P theory, hydrinos, ZPE or the many other theories discussed on this site do supply the answer to my satisfaction.
On edit, this should say P theory, hydrinos, ZPE or the many other theories discussed on this site do *not *supply the answer to my satisfaction. On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > > http://ipdiscover.com/pipermail/newcandle_ipdiscover.com/2007-September/001017.html > > > > > > Back in 2007, Jones Beene asked a very good question that needed an > answer. Where exactly is that pot of energy that nuclear repulsion uses > ultimately comes from? > > > > > > In all good comradeship I felt his question needed an answer, so I decided > to anticipate and pre-answer his natural and essential objection to the > nuclear repulsion theory up front. > > > > > > Such an important objection must be cleared away before this alternate > theory that contradicts the standard model can be taken seriously. > > > > > > Manuel has been developing and zealously popularizing his theory > consistently since 2000 and no one to my knowledge has undercut the > fundamentals of his theory. > > > > > > I don’t yet buy the neutron core sun aspect of his theory. He developed > that idea to explain why meteorites have heavy isotopes signatures in them > that look to have been produced locally in the solar system. > > > > The shaky part of Manuel’s theory is that the sum formed over a neutron > star core which I find hard to believe. > > > > > > This could all be explained if cold fusion is introduced as a rapid and > easy way of producing heavy elements in clouds of nebular gas through the > action of charge accumulation and coulomb barrier breakdown causing cold > fusion. > > > > > > This is to say that heavy elements were not produced in a super-nova > explosion but by the action of cold fusion in a pre-stellar nebula. > > > > > > This is also why ash from cold fusion reactors all look like they produce > isotopes that are consistent with natural abundance ratios as per the magic > number theories of Gorge Miley and Heinrich Hora. > > > > The other important question to answer is as follows: How come there is so > many light elements found in the ash of cold fission reactions when the > base material is heavy. What can be chopping up the nickel into such tiny > pieces? > > > > > > P theory, hydrinos, ZPE or the many other theories discussed on this site > do supply the answer to my satisfaction. > > > > > > Cheers: Axil > > > > > On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > >> I see that this quark mass value in question - comes from Wiki’s entry >> on quarks. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> Here is the significant problem with using that value: there is one >> hypothetical figure for “naked” or “current” quarks– unbound quarks which >> cannot exist for long on their own, and another very different value for >> quarks in a nucleus- “constituent quarks” … The difference is substantial. >> **** >> >> ** ** >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constituent_quark_mass**** >> >> ** ** >> >> The problem in using the naked quarks values, or really any value outside >> a nucleus - is that there is no useful physical reality - and essentially >> “no one has a clue” since the lifetime is so short.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Being precise on this is not a trivial pursuit. There is a fair chance >> that the statistical deviation in “average proton mass” can account for the >> energy seen in nickel hydrogen reactions – without the need for fusion, >> beta decay, low momentum neutrons - or any of the other problems brought on >> by “lack of gamma radiation.”**** >> >> ** ** >> >> IOW, in the Ni-H reaction, and only in reactions involving hydrogen >> (deuterium is excluded for other reasons) it can be reasonably asserted >> that gain can derived from a statistical reduction in “overage” in the >> average mass of the proton. It does not take much mass reduction, >> multiplied by lightspeed to provide sufficient energy that is hundreds of >> time in excess of chemical energy … (which is also dependent of a deviation >> in average molecular mass of reactants).**** >> >> ** ** >> >> The leap of faith is that that there is a significant range in proton >> mass which can be reduced slightly without consequence … by the tenets of >> quantum chromodynamics (QCD).**** >> >> ** ** >> >> In a way this is “nuclear” energy, and in a way it is not. The identity >> of the proton does not change, but its average mass is slightly reduced.* >> *** >> >> ** ** >> >> I’m now calling this the “P-Power Hypothesis” (“p” is for both pion and >> proton). **** >> >> ** ** >> >> The hypothesis is evolving into a useful competitor for the other >> explanations for gain in Ni-H involving fusion or decay, which should >> involve gamma radiation; yet in which gammas are not seen. Those hypotheses >> require two or more miracles to “hold water” so to speak…**** >> >> ** ** >> >> This name also gives Terry an opportunity to power-up with a p-pun, or if >> not…**** >> >> ** ** >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0P8mELzqQd0**** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> *From:* Jones Beene **** >> >> ** ** >> >> This is off by more than an order of magnitude. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> Where did the quark mass value come from?**** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> *From:* Axil Axil **** >> >> ** ** >> >> For example, a proton has a mass of approximately 938 MeV/c2, of which >> the rest mass of its three valence quarks only contributes about 11 MeV/c >> 2; most of the remainder can be attributed to the gluons' QCBE.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> > >
