Lowering of the coulomb barrier is far from an all or nothing situation. There is a fine grained gradation of the reaction that is reflected in increasing probability of tunneling as the coulomb barrier is progressively reduced.
As more screening charge is gradually increased and packed around the immediate neighborhood of a nucleus, the coulomb barrier that protects that nucleus is gradually reduced. And competing theories of cold fusion causation must explain how the reaction is gradual and controllable. Charge concentration provides a monotonically increasing counter screening charge reaction that opposes the positive charge of the coulomb barrier. The reports from successful cold fusion reactor builders who post here at vortex which tell us that they can control the power output of their reactors by simply adjusting the input power feed to the spark plug is understandable. That interesting factoid tells me that the cold fusion reaction is a result of (gradual, controllable, adjustable) screening charge accumulation. Cheers: Axil On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 1:26 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: > I hope that CoE holds in the universe. That is one guideline that is > available for us that I have always relied upon. Does anyone know of any > reliable experiments that have indicated that this conservation law is > invalid? Of course the energy equivalent of mass is an important component > of the law. > > I have long wondered about the tunneling phenomenon and how it fits in > with the CoE. My best understanding is that tunneling is more about > particles occupying the upper edge of the bell curve having enough energy > to overcome a barrier than an isolated particle that is measured below the > required energy level which succeeds in the breach. It is written in > stellar fusion lure that the very tiny upper end of the energy range > hydrogen nuclei are the ones that undergo conversion. > > Is it possible to isolate an individual particle in an experiment where > its state can be well defined and then determine that it has indeed > demonstrated a tunneling that should not be possible? I suspect that the > uncertainty principle would preclude such an experiment. > > Dave > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Harry Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Fri, May 25, 2012 2:30 am > Subject: Re: [Vo]: Proton Fusion Ni58 to Cu59 Endothermic? > > personally i don't believe nature (or god) balances the books for every > process. > we only need CoE to hold for our measuring instruments. > harry > > On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11:09 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: > > This concept is most interesting. I would assume that the energy required > > to overcome the electrostatic barrier must still be supplied and it would > > most likely be stolen from the strong force presentations. The nucleus mass > > deficit is substantially larger when a neutron is absorbed (Ni58 + Neutron = > > Ni59) than when a proton is forced into the nucleus against the barrier > > (Ni58 + Proton = Cu59). This supports that hypothesis. > > > > An interesting secondary occurrence is that the subsequent beta plus decay > > of the Cu59 into Ni59 represents the expelling of the same amount of charge > > as was previously absorbed. This second process demonstrates a relatively > > large mass deficit. The end result of the complete process is a near > > parity energy performance when compared to direct neutron absorption. > > > > Why the coulomb barrier energy is not lost is still blocked within my mind. > > Apparently stars run out of steam when they try to fuse Ni56 with an alpha > > particle to form Zn60. My calculations suggest the same occurrence if I > > assume that the activation barrier energy is lost into the mass of the Zn60 > > nucleus. I guess I must have a mental barrier that is difficult to > > overcome! > > > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Harry Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> > > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > > Sent: Thu, May 24, 2012 4:22 pm > > Subject: Re: [Vo]: Proton Fusion Ni58 to Cu59 Endothermic? > > > > I guess this is also Frank Znidarsic contention: > > > > "If the range of the strong nuclear force increased beyond the > > electrostatic potential barrier a nucleon would feel the nuclear force > > before it was repelled by the electrostatic force. Under this > > situation nucleons would pass under the electrostatic barrier without > > producing any radiation. Could this author's original idea that > > electron condensations increase the range of the nuclear foces be > > correct?" > > > > http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chapter4.html > > > > harry > > > > On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Harry Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> As another way to over come the coloumb barrier, I vaguely recall a > >> paper proposing that the range of the strong force may reach further > >> under some circumstances. > >> > >> Harry > > > > >
