In reply to Eric Walker's message of Tue, 8 Dec 2015 20:00:24 -0600: Hi, [snip] >About the matter of the Coulomb barrier -- I like your and Dave's argument >that the Coulomb barrier should be expected to work in one direction (and this >would also seem to be implied by the shell theorem). But Krane on three or so >occasions has written things that imply that the Coulomb barrier works in two >directions, suggesting that it's not just a misinterpretation on my part. One >possibility here is that a side effect of decreasing the Coulomb barrier >surrounding the nucleus is that this somehow alters the nuclear potential in a >way that makes it seem as though the Coulomb barrier works in two directions.
What is called the "Coulomb barrier" is the result of two opposing forces. The repulsive Coulomb force (for positively charged particles), and the attractive nuclear force. Most references make no distinction, but refer simply to the Coulomb barrier, even when IMO they should be referring to the "Nuclear force barrier", which I have never even seen mentioned. IOW the barrier does work in two directions (due to the two forces at work), but is never named accordingly. So I suspect that it's just the naming convention that is confusing you. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
