
Close only counts in horse shoes. There is always a small amount of
deuterium in water. That tritium could be coming from contamination.
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:44 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
> Axil, tritium has been made using H2O, which is close enough. Tritium has
> been made in the absence o
Axil, tritium has been made using H2O, which is close enough. Tritium has been
made in the absence of lithium.
Ed Storms
Sent from my iPad
> On Feb 13, 2014, at 5:49 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>
> I have not heard of any reports of tritium being generated by the NiH
> reactor. Is tritium a dot tha
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
Prove me wrong. Tritium production only happens in the Pd/D system and not
> in a Ni/H system.
>
I don't disagree. This seems like a promising conclusion. I'm not aware
of any hard evidence one way or the other.
Eric
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:29 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
> Prove me wrong. Tritium production only happens in the Pd/D system and not
> in a Ni/H system.
I think this is obvious.
Prove me wrong. Tritium production only happens in the Pd/D system and not
in a Ni/H system.
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:23 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 4:23 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
> The p+e+p is the only form that can also explain tritium production.
>>
>
> There are oth
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 4:23 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
The p+e+p is the only form that can also explain tritium production.
>
There are other possible explanations for tritium -- my own favorite lead
is that it arises when there is lithium. It is true that some LENR
researchers have conjectured a
-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com
>> When a gamma reaction is known to happen with the same reactant, how can
that reaction be excluded from happening, in a new scenario when both
reactions are given enough energy to overcome the fusion threshold?
Especially if one (the desired
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:02:06 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
>Consider exclusivity. For the sake of argument - even if there are found to
>be two possible proton reactions, and one reaction is "supposed to be
>different" from the known solar reaction, but the outcome is the sam
I have not heard of any reports of tritium being generated by the NiH
reactor. Is tritium a dot that we need to concern ourselves about?
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 7:23 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
> Alain, Math is useless because it is based on conventional mechanisms. The
> process CAN NOT occur in a
Alain, Math is useless because it is based on conventional mechanisms. The
process CAN NOT occur in a lattice without violating the laws of
thermodynamics. The p+e+p is the only form that can also explain tritium
production. These requirements limit what is possible. Please take them into
accou
Seing the idea of p+e+p plus the fact it can only happen in lattice, in
some very specific situations, I naturally think about geometry, symmetry...
the error of free space nuclear physicist was to think in free space.
It seems Takahashi have similar ideas, but with different details...
and sym
Jones, you keep saying no theory explains LENR and keep suggesting reasons to
reject while suggesting your own explanation that is isolated to one part of
the process. On the other hand, I suggest a comprehensive mechanism that not
only can explain all observations wthout adhoc assumptions but c
From: H Veeder
(this also answers Robin's more recent posting)
>> The most elegant answer begins with the obvious assertion that there are
no
gammas ab initio, which means that no reaction of the kind which your theory
proposes can be valid because gammas are expected.
> RvS: Actually not only
20 matches
Mail list logo
