1995.09.22 / Robin Spaandonk /  Re: Lost neutron mass and electron capture
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Lost neutron mass and electron capture
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 00:37:19 GMT
Organization: Improving

In article <43oiiu$ban@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ZoltanCCC wrote :

>Thanks Horace for reminding us the numbers. I am totally dazed and
>confused now because the numbers don't add up.

Which is precisely what led me down this path in the first place.

>
>If I add the numbers and subtract them properly I get that the mass
>deficit is 0.782 and this is the energy we need to put in to make electron
>capture possible. In beta decay of a neutron we get this energy in the
>form of the total energy of the electron and the antineutrino. So the
>picture should be clear except that I don't know how the potential energy
>of the electrostatic field is accounted for. I am pretty sure that most of
>the electron's rest mass comes from the mass-energy stored in its field.

I do not believe that the rest mass of the electron is related to its
potential energy relative to the nucleus, though I do believe that
this potential energy needs to be included in the total rest mass of
the atom. Not to do so would be inconsistent with the fact that we do
allow potential energy to be counted as mass in the nucleus.

>If I look at the numbers, it seems that the electron will gain enough
>energy to perform the electron capture just by falling into the proton

Glad to see that _someone_ understands what I have been trying to say.

>(Assuming that Robin is not off by a factor of ten in the energy
>computation. The 1.8 fm is about right for the proton's radius in fact it
>is a little high. It is not clear to me if the electron will radiate and
>slow down while falling, it might. Instead of radiating the electron might
>just collect the energy and unite with the proton. Most of this
>acceleration occurs at the very last few fermis of travel since that is
>where the field is concentrated. Being so close to the proton may prevent
>the photon emission resulting from this enormous acceleration. Photon
>emission may also be prevented by the fact that the two charges are only a
>few fermis apart so from a distance they appear to be neutral. This now
>improves the chances of the electron capture theory I think.
>
>Zoltan Szakaly

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@netspace.net.au>
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything,
Learns all his life,
And leaves knowing nothing.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.22 /   /  I have a fusion reactor in my garage!!!!!!!
     
Originally-From: topdog80@aol.com (TopDog80)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: I have a fusion reactor in my garage!!!!!!!
Date: 22 Sep 1995 22:58:27 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Hello my fellow cold fusionist.  I am currantly running a fusion reactor
in garage.  My reactor runs on a microwave, 26.25 kilometers of copper
wire, a small supply of uranium 239, and 12-1000 volt Honda Generators. If
you would like the plans for the accelerator, please write me. I will
write back with the full plans in detail. My accelerator is capable of
34MeV. The total cost for the accelerator is $700.00. Please write soon.

Yours Truly,

The Slingmeister
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudentopdog80 cudln cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.22 / Barry Merriman /  Re: How To Spend the $700
     
Originally-From: barry@boole.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How To Spend the $700
Date: 22 Sep 1995 22:03:01 GMT
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research

In article <43ustt$818@newsbf02.news.aol.com> zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC) writes:
>In article <21cenlogic-1709951605450001@199.172.8.133>,
>21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:
>
>>
>I could be wrong but it seems I could go out right now and
>build a nuclear car using Li7 and a neutron source with some shielding
>around the whole setup. Why mess with cold fusion? Of course knowledge is
>important so we should find out what's going on.
>
>Zoltan Szakaly
>

Thats like saying given a warp drive I could go build
a spaceship. Creating the compact neutron source is the
problem....

AS for you scheme for breeding more heat in a Lithium blanket
around a fusion reactor core...Uh, ZS, you really out to 
get out of the house more often...that is how fusion reactors
have been designed for the past 30 years or so.

A final tip: I really doubt you will build any kind
of advanced reactor without getting a little more formal
education...just thinking in your own dreamworld is not
going to be efficient enough.




--
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet)  (NeXTMail OK) 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.22 /  ZoltanCCC /  Re: The electron capture theory of cold fusion
     
Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The electron capture theory of cold fusion
Date: 22 Sep 1995 23:39:29 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Earlier in this newsgroup myself and others described the situation
whereby naked deuterons move around in the metal lattice in channels
somewhat similarly to the valence electrons. Here I am assuming a lattice
that is already loaded to the point where the additional deuterons are
unable to form electron shells. 

Since the deuteron has a spin 1 it obeys the Bose-Einstein statistics and
so the population of extra deuterons (over unity loading) should be
superconductive. That means that the cathode should become superconductive
above the unity loading. This has double significance:

1. Moving in the same quantum state as bosons, a population of deuterons
should be superconductive with an ability to carry a certain amount of
current that may be dependant on the level of loading.

2. This superconductivity should turn on as loading increases over unity
so it can be used to check the cathode for over unity loading.

3. The deuterons are bosons regardless of temperature so we should have
high temperature superconductivity, room temperature and above.

4. Having a population of deuterons in the same quantum state may enhance
the cold fusion effect or it might cause an enhancement of electron
capture.

Zoltan Szakaly
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.22 / Bill Rowe /  Re: The electron capture theory of cold fusion
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The electron capture theory of cold fusion
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 23:16:24 -0700
Organization: AltNet - $5/month uncensored news - http://www.alt.net

In article <43vvhh$k7a@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, zoltanccc@aol.com
(ZoltanCCC) wrote:

>Earlier in this newsgroup myself and others described the situation
>whereby naked deuterons move around in the metal lattice in channels
>somewhat similarly to the valence electrons. Here I am assuming a lattice
>that is already loaded to the point where the additional deuterons are
>unable to form electron shells. 
>
>Since the deuteron has a spin 1 it obeys the Bose-Einstein statistics and
>so the population of extra deuterons (over unity loading) should be
>superconductive. That means that the cathode should become superconductive
>above the unity loading. This has double significance:
>
>1. Moving in the same quantum state as bosons, a population of deuterons
>should be superconductive with an ability to carry a certain amount of
>current that may be dependant on the level of loading.
>
>2. This superconductivity should turn on as loading increases over unity
>so it can be used to check the cathode for over unity loading.
>
>3. The deuterons are bosons regardless of temperature so we should have
>high temperature superconductivity, room temperature and above.
>
>4. Having a population of deuterons in the same quantum state may enhance
>the cold fusion effect or it might cause an enhancement of electron
>capture.

From what Jed and others posted, it was my understanding the amount of
loading was typically determined by doing a resistance measurement. I
believe over unity loading has been done without observing
superconductivity. 

I think the problem is you will not have a significant number deutrons in
the same quantum state at room temperature even though they are bosons.
The number of available quantum states rises exponentially with
temperature. Cosequently, the probability of finding several bosons in the
same state decreases exponentially with temperature.

Earlier Bill Page had posted some ideas attempting to explain CF by taking
into account the Pd lattice and the boson nature of deutrons. Bill had
posted some calculations and modeling done with Maple. I lost track of
what happened to this effort. You might want to search the archives for
the postings.
-- 
"Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.23 /   /  Re: The electron capture theory of cold fusion
     
Originally-From: mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The electron capture theory of cold fusion
Date: 23 Sep 1995 02:28:28 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC) wrote:

>The supporting info found by Robin has still not been refuted. The
>electron simply acquires the energy needed for the electron capture by
>falling into the deuteron. Under more normal circumstances this does not
>happen because the electron has orbital angular momentum and if it is
>decelerated in order for it to fall into the nucleus it would have to
>receive additional energy.

Oh, come on. I have refuted Robin's idea conclusively, at least for people
who know physics at an undergraduate level. What you and he are talking
about violates energy conservation, it's as simple as that.

Also what you are talking about in the above-quoted paragraph is rather
silly, the ground state of the electron in hydrogen is a state of *zero*
angular momentum. You might learn just the tiniest little bit about atomic
physics before running off half-cocked with the CRC book.

This newsgroup is a bit like the National Enquirer. More than a bit.

Mark Richardson
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenmrichar353 cudln cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.23 /   /  Re: Lost neutron mass and electron capture
     
Originally-From: mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Lost neutron mass and electron capture
Date: 23 Sep 1995 02:18:31 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) wrote:

>This negative potential energy, is only relative to the situation
>where the electron is infinitely far removed from the nucleus. After
>electron capture, the electron remains "bound" to the nucleus, (or
>subsumed by it), therefore this energy "debt" never has to be repaid.
>In other words, the kinetic energy that the electron has at close
>approach, is available to contribute to the mass of the final nucleus.

This is not the case at all. *The total energy is conserved*. You can't
just say that we should forget about part of it (the potential energy of
the electron). It's not as if the electron just attaches to the proton, it
vanishes. It's total energy is transmitted to the reaction products (the
resulting neutron and neutrino), not just it's kinetic energy. That's why
the reaction does *not* occur, there is not enough energy. Even if it did
just sit there stuck to the proton, the mass of the resulting system would
be the same as the mass of the hydrogen atom (this is just energy
conservation).

If what you propose did actually happen, then we would start with a
hydrogen atom and end with a neutron and neutrino. Even neglecting the
energy of the neutrino, the mass of the neutron is larger than the masses
of the proton and electron. You would just have created energy out of
nothing! (Ah, I get it! CF true believers think you can get something for
nothing!)

Mark Richardson
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenmrichar353 cudln cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.22 / Mario Pain /  Re: French nuclear test agenda
     
Originally-From: Mario Pain <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: French nuclear test agenda
Date: 22 Sep 1995 16:49:50 GMT
Organization: cea

msevior@axnd02.cern.ch (Martin Sevior) wrote:

>That time is long gone. France already has about 400 nuclear weapons. Would
>you feel safer if Germany, Italy, Poland or Serbia said: " We want to assert
>our sovereignty. We will build and stockpile nuclear weapons". What would be
>your reaction? Would you use military force to prevent this? Surely there's
>a sensible limit to the demonstration of sovereignty in world with over a
>hundred sovereign nations.
>
 No, I would not feel safer. I would not encourage them to do so and I can
perfectly understand their opposition to France's nuclear test campaign.
 But personnally is why I think the French nuclear deterrent is a good thing
not only for France, but also for other people. I think there is a danger of
having ONE power in this world without a valid counterweight. If the only
credible deterrent is the United States's one, then I think we are up to a lot
of trouble (see later). 

>
>In a world where nuclear weapons have been invented it would be foolish not
>a have a policeman. In the absence of anyone else, the USA is the best choice.
>Certainly not France!
>
 I do not see why the USA should be the best choice. But that is not the question.
(See later).

>
>>If you think that the USA has EVER done anything throughout it's history
>>to other purposes than to further its own interests, you are sadly mistaken.
>>I, for one, would like a few examples.
>>
>
>I'd break that into two classes. Here are a few examples.
>
>1. Acting against ones interests.
>
>Intervening in Vietnam to prevent the spread of communism. The war cost
>50,000 American Lives and cost hundreds of billions of dollars.
>
>What difference to America if a few extra countries became communist in
>South East Asia? (Australians were much more worried about the "domino-effect"
>and a communist approach to our Northern shores.)
>
 The problem was not Asia. The problem was that a strong communist block 
might have given a lot of ideas to countries like Argentina (I lived in that
country so I know what I am talking about) Brasil, Iran and so on. The "Equilibrium
of terror" allowed many countries to shake economical domination by 
recovering their national resources from international companies (many of them
with large American capitals). The nationalisation of the Suez canal by 
Nasser or the Iranian petroleum by Mossadegh are good examples.
 I am not passing judgement on the question if this nationalisations where
good or bad for those countries. They  were without the shadow of a doubt
a very bad thing for American companies.

>
>2. Enlightened self interest.
>
>(a) Intervening in the 1st world war. America was never directly threatened
>by Germany. Yet it came to the aid of France and Britain.
>
 Perhaps, but very late. The USA always waited until the last minute to 
intervene so they appeared to be the victors at a minimum cost.

>(b) Restoration of Europe after the 2nd world war through loans worth
>billions of dollars.
>
 The fast reconstruction of Europe was necessary to restrict the attraction
the Soviet regime exerted on western Europe. Do not forget that after the
war, there was a true admiration for the efforts made during the war by
the Soviet people, and many western countries had strong communist parties.
A miserable french, italian or german people would have had a very different
reaction towards the mermaids of communism.

>(c) Restoration of French pride by pretending they were a victor of the
>2nd world war. This included giving them a piece Germany and Berlin to
>administer at the conclusion of the war. In addition they gave France a
>permenant seat in the United Nations security council.

 Once again, they did not give anything they could withold: De Gaulle was
a shrewd politician and understood very early that the Americans were scared
to death to see him fall in Staline's arms. Whe the americans threatened to
exclude him from the Security Council, he arranged an official visit to Moscow
and got his seat...
>

>(d) A relatively open market to foreign goods. Japanese products are cheaper
>in the USA than any other country (including Japan).
>
 You must be joking !!!

>In these cases the US recognized it's real interests were also those of
>rivals or potential rivals and that immediate costs would be more than offset
>by long term gains. The last case is particularly instructive as the
>dinasaurs of American industry were shaken up with new ideas and methods.
>The result is a more productive economy and better products and services
>for it's consumers.
>
 That is exactly what I said: The USA always served their own interests. They
appeared to serve other people's interests only when long term gains for 
THEM were likely to result. Sometimes other people benefited from this
attitude, and sometimes they lost everything by it.

>In the same way
>France pays higher taxes than necessary to employ a large number of farmers
>to keep small inefficient farms and farming practices alive. No doubt the
>French are happy to pay these higher taxes for the pleasure of seeing horse
>drawn carts and sheperds with sheep blocking their roads. It's their choice.

 For once we agree. I am not very happy with the way the french economy is
run.
>
>In any case this latest round of nuclear explosions show that France has
>a much weaker idea of "enlightened self interest" than the USA.
>
 I do not see why. Could you explain ? It may be helpful to compare with
the way the Bikini tests were organized.

>
>There are inhabited islands within 100 km of Mururoa. I think France has
>some islands that distance off it's coast. Go for it.

 There are indeed. But within 1000 km of Mururoa there are less than 100.000
inhabitants. Within 1000 km of any of those islands, there are more than 30
million.

>
>We may well be right too. In any case we're asserting our soverignty in a
>sensible way to try to convince a former colonial power with dreams of
>still being a Great Power that it is foolish and wrong. Do 96% of French
>people agree with the weapons program?
>
 No. But 69 % call for the death penalty to be reestablished. I do not think
you have to do what opinion polls tell.

>
>Your joking right? France is exploding nuclear weapons because the rest of
>world says not to? Isn't that like a 6-year old child juggling knives because
>her mommy says not to? I think the real reason is the misguided belief of
>gaining world respect.
>
 No I do not. I strongly believe that the fact that all the world is against
this tests is THE reason why France cannot back up.
 Perhaps you are convinced I am FOR the nuclear tests. I am NOT. I am not against
either, because not being a specialist it is not for me to decide. But once this
tests have bee announced by our President, then they MUST be done. Because if our
President cannot be trusted to resist strong pressure from abroad on that matter,
how could we trust him at all ?

>France does do a lot of things well that really would
>gain world respect. Why not put the money into space exploration?  Why not
>build the generation of Fusion reactors?

 France puts money in both (actually, I work on fusion research). I agree with
you that Nuclear weapons (or any kind of weapons, for that matter) never were a 
way to make other people respect you. They were and are a way to make people fear
you. And in the real world, I am sorry to say, it is fear, and not respect, which
keeps your country independent. All the brilliant french scientists, artists and
engineers could not keep Hitler out of France.
 
>
>France's nuclear weapons program has got to be costing hundreds of millions
>of dollars. This amount of money in any of these alternative projects would 
>be enough to make a real impact, would be viewed
>as admirable by the rest of world and would be things that compete with
>America and so demonstrate your sovereignty too.

 Sovereignty is not about winning a race. It is not "more fun to compete". I think
(whithout being offensive) that it is difficult for a New Zealander to see the
problem in the same way. You are far off from the world, and if you want to 
do something in your country, nobody will interfere. Our historical experience
is quite different.

"Always ready to debate"

Mario Pain


cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenpain cudfnMario cudlnPain cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.22 / Mario Pain /  Re: Why no CF maybes?
     
Originally-From: Mario Pain <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why no CF maybes?
Date: 22 Sep 1995 17:13:42 GMT
Organization: cea

blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) wrote:
>My question concerning the significance of the statistics of CF
>results has generated two replies.
>[snip]
>Even Jed estimates that "correct" experiments have a success rate at the 50% 
>level.

 Any balance experiment will give you a 50 % success at least. Lets imagine
a calorimeter experiment with a simple resistor in the calorimeter. The the 
"excess heat" will be given by:

 E= K (T-T0) - I.V.t

 Where I and V are current and voltage in the resistor, t the time during which
the current is maintained, T and T0 the final and initial temperatures and K the
constant of the calorimeter. Let's imagine that all measurements are done 
without offset and that the calorimeter is perfect.
 Then because of the random errors of measurement, E will be positive in 50% of
the cases !!!!

 A new cold fusion device is born !

Mario Pain 

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenpain cudfnMario cudlnPain cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.22 /  ZoltanCCC /  Re: How To Spend the $700
     
Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How To Spend the $700
Date: 22 Sep 1995 13:48:45 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <21cenlogic-1709951605450001@199.172.8.133>,
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:

>
>As for Zoltan's interest in nuclear reactors, well, I just don't
>understand it. If he wants to tinker, why fool around with a dangerous,
>highly regulated, obsolete technology? "Cold fusion" is totally
>unregulated, totally safe, and is the wave of the future. As I said in an
>earlier post, it is a "soft" technology, as benign and non-threatening as
>flowers on a summer day. If he wants to tinker, why not tinker with that?
>Frankly, I have about given up understanding his posts. I find myself in
>disagreement with virtually everything he says. --Mitchell Jones}***     

>
>

To answer Mitchell's question I want to build nuclear reactors because
they are important in many products including personal vertical takeoff
airplanes and space propulsion systems. And don't worry I would not dream
of making a nuclear reactor in a residential area. I am somewhat attracted
to the idea of using some controlled neutron source and Li7 because it is
understood technology. I have not seen cold fusion devices generate enough
heat to drive a turbine, and it seems like it is difficult technology. If
I build a reactor out of Li7 it is about as benign as cold fusion devices.
Since CF devices are so poorly understood I think any of them could go
supercritical at any time and take out the neighborhood or cause harmful
radiation. I could be wrong but it seems I could go out right now and
build a nuclear car using Li7 and a neutron source with some shielding
around the whole setup. Why mess with cold fusion? Of course knowledge is
important so we should find out what's going on.

Zoltan Szakaly

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.21 / Ramon Prasad /  Re: A simple speculation
     
Originally-From: Ramon Prasad <100437.530@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A simple speculation
Date: 21 Sep 1995 06:51:27 GMT
Organization: Geometrica Press Ltd.

Continuing along your line of thought, consider the following.
Suppose that a "naked deuteron" is under great pressure from
many of its colleagues (because of loading above the 1:1 ratio)
is pressurized into the domain of the outer electron orbits
of a palladium atom. Suppose it is rained with "blows" by the
orbiting electrons and absorbs some of this energy by jumping up 
into excited states. At some point its excitation will rise 
above the energy deficit required for electron capture. Then the
next blow from an orbiting electron is converted into an electron
capture event. If there are nearby naked deuterons undergoing
similar processes, then we have the possibility of nuclear
processes coming from the interaction of two electron captures
or from the interaction of an electron capture with a deuteron.

A slightly more complex speculation for your consideration!

-- 
Very Best Wishes, Yours sincerely,
Ramon Prasad <internet:100437.530@compuserve.com>
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cuden530 cudfnRamon cudlnPrasad cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.21 / Ramon Prasad /  Re: Multineutron systems
     
Originally-From: <100437.530@compuserve.com (Ramon Prasad)>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Multineutron systems
Date: 21 Sep 1995 03:33:06 GMT
Organization: CompuServe Incorporated


tuttt@rpi.edu (Teresa E. Tutt) wrote :

>Any idea of the cross-section and or competing cross sections?
>What is the source of the 2n?

Processes involving neutral products cannot be directly observed.
It was a speculation and I have no experimental facts. A correspondent
has infornmed me that searches for di- tri- and quad- neutron states
have been unsuccessful.

After  D + e(-) --> 2n + nu,  the question is what happens to the 2n 
(which was the D before electron capture). If it simply dissolves
on the nuclear time scale < 10^-17 seconds, then not much can be
made of it. My point is that the deuteron is stable. Charge independence
therefore seems to suggest that there should be an interaction between
the two neutrons which would hold them together for long enough
to interact with another deuteron or another 2n. If this is so then we
can get nuclear products.

Very Best Wishes, Yours sincerely,
Ramon Prasad <100437.530@compuserve.com>
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cuden530 cudfnRamon cudlnPrasad cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.21 / Ramon Prasad /  Re: Multineutron systems
     
Originally-From: <100437.530@compuserve.com (Ramon Prasad)>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Multineutron systems
Date: 21 Sep 1995 03:50:57 GMT
Organization: CompuServe Incorporated


mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel) wrote:

>No one of the neutrons would like to get rid of some energy by
>decaying into a proton + stuff

Do you mean the  beta decay of the neutron here:

                         n --> p + e(-)  + nu

If so this is a weak process, and leave the dineutron existing for
long enough to interact with a deuteron or another dineutron which
is all that is required to get nuclear products. I would like the n-n
iteraction to hold them together for long enough to do this.

Very Best Wishes, Yours sincerely,
Ramon Prasad <internet:100437.530@compuserve.com> 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cuden530 cudfnRamon cudlnPrasad cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.22 / Mario Pain /  Re: French nuclear test agenda
     
Originally-From: Mario Pain <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: French nuclear test agenda
Date: 22 Sep 1995 16:00:42 GMT
Organization: cea

bruce@faxmail.co.nz (Bruce Simpson) wrote:

>But France has repeatedly claimed that there is *NO* risk associated
>with these tests.  If this is indeed the case then it matters not
>whether the devices are tested in downtown Paris or anywhere else for
>that matter.  You can't claim total safety on one hand and "reduced
>risk" on the other.
>
 I do not think France has ever claimed there was NO risk associated 
with this tests. Such a claim will of course be absurd, as there is
no human act which has "zero risk". What is claimed is that this risk
is "in the noise", that is, the probability of an accident happening is
negligible when compared with any other possible accident. To be schematic,
a polynesian has more chance of being eaten by an alligator when getting
out of bed than to be affected by this tests.
 That does not mean of course that France should not take any measure
which will reduce both the probability of a nuclear accident, and the
potential effect of it. In that sense, the Mururoa site is the best of
the available ones.

Regards


Mario Pain

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenpain cudfnMario cudlnPain cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.21 / Richard Schultz /  Warp 5, Mr. Sulu! <doo doo weee wong wong> Swisssssssh. . . .ZOOM
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Warp 5, Mr. Sulu! <doo doo weee wong wong> Swisssssssh. . . .ZOOM
Date: 21 Sep 1995 05:52:00 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <21cenlogic-2009952340130001@austin-2-7.i-link.net>,
Mitchell Jones <21cenlogic@i-link.net> wrote:

>Anyway, here's a question for you to ponder, after you get through rolling
>around on the floor: if an excited nucleus drops to ground state by
>emission of a gamma photon, did the photon transit from the velocity of
>the nucleus (zero, say) to lightspeed without passing through the various
>velocities between zero and c? 

This is a toughie, but here's a hint:  yes.

>And, please note, you can't settle this
>question by stipulation. If you simply try to make lightspeed part of your
>definition of a photon, then I will simply ask you why you do not choose
>to call the entity a photon until it reaches lightspeed.

Hello?  Is anybody home?  Are you now telling us that not only QM, but
Special Relativity has to be thrown away?

>It's an interesting question, isn't it?

Not even remotely.

>Do you, perhaps, feel a bit less like laughing now, and a bit more inclined 
>to think seriously about the matter? 

Tell you what:  you send me your address, and I will be more than happy
to send you a quarter by return mail in the vague hope that it might enable
you to buy yourself a clue.
--
					Richard Schultz

"Most heat generating cells do not produce measurable amounts of tritium."
                   --Jed Rothwell, sci.physics.fusion, 16 September 1995 
"There is no point to pretending CF does not iproduce tritium."
                   --Jed Rothwell, sci.physics.fusion, 17 September 1995
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.22 / Mario Pain /  Re: French nuclear test agenda
     
Originally-From: Mario Pain <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: French nuclear test agenda
Date: 22 Sep 1995 16:12:59 GMT
Organization: cea

bruce@faxmail.co.nz (Bruce Simpson) wrote:

>Normally I consider the BBC to be responsible and (as far as any media
>can be) a relatively reliable source of such news.  The fact that
>Mario is not aware of these moves means that either the BBC was wrong
>or the French Government are going out of their way to conceal their
>plans from their own citizens.
>
 I do consider the BBC as a responsible media, but hardly an infalible 
one. Therefore, I wait for confirmation. Nevertheless I find the alleged
attitude of the French government incredible, and that for a very simple
reason: If you want to forbid things, you have to declare them forbidden
in a public way. In French law, the only decrees the citizens are obliged to 
abide by are those which are PUBLISHED.
 Do you really think that you can make in France today a "secret decree", that
the police could detain a citizen for breaking it (how would the police
know, if it is secret ?), that this citizen could be tried by a secret
tribunal (because otherwise how could the law remain secret ?) and imprisoned
in complete secrecy ?. You have been reading to many novels !
 The French constitution protects the right of the citizens to secrecy
of their private information. Any law contrary to that principle would
be thrown out by the Constitutional Court.
 What may be in preparation, is a law forbidding the encryption of "public
files". Under French law, any citizen can check computer files belonguing
to any public institution in order to know which nominative information is
held about him and to correct any mistaken data. Encryption could make this
right void... But that is another problem.

>If I were a French citizen I would not be proud of my government at
>the moment.
>
 I do not see why. I would not be proud of it if it was proven that it is
trying to restrict the right to secrecy. But for the time being, there is
no proof offered and frankly speaking, I find this thing unbelievable.


Regards

Mario Pain




cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenpain cudfnMario cudlnPain cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.22 /  ZoltanCCC /  Re: ? Singularity Technology ?
     
Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ? Singularity Technology ?
Date: 22 Sep 1995 12:13:12 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Just one last thought on this Li idea.

It would be difficult to incorporate the Li7 into the hot fusion reaction
chamber because it may have an adverse effect on the fusion reaction
itself.

On the other hand if we use Li7 as a blanket or jacket around the outside
of the hot fusion equipment as I proposed it here in my earlier post,
there will be two reactions:

n  +  Li7  -->  Li8                              (1)

or

n  +  Li7  --> Li6  +  n  +  n               (2)


As discussed here in the thread "farce of physics", the (2) reaction takes
a fast neutron to initiate and produces two slow neutrons. The (1)
reaction produces a short lived isotope (Li8) which decays by the emission
of a 12.5 MeV alpha and 3.5 MeV recoil. The slow neutrons from the (2)
reaction may cause more of the (1) reaction to happen although (2) will
use up some of the original energy from the fusion neutron.

To summarize, it should be possible to produce more efficient (in terms of
heat output) reactors by using an existing fusion reactor design that
produces fast neutrons and surrounding it with a properly designed Li
(natural, non enriched) blanket and the necessary heat exchangers. This
would be a hybrid fusion-fission reactor but it would be totally safe in
terms of a runaway reaction because the whole fission reaction chain is
shut down if the fusion core is not active. Who cares if the fusion core
is not efficient, all the losses are converted to heat anyway and they can
be picked up by the cold water flowing into the system. We could build a
fusion plant tomorrow, that is :

IF WE WANTED TO

DO WE WANT TO?

Zoltan Szakaly
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.22 /  ZoltanCCC /  Re: ? Singularity Technology ?
     
Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ? Singularity Technology ?
Date: 22 Sep 1995 12:22:42 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Just one last thought on this Li idea.

It would be difficult to incorporate the Li7 into the hot fusion reaction
chamber because it may have an adverse effect on the fusion reaction
itself.

On the other hand if we use Li7 as a blanket or jacket around the outside
of the hot fusion equipment as I proposed it here in my earlier post,
there will be two reactions:

n  +  Li7  -->  Li8                              (1)

or

n  +  Li7  --> Li6  +  n  +  n               (2)


As discussed here in the thread "farce of physics", the (2) reaction takes
a fast neutron to initiate and produces two slow neutrons. The (1)
reaction produces a short lived isotope (Li8) which decays by the emission
of a 12.5 MeV alpha and 3.5 MeV recoil. The slow neutrons from the (2)
reaction may cause more of the (1) reaction to happen although (2) will
use up some of the original energy from the fusion neutron.

To summarize, it should be possible to produce more efficient (in terms of
heat output) reactors by using an existing fusion reactor design that
produces fast neutrons and surrounding it with a properly designed Li
(natural, non enriched) blanket and the necessary heat exchangers. This
would be a hybrid fusion-fission reactor but it would be totally safe in
terms of a runaway reaction because the whole fission reaction chain is
shut down if the fusion core is not active. Who cares if the fusion core
is not efficient, all the losses are converted to heat anyway and they can
be picked up by the cold water flowing into the system. We could build a
fusion plant tomorrow, that is :

IF WE WANTED TO

DO WE WANT TO?

Zoltan Szakaly
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.21 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Multineutron systems
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Multineutron systems
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 00:39:59 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <43dpsd$uo@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, mrichar353@aol.com
(MRichar353) wrote:

> zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC) wrote:
> 
> >I suspect that the dineutron system does not hold together or more
> >precisely it holds together but it is susceptible to beta decay. I think
> >it might hold together long enough to collide with another d as opposed
> to
> >another dineutron system. 
> 
> The lack of a bound state for the dineutron system has nothing to do with
> the weak force (beta decay), it is entirely a strong interaction issue.
> 
> >The big question is where the energy comes from that makes electron
> >capture possible. I think the fast electrons emitted by the beta decay
> may
> >be captured by other deuterons. The initial reactions may be initiated by
> >cosmic rays, that would explain why the cells turn on at random.
> 
> You would need around an MeV to turn the proton into a neutron, then about
> another 2 MeV to overcome the binding energy of the deuteron. The cross
> section for a 3 MeV electron to be captured by the proton in the deuteron
> is a weak interaction process and is unbelievably small. Electron capture
> only happens when the electron hangs around a *long* time, as in an atom,
> which the highly relativistic 3 MeV electron will not do.
> 
> Mark Richardson

Absolutely correct, Mark. That's why the protoneutron state is needed.

--Mitchell Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.21 /   /  Re: All atoms are Hydrogen Atom Systems -> Superposition Principle
     
Originally-From: mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: All atoms are Hydrogen Atom Systems -> Superposition Principle
Date: 21 Sep 1995 23:53:52 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Archie wrote:

>The Superposition Principle of QM, is merely an equivalent statement
>to the fact that all matter is the linear equations sums of Hydrogen
>Atom Systems.

God how idiotic!

Superposition has absolutely nothing to do with building up a
multi-particle system from individual particles. It is the principle that
a linear combination of two wave functions is another wave function. These
two (or more) wave functions represent *alternatives*; they cannot both be
true at the same time (at least when a measurement occurs).

Then again, considering the source, what should I expect?

I *must* get a newsreader with a killfile capability!

Mark Richardson
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmrichar353 cudln cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.22 / A Plutonium /  Re: All atoms are Hydrogen Atom Systems -> Superposition 
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: All atoms are Hydrogen Atom Systems -> Superposition 
Date: 22 Sep 1995 03:13:02 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <43p9t2$9ja@news.utdallas.edu>
iblum@utdallas.edu (Ira K Blum) writes:

> In article <43nnoo$elv@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Archimedes.Plutonium@da
tmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> |>  All atoms are hydrogen atom systems (hasys). By system I mean it is a
> |> hydrogen atom + extra energy. When the extra energy term is 0, then it
> |> is just a ordinary hydrogen atom. A neutron is a hydrogen atom with
> |> extra energy.
> |> 
> 
> Nope.  A neutron has less energy than that of a proton + electron.  (You 
> can look it up)
> 
> 
> |>   The reason neutrons act as glue for the protons is because the
> |> neutron shares that electron inside it with neighboring protons. The
> |> nucleus is sort of like a "metallic bond".
> |> 
> 
> Nope, its been observed that instead of exchanging electrons (which makes 
> little to no sense as lots of neutrinos would be produced), they exchange 
> either pions or way off-shell W particles
> 
> |>   The Superposition Principle == Hydrogen Atom Systems.
> |> 
> |>   Now, the bleeding gutter snipes of physics will be quick to spew
> |> "well what about quarks?"  And I tell you what is about quarks. Quarks
> |> are merely the fact that in math, there exists 3 and only 3
> |> geometries-- Riem, Eucl, and Loba and when you have an entity that is
> |> not ever reducible down further, or incapable of being further cut,
> |> like a proton, then it reveals all 3 possible geometries
> |> simultaneously. Quarks are not physics reality. Quark are merely the
> |> statement that a particle like a proton is bundled up into the 3 and
> |> only 3 existing geometries simultaneously.  So do not bother about the
> |> mindrot of quarks when talking about the real physics, that of Hydrogen
> |> Atom Systems.
> 
> Well, what about pions?  what about Kaons?  what about Muons?  these are 
> all particles which are smaller than protons.  Are they fundamental?  
> Why?  What about rho's and phi's and omegas and etas and all of the other 
> particles which cannot possibly be made of protons because they are 
> smaller than protons?  Hydrogen atom systems tells absolutly nothing 
> about the science of high energy physics.  Trying to explain the 
> existence of a J/Psi resonance in terms of HAS would be ludicrous.
> 
> |> 
> |>   And don't drivel about a electron beam or proton beam being protons
> |> and electrons in "isolation". That is circus clown physics. The Bell
> |> Inequality evinces that proton and electron are always tied or
> |> correlated.
> 
> How so?  What about electron positron pairs?  No protons there....
> 
> |> 
> |>   If Hydrogen Atom Systems is not true, then the Superposition
> |> Principle of QM plus the Conservation of Charge plus the Bell
> |> Inequality are not true.
> 
> You are severly reaching AP.
> 
> -- 
> Ira
> iblum@utdallas.edu
> Go Rangers and Phillies (and Cowboys and Mavericks and Speed Racer Go!)
> Benji Gil for AL Rookie of the Year!!!
> "You might be a Redneck if"
> - Jeff Foxworth
> Please direct all flames to /dev/null

  In this one post above, Ira, you may have ended your physics career.
This is the trouble you get into when you post out of hatred. And I
have tried warning so many posters of hatred, spite that it will catch
up with them. Hatred blinds you from thinking straight and thinking
clearly. By this sentence below, you are not fit for much in the way of
physics.
 
Ira Blum> Nope.  A neutron has less energy than that of a proton +
electron.  Ira Blum> (You  can look it up)
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.22 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Why no CF maybes?
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why no CF maybes?
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 95 00:19:32 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Robert I. Eachus <eachus@spectre.mitre.org> writes:
 
>   If this is the case then a flaw anywhere makes the electrode
>useless--and there is evidence of this sort of behavior related to
>high deuterium loading.
>
>   What I was also saying was that, if your observation is correct,
>then a better way to run CNF experiments would be to have many small
>electrodes in the calorimeter, with only a small surface exposed, and
>to control the power so that all electrodes are driven with the same
>current.  (Since higher loaded electrodes will require higher
>overpotentials.)
 
This message is generally correct. It is true that a significant flaw anywhere
can wreck a cathode. For this reason, careful examination and pretesting
is essential. Storms and Cravens offer excellent advice about this. With
practice, you can learn to identify flawed cathodes. In some cases you can
even repair them, or simply cut away the weak sections. Manufacturing and/or
identifying good cathode material is the key to CF. It is the hardest and
most important job.
 
It is also true that an experiment with many small cathodes can help fix
this problem. I think that is a good approach. Arata and others have use
very, *very* small cathodes: palladium black particles. (Pd black is like
soot). Patterson has patented cathodes made from 1 mm plastic beads covered
with thin film. A small Patterson CF devices has a thousand or more beads
in it. Even if some bead crack or become covered with contamination, others
continue to work.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.21 / Alan M /  Re: Pathological Skepticism!
     
Originally-From: "Alan M. Dunsmuir" <Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pathological Skepticism!
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 18:28:29 +0100
Organization: Home

In article: <43rvqs$5ee@cnn.Princeton.EDU>  Robert F. Heeter 
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
> Not only that, but he professes to believe that "hydrogen" 
> represents a possible alternative energy source, better than 
> fusion or renewables!  (No, he *doesn't* seem to think that 
> you need other energy sources to make the hydrogen!!!)
>
Hydrogen - created by the solar-powered hydrolysis of sea water - will 
be the 'next wave' transportation fuel, and will be the preferred method 
for transporting energy where power grid-lines are infeasible or 
uneconomic.

Representative Walker can see much further than you give him credit for. 
-- 
Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.22 /  ZoltanCCC /  Re: ? Singularity Technology ?
     
Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ? Singularity Technology ?
Date: 22 Sep 1995 00:49:47 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Once I get going I can't stop. I wonder what would happen if we
incorporated the Li7 into the hot fusion fuel. The reaction:

p + Li7  --> He4 + He4 + energy

is very attractive because the He4 is double magic and so it is very
stable. Only heat would come out, no nasty radioactive byproducts and the
fission reaction would contribute to the total energy output of the
system.


Zoltan Szakaly 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.18 / Dave Oldridge /  Re: ? Singularity Technology ?
     
Originally-From: doldridg@fox.nstn.ns.ca (Dave Oldridge)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ? Singularity Technology ?
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 13:20:48 -0300
Organization: Nova Scotia Technology Network

In article <43erug$4qr@cnn.Princeton.EDU>,
Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:

> disinformation.  The idea that fusion occurs as a result of energetic
> collisions has done perfectly well in explaining controlled fusion
> results, stars and stellar evolution, and every major experiment which
> has been done to test the theory.  Come back with something that 

Actually, it has not, at least in the case of stars and stellar
evolution.  What we've ended up with is stars that, according to our
models appear to be much older than the universe.  The models do explain
the range of stars, but there is something wrong with the time frames
they produce.  Either that or general relativity is quite wrong.

Maybe we really DON'T know all the answers about how fusion takes place.

 --
 Dave Oldridge
 doldridg@fox.nstn.ns.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudendoldridg cudfnDave cudlnOldridge cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.20 / Joshua Levy /  Jed's definition of CF (at last!)
     
Originally-From: Joshua Levy <joshua@intrinsa.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Jed's definition of CF (at last!)
Date: 20 Sep 1995 22:56:34 GMT
Organization: Intrinsa Corporation

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
>As for the my complicated functional definition of CF, I generally agree with
>Ed Storms on issues like that. In a nutshell, CF produces heat beyond
>chemistry, tritium in some cases, low level neutrons, and helium in all cases
>I believe. There is some evidence that it can transmute much heavier elements.

By this definition, the Griggs device (and the similar Russian device) is not 
CF (no helium).  Actually, P&F are not CF either, since they did not produce
helium either. 

What exeriments (besides Ed Storms) fit your definition of CF?

Joshua Levy   <joshua@intrinsa.com>            Testing some new news software.

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjoshua cudfnJoshua cudlnLevy cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.22 / Dieter Britz /  Re: How To Spend the $700
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How To Spend the $700
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 09:02:19 +0200
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

Once again: the disposal of the $700 was voted on by those who contributed
money. We cannot simply overturn the decision made as a result of that vote.
This was: Give it to Scott Little. I get the feeling that maybe he refuses
to accept the money. OK: second on the list of suggestions was that Tom
Droege should give it to the charity of his choice. This is flexible enough
for him to give it to anyone HE (and he alone) decides. So decide, Tom, and
send it off.

-- Dieter Britz  alias  britz@kemi.aau.dk

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.22 / Richard Schultz /  Re: A simple speculation
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A simple speculation
Date: 22 Sep 1995 08:17:28 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <43r21f$d70$1@mhafm.production.compuserve.com>,
Ramon Prasad  <100437.530@CompuServe.COM> wrote:

>Suppose that a "naked deuteron" is under great pressure from
>many of its colleagues (because of loading above the 1:1 ratio)
>is pressurized into the domain of the outer electron orbits
>of a palladium atom. Suppose it is rained with "blows" by the

What is the mean D-D disatnce in deuterided Pd?  What is the mean D-D
distance in D2O?

--
					Richard Schultz

"Most heat generating cells do not produce measurable amounts of tritium."
                   --Jed Rothwell, sci.physics.fusion, 16 September 1995 
"Don't throw away the data. There is no point to pretending CF does not 
produce tritium."  --Jed Rothwell, sci.physics.fusion, 17 September 1995
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.22 /  Johmann /  A review of Infinite Energy, No. 3
     
Originally-From: johmann@aol.com (Johmann)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A review of Infinite Energy, No. 3
Date: 22 Sep 1995 04:20:13 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

The third issue of Infinite Energy, edited by Eugene Mallove, is out,
and this is my brief review of it.

Physical qualities: 8" x 11", 60 pages, color cover and b&w interior.

The cover has an interesting photo of an air-burst nuclear explosion.
The tie-in with cold fusion is made by the cover text, which says, in
effect, that cold fusion is the next big step in nuclear energy: "It
will end the world we know ... this time, for the better."

There is quite a mix of articles: "A Report on the Low-Energy
Transmutation Conference held at Texas A&M" by Hal Fox (to me, this
was the most interesting article -- Marshall Dudley, in his review
elsewhere, has already described this article in detail); a few theory
papers which I didn't look at; an "Experimenter's Corner" which in
this issue features a research report written by a high-school kid,
Michael Belcher (it's better written and reasoned than I would have
expected, considering the alleged source); a lengthy book review by
Jed, which was too much about too little, IMO (I only read a few
paragraphs); and, covering 16 pages, "Excess Heat in Cavitation
Devices: World-Wide Testing and Reports," which has two separate
reports (one by Scott Little and associates, the other by Eugene
Mallove and associates) on the apparently bogus Yusmar device (I'll
give my opinion on this Moldovan Miracle in a moment) -- there is also
a rather interesting article by Michael Huffman which gives the
history of the Schaefer device which Huffman had mentioned in his
earlier article (see volume one, Infinite Energy).

Now, for what it is worth, here is my analysis of the Potapov device
(the Moldovan Miracle). First, the facts:

1) the device is alleged by it's vendor (a company in Moldavia; the
alleged inventor is an alleged scientist named Potapov), to heat water
at an efficiency several times over unity.

2) both Scott Little's group, and Eugene Mallove's group, have only
found under-unity performance for the device.

Additional facts that can help explain the situation:

3) Moldovia is a fractured part of the former Soviet empire, and, like
the rest of the ex-Soviet Union, its people have undergone further
impoverishment (they were already relatively poor to begin with).

4) the collapse of the old government leaves a vacuum in its wake:
with the loss of government protection against fraudulent advertising
claims, snake-oil salesmen can have a field day.

Now, let's put two and two together and craft a possible scenario:

Potapov and his associates deliberately craft a marketing strategy
based on false claims of over-unit performance, and, in a desperate
economy, they either buy or find willing dupes, like the priest
mentioned in Chris Tinsley's article (see volume two, Infinite
Energy), to support the bogus claims.

To some extent, the very reality of cold fusion, as something new and
novel -- just like the reality of electricity in the previous century
-- will call forth an assortment of snake-oil salesmen who will try to
steal some of that reality and shake-and-bake-it into something the
gullible will buy.

That concludes my review.

For those who want a subscription (recommended for those who want to
keep up with the CF field) here is the relevant info:


      Infinite Energy is published six times a year
      a 1-yr subscription: $29.95 US and Canada, $49.95 foreign

      Phone: 603-228-4516 (Visa or Mastercard accepted)

      Address: Infinite Energy Magazine
               P.O. Box 2816
               Concord, NH   03302


Kurt Johmann
--
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjohmann cudlnJohmann cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.21 / James Panetta /  Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis
     
Originally-From: panetta@topaz.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (James H. Panetta)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 01:21:44 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In article <21cenlogic-1809950953540001@austin-1-3.i-link.net>,
Mitchell Jones <21cenlogic@i-link.net> wrote:
>(1) It may be that protoneutrons soak up gamma energy before the photons
>reach the speed of light.

I have some questions on this statement:

1) What exactly is a protoneutron?
2) What are the properties (mass, spin, magnetic moment, lifetime, etc.)
   of the protoneutron?  (Theoretical results are OK.)
3) If a protoneutron is not stable, what does it decay to?
4) What are production mechanisms for a protoneutron?
5) How do you have a photon which is not going at c?

I do not have access to your original post.  It has probably expired at
this site.  Thank you in advance for this information.

  --Jim Panetta, Caltech

-- 
--
My opinions are mine...not SLAC's...not Caltech's...not DOE's...mine.
(except by random, unforseeable coincidences)
panetta@cithex.caltech.edu   panetta@slacvm.slac.stanford.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenpanetta cudfnJames cudlnPanetta cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.22 / Dieter Britz /  Biblio update; we hit the 1000 mark
     
Originally-From: britz@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Biblio update; we hit the 1000 mark
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 12:05:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Journal Papers: Current count = 1000
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
#
Arata MJA, Zhang Y-C;  Proc. Japan Acad. 71 B (1995) 98.
"Cold fusion reactions driven by 'Latticequake'".
** Theory, res+
The authors begin by pointing out that powdered metal presents a large surface
and will be a key factor in future developments of cold fusion. They then
state that one of the authors (they do not say which) thought of solid state
fusion 40 years ago, and that Fleischmann et al later rediscovered this, by
using electrolysis. The paper then goes on to describe the latticequake model.
Energetic helium nuclei (at MeV energies) can by crashing into the Pd and d
nuclei in the crystal create hollow spaces, which then quickly collapse and
lead to high implosion pressures, yielding densities up to 10 times that of
solid deuterium as well as temperatures of several times 10^8 C, thus
favouring fusion. This process might be autocatalytic if more energetic helium
nuclei are produced; they do not explain how the process starts. Mar-95/?
#...................................................................... Sep-95
Fateev EG;  Tech. Phys. Lett. 21(5) (1995) 373.
Originally in Pis'ma Zh. Tekh. Fiz. 21(5) (1995) 48, in Russian.
"Possibilities for establishing the mechanism of neutron generation in
deuterated materials under mechanical loading".
** Theory, fractofusion, res+
Since 1986, when Kluev et al discovered fractofusion, the mechanism has not
been explained satisfactorily. Fateev offers his "rheological explosion" model,
resulting from shock waves in a crystal that has been mechanically stressed.
Some mathematics is presented, developing the Gamow formula and using estimated
pressures, and the author concludes that this could accelerate deuterons
sufficiently to explain the neutrons detected experimentally. He proposes an
experiment, using electrical low-voltage pulses as well as mechanical stress,
to test the model.  Feb-95/May-95
#...................................................................... Sep-95
Takahashi A, Iida T, Miyamaru H, Fukuhara M; Fusion Technol. 27 (1995) 71.
"Multibody fusion model to explain experimental results".
** Theory, multibody, res+
The authors address the main problems posed by experimental evidence of CNF:
weak neutron emission; some proton emission; some tritium but not sufficient
to match excess heat; high levels of 4He, in line with excess heat; high
levels of excess heat. These are linked, and may be explained by clusters of
2, 3 or 4 deuterons, fusing as such and leading to excited 4He, 5Li, 6Li, 7Be,
etc.  Such clusters would have enhanced fusion cross sections. The paper then
discusses expected decay channels at length. Finally, some experimental
support is mentioned. The clusters are thought to form by transients acting on
deuterons getting close to each other at tetra- and octahedral sites in highly
loaded PdDx.  Sep-93/Jan-95
#...................................................................... Sep-95 

These papers are now archived in the cnf-pap* files.

How to retrieve the archived biblio files:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
1. By ftp from vm1.nodak.edu; log in as anonymous, giving your email
   address as password. Then cd to fusion. There are many files here, so
   do not use dir; if you are after the biblio files only, try
   dir fusion.cnf-*
   and then get or mget what you want.
2. Send an email to listserv@vm1.nodak.edu, blank subject and the message
   get fusion.<whatever you want>. To find out what there is, send
   index fusion
   This gets you an email with the directory of all files there, with which
   you can also match Fusion Digest numbers with file names, before getting
   those files. The index, or files you ask for, will be emailed to you.

---  Dieter Britz   alias britz@kemi.aau.dk

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.22 / Hauke Reddmann /  Re: First experimental predictions of Hydrogen Atom Systems
     
Originally-From: fc3a501@rzaix06.uni-hamburg.de (Hauke Reddmann)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: First experimental predictions of Hydrogen Atom Systems
Date: 22 Sep 1995 12:39:57 GMT
Organization: University of Hamburg -- Germany

Well, Mr.Plutonium, you say that your newest theory can predict
the range of stability of isotopes. Are you already so far that
you could give us some actual values? You may have not crossed
all the t's, but surely much of the sci.physics readers (cheap
joke, I know, but I've been on alt.humor.puns too long again)

--
Hauke Reddmann   fc3a501@math.uni-hamburg.de
<:-EX8
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenfc3a501 cudfnHauke cudlnReddmann cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.21 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Bashing QM
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bashing QM
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 00:31:32 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <199509171500.LAA81703@pilot05.cl.msu.edu>, blue@pilot.msu.edu
(Richard A Blue) wrote:

> So Mitchell Jones joins the long line of people with serious
> hangups about quantum mechanics.  For them all goodness, truth, and
> beauty reside with good old classical mechanics while that new
> fangled quantum mechanics is just "mumbo-jumbo."
> 
> I suspect, however, that Mitchell does no better than others like him
> in demostrating that he can even put forward an argument the is
> logically correct with respect to the classical physics to which he
> claims allegiance.
> 
> Whenever you start talking about "squeezing", hindered motion, and
> special positioning on the atomic atomic scale, the classical approach
> does require that you show numerical details as to where the various
> parties to an interaction are at any given stage in the process.  If
> you are depending on random occurances we still need estimates for
> various probablities.  We need average lifetimes, average velocities,
> density distributions, etc.  Using classical mechanics does not make
> it any easier to fit all the various pieces of the puzzle together.
> I suspect it may even make it much more difficult to construct a theory.

***{Good theories start out with a grasp of the basic causation underlying
a phenomenon. From that, predictions are generated, and experiments are
devised to test those predictions. If the theory is confirmed, then
various refinements of the theory are introduced. From such variants of
the theory, predictions are made, and experiments are devised to test
them. If one of the refinements holds up, further refinements are applied
to it. From them, further predictions are made, and further experiments
are devised to test them. And on and on the process goes, until a point is
reached where the acquired data base is sufficiently detailed so that it
becomes feasible to express it in the form of curve fitted mathematical
constructs. From that point on, the mathematical physicists join in the
process, by applying various transformations to the original mathematical
expressions, thereby adjusting them to the new data as it comes in. Most
of ongoing science, at any given moment, is in the latter stages of this
process, and it is thus easy to forget where the process begins: with a
breakthrough comprehension of the underlying causation, stated in general,
logical terms. Bottom line: you get the cart before the horse if you
expect, or demand, precise numerical computations from those who attempt
to explain a phenomenon such as "cold fusion," where the basic causation
remains at issue. To make such demands is to reveal a misunderstanding of
what science is and where it begins. --Mitchell Jones}***      
> 
> Generally those who resort to classical mechanics in order to avoid
> the "mumbo-jumbo" of quantum mechanics have to resort to mumbo-jumbo
> of a different kind.  They can never move their thinking beyond mere
> handwaving.  It becomes what I consider a form of "let's pretend."
> That involves such notions as, "Let's pretend this deuteron sits
> here perfectly still while I mash another deuteron onto it with this
> big masher."  Of course it is all to be done in accord with the laws of
> classical physics, it it not?

***{This paragraph describes a fantasy that exists in your mind, and has
nothing to do with any position that I have actually taken. When you
decide you want to talk about something I have said, I will be happy to
respond. Until then, I have better things to do with my time.  --Mitchell
Jones}***
> 
> Of course classical physics does involve strict conservation of energy
> and of momentum.  If your picture of an atom involves little tiny electrons
> orbiting a nucleus it still must be true that the repositioning of some of
> the charged particles requires that they all change position, right?
> Things should be positioned at some sort of energy minimum.  Now if you
> recall that tunnelling is not allowed in classical physics you have
> put a serious damper on the very reaction processes you seek to invoke.
> We need that QM mumbo-jumbo to keep the wheels of industry turning.

***{See previous comment. I suggest that you actually study my various
posts on the protoneutron theory, if you want to comment intelligently
about them. --MJ}***
> 
> Dick Blue

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.22 / Frederick A /  Re: Test
     
Originally-From: "Frederick A. Kelly" <kelly@plasma.me.gatech.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Test
Date: 22 Sep 1995 19:31:28 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

Do not be alarmed. This is just a test

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenkelly cudfnFrederick cudlnA cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.22 / Frederick A /  DEGAS
     
Originally-From: "Frederick A. Kelly" <kelly@plasma.me.gatech.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: DEGAS
Date: 22 Sep 1995 19:34:29 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

Is anyone out there using DEGAS?
Please respond to rubilar@plasma.me.gatech.edu

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenkelly cudfnFrederick cudlnA cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.22 / Richard Blue /  Re: Why no CF maybes?
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why no CF maybes?
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 21:10:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

My apologies to Robert Eachus.  I had it backwards.  What he had suggested
was not that the hydrogen loading was determined by the presence of one good
spot but instead that there must be no bad spots.

I still think the maintenance of surface perfection throughout the course
of a long CF run must be a very chancey thing.  That is to say starting with
a good surface may not guarantee that the requirements, what ever they are,
continue to be met.

Now our authority on the CF literature, Jed Rothwell, can never pass up an
opportunity to tell me I am all wet.  He assures us that my basic premise
was wrong.  There have been plenty of marginal CF results.  He goes own to
explain that experts such as Ed Storms know very well how to pick cathodes
that will do better.  However, Jed says even more, and that may begin to
get him in trouble once again.

Jed informs us that the Patterson cell is based on the use of many tiny
beads for the cathode such that imperfections on one bead do not effect
the process for the entire cathode surface.  However, I would note that
this becomes the ideal system for the study of the statistics of CF
cathode operation.  It should be possible to observe in the course of
a single run the effects of a gradually decreasing CF efficiency.  It
will be interesting to see such data should it ever be published.

As for the missing MAYBEs in the CF literature, I take note of a few
examples where I believe that insufficient attention has been given
to these data.  As I recall Miles has claimed a coorelation between runs
that produce excess heat with those runs that produce helium, but the
data set involved only YES's and NO's with respect to each variable.
Would it not be nice to see data over the entire range of excess heat?

Pons and Fleischmann are known to have operated a bank of 64 cells.  Did they
ever report results from all 64 of those cells?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.22 / Horace Heffner /  Re: ? Singularity Technology ?
     
Originally-From: hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ? Singularity Technology ?
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 12:43:05 -0900
Organization: none

In article <435jod$4qp@cnn.Princeton.EDU>, Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:
[snip]
> If you've got a better idea for how to reach fusion, let's hear
> about it.  This very week there's a meeting going on in Monterey
> where the physicists are looking at ways to design more 
> economical fusion reactors.  These people are receptive to ideas 
> that work, but not half-baked nonsense wrapped up in hostile 
> rhetoric.  (I'm not pointing any fingers, but I'll tell you that anything
> wrapped up in hostile rhetoric is a lot more likely to be considered
> half-baked nonsense.).  I'm perfectly willing to take you seriously 
> provided you drop this blanket condemnation about welfare
> queens.  The research done by these "welfare queens" is what drives
> innovation and economic growth these days - notice that despite
> a three-year recession the Japanese government is actually
> *increasing* its support for science research!

Here is an idea that is not new, but might be worthy of a brief project to
reexamine it in light of today's superconductor and permanent magnet
developments.

A pre-stellerator idea was to use magnetic bottles, to inject an ion beam
into the bottle so it would bounce back and forth between the magnetic
mirrors at the ends. This could not work because particles collide (the
main objective) and some change their angle of approach to the ends of the
bottle and escape out the ends. Also, successive collisions and drift
eventually permit particles to escape the walls of the bottle.

One strategy to improve the situation is to put a succession of bottles
end to end, with a slight angle to each mirror so that a circle is formed.
Unfortunately, the greater the angle, the greater the drift created at the
"elbows". So the larger the machine and the more bottles the greater the
confinement time for individual particles.

A potential strategy to compensate for drift is to generate a current
through the central axis of the bottles. The direction of the current
would be unimportant, so an alternating current is fine. The idea would be
to maintain sufficient current that compression to offset drift occurs. 
To do this air core RF coils could be used. A sawtooth wave form would be
used to minimize the secondary current transition time, i.e. to come as
close as possible to generating a square wave current in the center of the
bottles.  This RF current would also assist neutral beam injection and
heating.

I would think such an evaluation would involve writing a brief computer
program to explore effectiveness at a wide range of scales.

Regards,                          <hheffner@matsu.ak.net>
                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.22 /  ZoltanCCC /  Re: The electron capture theory of cold fusion
     
Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The electron capture theory of cold fusion
Date: 22 Sep 1995 16:39:09 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

I have found further information to support the reaction:

d  +  d  +  e  -->  He4*  +  e  +  nu  +  nu

In this reaction I propose that the electron mediates close approach of
the deuterons and subsequently gets caught up in the reaction, i.e. one of
the deuterons undergoes electron capture absorbing the electron and
emitting a neutrino. The resulting system immediatly undergoes beta
emission due to the excess neutrons present and the unusual stability
(high binding energy) of the alpha. This process explains why the alpha
does not de-excite by neutron or proton emission. The reason is that the
initial electron capture absorbed 0.782 MeV energy, most of which was
carried away by the first neutrino, later when the beta emission occurs
the electron and the second neutrino again carries away a significant
amount of energy so the likelyhood is high that the alpha has already lost
four MeV after which it can no longer emit a proton or neutron. All
subsequent deexcitation occurs by gamma emission. 

The supporting info I found is a similar reaction, the decay of Li8. From
the CRC handbook of chemistry page B-109 I gather that the ground state of
Li8 decays with simultaneous alpha fission and electron emission with a
time constant of 0.844 second. This shows that a leftover nuclear system
consisting of one proton and three neutrons will not just fall apart and
the extra neutron will not just float away but instead the system
immediatly emits an electron to become He4. This is exactly the same
system that we have after the electron capture. 

The supporting info found by Robin has still not been refuted. The
electron simply acquires the energy needed for the electron capture by
falling into the deuteron. Under more normal circumstances this does not
happen because the electron has orbital angular momentum and if it is
decelerated in order for it to fall into the nucleus it would have to
receive additional energy. In this classical picture it is like an
orbiting spacecraft. If we allow it to fall vertically to the ground it
makes a nice crater,but once it is in orbit, it is not going to fall
unless we decelerate it first. When an electron meets a nucleus it will
fall into an orbit allowed by quantum mechanics emitting a photon. This
allows conservation of the angular momentum since the orbit has some
angular momentum and the photon is emitted off center relative to the
nucleus-electron system. In electron capture the neutrino cannot be
emitted off center so there is no way for the electron to lose its angular
momentum. On the other hand if we have a mechanism which aligns the
electron's trajectory with the nucleus, this will make sure that there is
no angular momentum to get rid of and it will also increase the reaction
cross section.

Zoltan Szakaly 

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.22 / Robert Eachus /  Re: ? Singularity Technology ?
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ? Singularity Technology ?
Date: 22 Sep 1995 23:25:56 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <43t2hl$lqg@newsbf02.news.aol.com> zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC) writes:

  > It appears that I made a stupid mistake in my post about half an hour ago.
  > You would need a proton to collide with Li7 to make Be8 which would fall
  > apart to produce two alphas. Unfortunately protons will not leave the hot
  > fusion reaction chamber due to their charge, so we need to use Be7 as a
  > jacket. Unfortunately Be7 does not occur in nature so it must be terribly
  > expensive. (Its half life is 53 days)

    No, you were right the first time.  n + Li7 --> Be8 + e + nu works
just fine.  However most "first wall" breeders are expected to use:

    n + Be9 --> 2n + 2 He4
    -- which only works with high energy neutrons
    n + Li6 --> H3 + He4
    -- to produce tritium to be recycled

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.22 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 19:52:38 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <DFADHC.947@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU>,
panetta@finch.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (James H. Panetta) wrote:

> Hi All,
> 
> Mitchell sent me a copy of the original protoneutron post.  I replied
> to him via email, and he has encouraged me to post it to sci.physics.fusion.
> 
> /**************start included message*********************/
> 
> Hi Mitchell,
> > You mentioned that you had not seen the original post. It follows. It
> > should answer most of the questions in your recent post. The one about
> > photons below lightspeed is addressed in a reply to Bill Rowe, already
> > posted. If you have further questions, feel free to ask.
> 
> Thanks for the prompt reply.  I have a few comments on some of your
> physics.
> 
> > ***{To repeat: I do not see a need for an alternative model. A voltage
> > gradient is all that is required to attract an H+ ion into the unit cells
> > of the cathode. It doesn't have to be "forced" in: the openings in the
> > triangular faces of the unit cells are large enough for it to move in
> > *very* easily--as easily as a fly into an amphitheater, in fact. Remember:
> > an H+ is simply a proton--i.e., the nucleus of a hydrogen atom. The
> > standard formula, curve-fitted to the experimental data, for computing the
> > radius of a nucleus is simply r = (1.37E-13)A^(1/3), where r is the radius
> > in cm and A is the mass number. For H+ the mass number (number of protons
> > plus number of neutrons) is 1, so r = 1.37E-13 cm = .0000137
Angstroms.  Once
> > inside the cathode, such an H+ ion will drift toward the electron source
> > until it acquires an orbital electron. At that point, it will become an
> > electrically neutral H atom, with an effective radius as per the innermost
> > Bohr orbit (.53 Angstroms or slightly larger). This means, roughly
speaking, that
> > its radius will increase by four orders of magnitude when it captures an
> > electron, and it will become trapped in the unit cell which it is
> > occupying at that time. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> You really can't use the proton radius to determine the size of a
> H+ ion, you should determine the radius at which the coulomb force
> is powerful enough to remove an electron from a neighboring atom.

***{The implication of your suggestion seems to be that H+ ions cannot
exist either in the electrolyte or in the palladium electrode, because
each will tear an electron away from the outer shell of the first atom it
approaches, thereby becoming a neutral hydrogen atom. In fact, that is not
what happens. The reason is that the other atoms also have a grip on those
electrons, and in the ensuing tugs of war, they have the advantage. I
could tell you why that is the case, but it would require a lengthy
digression. Suffice it to say that it is a fact: ions exist. Since your
suggestion implies that they do not, it must be wrong. --Mitchell
Jones}*** 

> This distance is probably not less than half of the Bohr radius.
> 
> > ***{At this point, I would like to toss out what I call the protoneutron
> > theory of "cold fusion." If this theory is correct, then "cold fusion"
> > ain't fusion!
> >
> > Note that the drift of the H+ ions into the cathode does not require a
> > free path through unoccupied unit cells. In an occupied unit cell, the
> > occupant is a neutral H atom. Thus there is no voltage gradient barring an
> > H+ ion from drifting into an occupied unit cell, and there is no voltage
> > gradient preventing an outward drifting electron from passing into an
> > occupied unit cell, either. This means it is purely a matter of
> > statistical probability, regarding the question of whether a drifting H+
> > meets an electron in an occupied unit cell. If it does, it will attempt to
> > "pop" into a neutral hydrogen atom. Unfortunately, because the unit cell
> > is already occupied, when the second H atom attempts to form it will not
> > have sufficient room for its electron at even its innermost Bohr orbit.
> > Result: the electron will spiral down toward the nucleus, where it will
> > linger at grazing altitude in a particle form which we may term a
> > *protoneutron.*
> 
> First problem, electrons do not *spiral* in to the nucleus.

***{Here, you are merely quoting standard "quantum mechanical" dogma. In
case you haven't read my comments on this subject in other posts, let me
state for the record that I bear an active contempt for "quantum
mechanics." In my view, the "preferred" orbits--i.e., the Bohr-Sommerfeld
orbits--are not the only orbits. The classical, transitional orbits also
exist, and are sometimes occupied. I view them as wildly unstable, and
normally occupied only so fleetingly that, with present instruments, such
occupancy cannot be detected. However, under exceptional circumstances
such as the ones we are discussing, where insufficient space is available
for the Bohr-Sommerfeld orbits, and insufficient energy is available for
the nucleus (the proton) to absorb the electron, I believe that the
electron is essentially forced into the classical orbits. Result: it
spirals down to what I call "grazing altitude" above the nucleus,
radiating away its excess energy as it goes, and forms a protoneutron. 

As a matter of curiosity, what do you think happens to an electron under
these circumstances? Remember: it lacks the energy needed to escape from
the grip of the proton; it lacks the space needed to utilize the
Bohr-Sommerfeld orbits; and it lacks the energy needed to merge with the
proton and form a neutron. So what does it do? --Mitchell Jones}*** 

> >                 Why doesn't it become an actual neutron? The answer: in
> > the reaction p + e --> n, the mass of the proton is 1.67239E-24 grams
> > while that of the electron is .00091E-24 grams.
> 
> Second problem, p+e-->n violates lepton number conservation.  Where's
> the neutrino?

***{I have noted in other posts that I consider it a waste of time to
mention the neutrino. It has nothing to do with the points presently at
issue. --Mitchell Jones}*** 

> Third problem, electron capture is known to proceed via W exchange.
> This process is well known, and calculable.  The theory fits the known
> data.  What prediction would your protoneutron theory give for
> sodium-22 EC?  Iron-55?

***{You misunderstand. I am not proposing a mathematical procedure for
calculating anything about electron captures. I am putting forward the
hypothesis that when a hydrogen ion acquires an electron under certain
very specific conditions (i.e., where insufficient space is available to
form a Bohr-Sommerfeld orbit, and insufficient energy is available to
permit neutron formation) a wildly unstable type of particle which I call
a protoneutron can come into existence and accumulate. It is my conjecture
that such particles have extraordinarily large gamma absorption cross
sections, and that their existence can be used to explain the "cold
fusion" results. If you suspect that there is more to my position than
meets the eye, you are correct: I do, in fact, have very specific reasons
for expecting this particle to have the properties that I attribute to it.
However, no purpose would be served by getting into those reasons here.
The hypothesis is both clear and testable, and that is all that matters.
If the tests that I have proposed support the existence of protoneutrons,
then you "quantum mechanics" guys will simply have to tweak your
mathematics again, like you have done 10,000 times already, to make room
for it. Afterwards, you can claim that you predicted it all along, as you
have also done 10,000 times already. ("Quantum mechanics" gurus are like
stock market prognosticators: they predict the past to 12 or 15 digits of
accuracy, but the future is quite another matter!)    

As for your questions about sodium and iron, my reaction is that it would
be *enormously* difficult to apply the protoneutron scenario to anything
other than hydrogen or its isotopes. Think about it: to apply the scenario
to Fe-55, you would have to somehow strip 26 electrons away, place the
resulting nucleus into circumstances where none of the Bohr-Sommerfeld
orbits were possible, and then introduce a single free electron. The hope
would be that the electron would spiral down and orbit the nucleus at
grazing altitude, where it would become... what? You couldn't very well
call the result a protoneutron, because it would contain 26 protons and 29
neutrons. I suppose we could make a stretch and call it a "compound
protoneutron," but doing so, in my view, would be a large leap indeed.
Moreover, leaving nomenclature aside, how would you create such a thing? I
frankly have no idea, but if you can somehow manage it, I am willing to
compliment your technical wizardry in advance! --Mitchell Jones}*** 

> 
> Fourth problem, if protoneutrons exist, they will cause an effect in
> the endpoint energy of tritium beta decay.  The endpoint curve is
> extremely well known due to the search for massive neutrinos.
> What is this effect?

***{Protoneutrons do not exist under the circumstances where tritium beta
decay has been measured, and they have nothing whatsoever to do with those
measurements. If, however, you were to strip the electron away from a
tritium nucleus under circumstances where no room was available for the
Bohr-Sommerfeld orbits to form, and then introduce a free electron, you
could probably induce an electron capture. Such a scenario is much more
plausible than the one with Fe-55, to put it mildly! --Mitchell Jones}*** 

> 
> > I would add that I am perfectly aware of the conflict between the
> > protoneutron theory and "quantum mechanics." This is a classical
> > mechanical theory, and classical mechanics is based on the principle of
> > continuity--i.e., the principle that no entity may come into existence out
> > of nothing or vanish into nothing. The principle of continuity indicates
> > that an entity can arrive at, or leave, a location in one way only: by
> > successively occupying each position in a continuous spatial pathway to,
> > or away from, that location. The implication is that motion is continuous,
> > not a series of quantized "jumps."
> 
> Then explain the photoelectric effect.

***{There is nothing about the photoelectric effect that violates
classical mechanics. Suppose you drill a small hole in the surface of a
billiard table, drop a strand of 10 pound test fishing line down into it,
pour in a drop of epoxy, and then, 6 inches away, attach the other end to
a billiard ball by the same method. If you then shoot ten cue balls of
steadily increasing mass at it, all with the same velocity, you will
create a situation strictly analogous to the photoelectric effect. If you
pick the right velocity then there will be a cutoff mass where, for cue
balls lighter than that, total energy will be insufficient to break the
fishing line and the object ball will remain bound. For heavier balls, on
the other hand, the string will break and the object ball will fly free.
Since you cannot very well deny that classical mechanics explains this
situation, how can you deny that it also explains the photoelectric
effect?

And now, a more important point: you have strongly implied that you
endorse the standard "quantum mechanical" interpretation--to wit: that
motion in the microcosm consists of a series of quantized "jumps" or
"leaps" in which the entity disappears from one spatial position and
magically reappears at the next one, without passing through the gap
between the two positions. Given this state of belief, what basis do you
have for thinking that your sensations have sources? If entities can
vanish into nothing and leap into existence out of nothing, then what
basis do you have for believing that your sensations are not leaping into
existence out of nothing?  --Mitchell Jones}*** 

> >                                    This means, for example, that an
> > electron moving from one stable orbit to another does not "jump" in the
> > quantum mechanical sense: it follows a continuous spatial pathway from the
> > former orbit to the latter, and it exists just as surely during those
> > instants when it is between the "preferred" orbits, as when it is in one
> > of them. In the case presently under discussion, the principle of
> > continuity means that an electron exists and follows a continuous spatial
> > pathway when it is transiting from the lower Bohr orbit to a position in
> > the nucleus. It does not merely exist "in" the nucleus and "in" the
> > innermost Bohr orbit, but also in between. The protoneutron, in short, is
> > a classical mechanical phenomenon. It violates the most fundamental
> > precept of "quantum mechanics" and, if it exists, it constitutes one more
> > piece of evidence, in a pile that is already mountainous, indicating that
> > motion in the microcosm is not "quantized" and, hence, that "quantum
> > mechanics" is wrong.
> 
> What evidence is there that quantum mechanics is wrong?  All evidence I
> have seen and *performed* experiments to examine has shown that quantum
> mechanics fits the data.

***{You misunderstand. It is necessary to sharply distinguish between the
curve fitted mathematical constructs of physics, and the visual models by
which the mathematics is "interpreted." I do not deny that the curve
fitted mathematics fits the experimental results. (That would be a
contradiction in terms!) What I do deny is the validity of the "quantum
mechanical"--i.e., the "Copenhagen"--interpretation of those mathematical
formulations. However much they may wish it were so, the fact is that the
advocates of "quantum mechanics" have no more right to claim the curve
fitted mathematics than does anybody else. Mathematical constructs have no
viewpoint about physical theory, and do not give a hoot in hell how they
are "interpreted." The issue here is not about the math, but about the
"interpretations"--i.e., about whether the "quantum mechanical" attack on
the principle of continuity can be sustained or not. --Mitchell Jones}*** 

> > Needless to say, I present the protoneutron theory as a hypothesis subject
> > to verification or falsification. If it proves to be indefensible, then I
> > will abandon it. On that, you have my absolute guarantee. --Mitchell
> > Jones}***
> 
> I think that protoneutrons are indefensible, but that's the opinion of
> a particle physicist at Caltech and you may take it how you wish.

***{You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. I suspect, however, that
with experience you will find the theory to be less "indefensible" than
you originally thought it would be. --Mitchell Jones}*** 

> 
> Thanks again for responding quickly.
> 
>   --Jim Panetta
> 
> 
> -- 
> --
> My opinions are mine...not SLAC's...not Caltech's...not DOE's...mine.
> (except by random, unforseeable coincidences)
> panetta@cithex.caltech.edu   panetta@slacvm.slac.stanford.edu

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.23 / Bruce Simpson /  Re: French nuclear test agenda
     
Originally-From: bruce@faxmail.co.nz (Bruce Simpson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: French nuclear test agenda
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 1995 20:24:45 GMT
Organization: FaxMail Technologies

Mario Pain <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr> wrote:

>msevior@axnd02.cern.ch (Martin Sevior) wrote:

>>There are inhabited islands within 100 km of Mururoa. I think France has
>>some islands that distance off it's coast. Go for it.

> There are indeed. But within 1000 km of Mururoa there are less than 100.000
>inhabitants. Within 1000 km of any of those islands, there are more than 30
>million.

This is the aspect of the present nuclear testing regime which I think
is the most offensive.  In essence, France is saying "yes, we believe
the tests are safe" but then turning around and saying "but the reason
we are testing in Mururoa rather than continental France is to reduce
the risk".

Either the tests are safe or they are not.  I find it just as
offensive that they endanger (albeit very very slightly) the lives of
non-French citizens, against the expressed will of these people,
rather than hold the tests on continental soil.

I don't know about anyone else but I hold human life to be a rather
valuable comodity and while I have no problem with any individual or
group choosing to give *their own* lives in the name of their
country's sovereignty, I find it impossible to accept a country
risking the lives of other nations for their own means (regardless of
the *degree* of that risk).

Mario has argued with me in private mail that the risks are *very* low
and that it is better to test the bombs in an area of low-population
density.  However I find it difficult to believe that the level of
risk is just so coincidentally positioned to make it unnacceptable
amongst a population of 30 million but okay amongst a population of
just a few million.  Come on - it's either safe enough to test on
continental France or it's just plain too dangerous to test - full
stop!

Mario has also argued that everything we do in live involves a degree
of risk - but these are risks that the individual elects to expose
themselves to.  We in the South Pacific choose not to be exposed to
the risks imposed by French Nuclear testing - there is a *BIG*
difference.  France, who places such high importance on the importance
of sovereignty and the freedom that brings to its citizens is being
hypocritical by compromising the rights of the citizens of other
countries.  This is not acceptable.

> No I do not. I strongly believe that the fact that all the world is against
>this tests is THE reason why France cannot back up.
> Perhaps you are convinced I am FOR the nuclear tests. I am NOT. I am not against
>either, because not being a specialist it is not for me to decide. But once this
>tests have bee announced by our President, then they MUST be done. Because if our
>President cannot be trusted to resist strong pressure from abroad on that matter,
>how could we trust him at all ?

It is a sign of bravery and courage when a man in a position of power
is willing to listen to criticism and change his mind.  Blind
arrogance is nothing to be proud of.  I think you'll find that Mr
Chirac has lost far more credibility and respect than he has gained
through his stubborn arrogance over the nuclear testing issue.

Mario, I am surprised that for a man of your education you feel bound
to accept a course of action simply because your president has said it
must be so.  The most valuable asset that any nation can have is a
free-thinking vocal population who are prepared to stand up and object
to the actions of their leaders.  It is the very "blind allegiance"
you exhibit which gives autocratic dictators the kind of mandate and
power that jeopardises world stability, especially in the case of a
nuclear power!

> Sovereignty is not about winning a race. It is not "more fun to compete". I think
>(whithout being offensive) that it is difficult for a New Zealander to see the
>problem in the same way. You are far off from the world, and if you want to 
>do something in your country, nobody will interfere. Our historical experience
>is quite different.

No one will interfere unless our actions compromise the safety of
their citizens.  If NZ were to start nuclear testing off the coast of
France (assuming we had a territory there), you can bet that the
French farmers would be burning cattle in the streets (or whatever it
is that they do when they're unhappy).  The difference is that I like
to think that we are a sufficiently democratic country with sufficient
ethics and morals that we would never endanger the lives of another
country's citizens simply to further our own ends.  Even if the
government of the day attempted it they would be removed from power in
double-quick time.

France's lust to protect its sovereignty is not justification for
risking the lives of other non-French citizens.  You make the argument
that the US can not be trusted to act as global policeman - but they
are not the only other nuclear power in the world.  What about
Britain, a close economic ally of France.  Then there's Israel, Russia
and China.  I doubt that any one of these countries would allow the
others to overstep the bounds of acceptable behaviour and they all
have the technology and might to act as an effective deterrent.

Perhaps my perception of things is wrong but here's how I see it:

* There is a risk associated with nuclear testing
* The risk is very small - but too large to allow testing within 
	continental France - better to endanger a lesser number
	of foreigners than the valuable French voters.
* The world community has strongly condemned the actions of
	France in conducting these tests - but Chirac refuses
	to risk loosing face by changing his plans.
* A majority of the French population is opposed to the testing
	but Chirac refuses to loose face by changing his plans.
* France already has an adequate nuclear deterrent capability
	- more than "sufficient" would only be useful if used as
	an offensive weapon against multiple targets.  (Does it
	really matter whether you kill someone with one barrel
	or both barrels of a shotgun?  Aren't they just as dead?)
* France exhibits levels of paranoia which would probably see
	an individual institutionalised for therapy.  One can't help
	but get the feeling that France believes that all other
	nations (including the US and Britain) are "out to get them"
	A perfect indication of this is the outrageous claims made
	by France against New Zealand recently - claims that it
	was the covert agenda of the NZ government to get France
	out of the Pacific region.  This is *not* a healthy mindset,
	least of all in the case of a nuclear power.  Paranoia is
	frequently the rational behind offensive actions - pre-emptive
	strike?

Can you really argue that France is justified in their actions?

>"Always ready to debate"

"Always glad to oblige" :-)


*----[Fixed-price software development over the net ]----*
|     bsimpson@iprolink.co.nz or bruce@faxmail.co.nz     |
*--[C/C++, Win, OS/2, POSIX, device-drivers, fax, comms]-*

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenbruce cudfnBruce cudlnSimpson cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.23 / Matt Webster /  Please Participate in a Survey!
     
Originally-From: survey@forefront.princeton.edu (Matt Webster)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Please Participate in a Survey!
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 1995 00:21:27 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Hello, fellow 'netters.  I am conducting a survey of Internet public opinion.
Please take a few moments and point your World Wide Web browser at 

http://forefront.princeton.edu/survey/alt/216/

The questions will take only a few minutes and will be of great help to my
research, which is purely academic in nature.  Your anonymity is guaranteed and
individual responses will not be shared with other organizations.  Feel free to
email if you have any questions.

Thanks for your time,
Matt Webster

survey@forefront.princeton.edu

P.S.  A random number generator selected the newsgroups.  If this posting is
decidedly inappropriate for some reason, please email me and I will be sure not
to post to this group again.

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudensurvey cudfnMatt cudlnWebster cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.22 / Robin Spaandonk /  Re: Lost neutron mass and electron capture
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Lost neutron mass and electron capture
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 00:37:11 GMT
Organization: Improving

In article <MkLjIBK00iV9E5i7d8@andrew.cmu.edu>, Paul Karol wrote :

>Excerpts from netnews.sci.physics.fusion: 19-Sep-95 Lost neutron mass
>and elect.. by Robin van Spaandonk@nets 
>> In fact if you do the sums, it turns out that the electron needs to
>> approach the proton to within a distance of 1.841 F in order that the
>> energy delivered is equal to that required to make up the .782 MeV
>> difference in mass between H and a neutron. Now it seems to me that
>> 1.841 F is a very reasonable distance for electron capture. In other
>
>Assuming total energy is constant, how does an electron approach a
>nucleus, changing the potential energy, and therefore its kinetic
>energy, and therefore its velocity, and not radiate energy as required
>classically for an accelerating charge?
>
>PJK
According to QM electrons do this on a regular basis. The chance that
an electron will pass through the nucleus, is small but not zero. Now
I don't particularly mind if you want to throw out QM, but you can't
have it both ways. Either the electron can approach the nucleus
without radiating away its kinetic energy, and you keep QM, or the
electron radiates away its energy as it approaches the nucleus, and
you throw out QM.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@netspace.net.au>
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything,
Learns all his life,
And leaves knowing nothing.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.22 / Robin Spaandonk /  Re: Lost neutron mass and electron capture
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Lost neutron mass and electron capture
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 00:37:15 GMT
Organization: Improving

In article <43o9nn$953@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, MRichar353 wrote :

>rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) wrote:
>
>>I have noted that the mass given for the H atom in the CRC Handbook is
>>equal to the mass of a proton plus the mass of an electron. So what is
>>so surprising about that you may say?
>>Well if the proton and the electron are treated as classical point
>>charges of opposite sign, then at normal atomic sizes, the electron
>>has a considerable potential energy relative to the proton. In fact
>>the amount of energy that this represents is determined by the
>>distance to which they approach each other. Now in an electron
>>capture, that distance becomes very small.
>>In fact if you do the sums, it turns out that the electron needs to
>>approach the proton to within a distance of 1.841 F in order that the
>>energy delivered is equal to that required to make up the .782 MeV
>>difference in mass between H and a neutron. Now it seems to me that
>>1.841 F is a very reasonable distance for electron capture. In other
>>words, if electron capture is to take place, in fact little or no
>>extra energy need be supplied to the Hydrogen atom. This energy in
>>fact is already present in the potential energy of the two charges
>>relative to one another in the original atom. 
>>This further implies that when a neutron decays into a hydrogen atom,
>>no extra energy is released. 
>>
>>Now will someone please tell me where I went wrong?
>
>Be glad to. Even considering the atom classically, conservation of energy
>still holds. The electron-proton system has a total energy of the sum of

I'm glad the conservation of energy still holds, I'm counting on it.
:-)

>the masses minus the binding energy of several electron volts, and the
>total energy stays constant even if the electron executes a highly
>eliptical orbit, i.e. it loops very close to and then far from the proton.
>As the electron approaches the proton it's kinetic energy increases but so
>does it's (negative) potential energy, and the total stays constant.

This negative potential energy, is only relative to the situation
where the electron is infinitely far removed from the nucleus. After
electron capture, the electron remains "bound" to the nucleus, (or
subsumed by it), therefore this energy "debt" never has to be repaid.
In other words, the kinetic energy that the electron has at close
approach, is available to contribute to the mass of the final nucleus.

>
>Of course the atom is *not* a classical system, but the above still
>basically holds true.
>
>Mark Richardson

Perhaps I can make my point clearer, by considering the inverse
situation, namely that of neutron decay.
Consider a neutron at rest that decays into a proton, an electron, and
an antineutrino. 
After the decay takes place, the electron which is initially at the
bottom of a potential well, zooms off into the distance, slowing down
as it climbs out of the well.
(While this is a classical description, a thorough QM treatment would
need to explain the same energy differences).
The initial energy of the system comprises the rest mass of the
neutron only.
The final energy, comprises the rest masses  of the particles
produced, plus any remaining kinetic energy, *plus the potential
energy gained by the electron in climbing out of the well*.
My problem is that everyone seems to think that this last quantity is
zero!
If this were the case, then there would be NO attractive Coulomb force
between a nucleus and an electron.
Now my request. If you agree with the above, then please check my
math, and calculate just how far apart the electron and proton would
have to be at the time of their creation out of the neutron, for the
potential energy gain of the electron to account for the total rest
mass difference between the particles (i.e. 0.782 MeV).
Note, that if you assume that this potential energy is zero, then you
are assuming that a neutron decays into a proton and an electron that
are already infinitely separated from each other at the moment of
their creation. 

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@netspace.net.au>
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything,
Learns all his life,
And leaves knowing nothing.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Sep 23 04:37:06 EDT 1995
------------------------------
