The coulomb barrier is symmetric. It is just as hard to get a proton out of the nucleus as it is to get a proton into a it.
In 1928, George Gamow <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gamow> had solved the theory of the alpha decay via tunneling. The alpha particle is trapped in a potential well <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_well>by the nucleus. Classically, it is forbidden to escape, but according to the then newly-discovered principles of quantum mechanics<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics>, it has a tiny (but non-zero) probability of "tunneling<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling>" through the barrier <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_barrier> and appearing on the other side to escape the nucleus. Gamow solved a model potential for the nucleus and derived, from first principles, a relationship between the half-life <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life>of the decay, and the energy of the emission, which had been previously discovered empirically, and was known as the Geiger–Nuttall law<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger%E2%80%93Nuttall_law> . When the coulomb barrier is suppressed, the tunneling rate of proton clusters increases. The lower the coulomb barrier gets the bigger chunks of elements that can get out of the nucleus. Since the kinetic energy of the emitted nuclear fragment is always approximately the same, by the Geiger-Nuttall law, what changes is the decay constants. A lower coulomb barrier means a higher decay constant. A simple way to derive this law is to consider an alpha particle<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_particle>in the atomic nucleus as a particle in a box <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_in_a_box>. The particle is in a bound state <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bound_state> because of the presence of the strong interaction<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction>potential. It will constantly bounce from one side to the other, and due to the possibility of quantum tunneling<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunneling>by the wave though the potential barrier, each time it bounces, there will be a small likelihood for it to escape. Knowledge of this quantum mechanical effect enables one to obtain this law, including coefficients, via direct calculation. It was this calculation that was first performed by physicist George Gamow<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gamow>in 1928. I speculate that what initially causes instability in the nucleus is the tunneling of a heavy electron into it through a depressed coulomb barrier. This electron changes a proton into a neutron and sometimes the nucleus must reorder itself via nuclear decay. But don’t be confused; heavy electron tunneling into the nucleus is just one of many LENR mechanisms that transmute elements. Cheers: Axil On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 6:32 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: > >An alternative to fusion is the lowering of the coulomb barrier which > increases the probability of alpha particle emissions from the heavy > element nucleus. > > I must not understand your point here. If the barrier is lowered then it > would seem that an alpha particle would exhibit less of a coulomb repulsion > away from the nucleus. Perhaps you are suggesting that more alphas would > be generated if the source elements could get through the barrier easier? > > Dave > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Thu, Jul 12, 2012 4:54 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cell resistance drop at initiation of XP burst in the > Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect > > Here is a way to test my guess. > > One indicator that the alpha particles come from fusion is a lack of > light nuclear transmutation products; products with an atomic number less > than the cathode material. > > From the begining, the assumption has always been that helium is a > product of deuterium fusion. This assumption may not be true. > > If helium is found in H/Ni ash, how could that helium be produce? > > <> > > If light element ash is present, this tends to suggest that the cause of > the alpha partial emissions from the cathode is a result of a fission > process of the cathode material and a partial lowering in the coulomb > barrier. > > Rossi explained the appearance of light element ash in his used powder > as a fission process back in 2011. > > If true, how could fission be happening? > > Keep up the good work and your excelent posts; > > > Kine regards: Axil > > > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax > <a...@lomaxdesign.com>wrote: > >> At 03:07 PM 7/11/2012, Axil Axil wrote: >> >> Could this be an indication of the establishment of entangled electron >>> states resulting in mass increase related to heavy electrons? Recently, >>> heavy electrons have been shown to be an indicator of an onset of >>> superconductive conditions. >>> >>> Axil >>> >> >> Gee, how could I say? >> >> Could it be the first indication of Higgs Boson effects at low energies? >> >> Gee, how could I say? >> >> Doorbell rings. Could it be some million-dollar giveaway? >> >> How could I say? Maybe I'll just answer the door and see who is there. >> >> *What is this effect? Under what conditions does it happen? What can be >> seen to be consistent about it? Anything?* >> >> What torpedoed the discovery of the FPHE in the first place was >> speculation about the cause, with most of the physics community imagining >> that if it was real, it must be X, and X wouldn't look like this, therefore >> it wasn't real. And most of the few others imagining that it was Y, which >> was preposterous and with very little foundation and certainly no proof. >> >> And only a few actually persisting with the question, "How does this >> behave? What actually happens?" >> >> As evidence from these few accumulated, we came to the point where we can >> actually say a little that is solid. >> >> We still don't know what the hell is going on, really, but we can now say >> that the probability is very high that the FPHE is a result of deuterium >> being transmuted to helium. How? We don't know. Lots of people have lots of >> guesses. >> >> In order to discriminate between these guesses, we need a lot more data. >> We do not collect data sitting at a computer screen typing out our >> opinions, fantasies, nor even what we know. I am, with this request for >> information, beginning the process of gathering what is actually known, as >> to a detail that might have some significance. >> >> When what is known has been collected and collated, further experiment >> may be suggested. That's how science actually works, other than through >> sheer luck. >> >> We do know, now, that Pons and Fleischmann were very lucky, If their >> batch of palladium had been ordinary, they would probably have seen >> nothing. >> > >
