On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote:
> > On May 22, 2013, at 11:21 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: > > Ed, > > I think the structure of the coulomb barrier is open to intrinsic > modification, but the variables governing this possibility cannot be > uncovered by the tools and concepts of high energy physics. > > > I agree. In fact, the insistence that high energy physics be used is the > flaw in the skeptical arguments. > > In most situations the coulomb barrier behaves in a textbook fashion, > but when bathed in the right vibrations the barrier can be "tuned" to > "soften". > > > I think a different description is more useful. The two nuclei have first > to get critically close together by intervention of an electron. This > process is conventional. Once this happens and the bond can resonate, the > periodic reduction in distance causes the nuclei to emit a photon (gamma). > Each emitted photon allows hte distance to be reduced because the energy > of the system has now been reduced, which reduces the Coulomb barrier. > After enough photons have been emitted, the two nuclei collapse into one, > which is the nuclear product. Of course, the intervening electron that is > required to reduce the barrier is sucked into the final nucleus. > > The process you have described has the characteristics of a ratchet. Curiously, Jones used the ratchet metaphor in another post where he characterised the effect of modulating the input on the cell. > This model requires the nuclei to "know" that they must emit energy when > they get close and that magnitude of the Coulomb barrier is sensitive to > the excess mass-energy of the two nuclei. > > Ed Storms > > Is this another way of saying it is related to the nuclear force? If so then the ratchet is the nuclear force. harry
