On Jan 2, 2012, at 4:24 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
Hi Horace,
I noticed that the sums of the released photons plus the terms in
brackets are close, but not really the same. Why?
What is the meaning of that sum? I cannot figure out, I'm sorry.
The sums in brackets are estimates of the initial energy deficits due
to the trapped electrons.
E = x*(Z-x)*(1.44E-9 ev m)/r
r = 0.85*(1.25E-15 m) * A^(1/3) ]
The reactions you discuss are posted and discussed in the "The Rossi
Ni + p Byproduct Riddle" article here:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/NiProtonRiddle.pdf
These deficits are calculated based on 2 simultaneous trapped
electrons, as opposed to one at a time trapping that I compute for
thousands of of potential initial strong reactions here:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/dfRpt
as well as the in the various "strong force only" equations in the
The Rossi Ni + p Byproduct Riddle article, and for Pd reactions here:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/PdFusion.pdf
The formula used for computing the initial electron trapping energy
is provided at the end of various reports in the dfRpt page.
When more than one electron can be trapped at a time, or weak
reactions occur in the process, then things get complicated. Mutiple
scenarios evolve that end up with the same final reaction energy, but
differing trapping energies. I only provide one computation to check
feasibility of the trapping reaction, and thus the feasibility of
follow-on weak reactions.
I should note that the trapping energies I provide in brackets in my
equations are approximations. The trapping energy can be greatly
increased depending on the nature of the deflated state prior to
tunneling into the nucleus. Further, all the variables involved are
stochastic.
Electron trapping and the impact of the resulting energy deficit,
especially the impact on branching ratios, was discussed on pages
2-10 of:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf
The trapping energy for single electron reactions, (Z-1) (1.44 x 10-9
ev m) / r, is discussed in the above. This provides an energy
deficit that can only be made up from the zero point field. The
energy deficit from deflation fusion was also discussed on p. 10 ff of
http://www.mtaonline.net/%7Ehheffner/DeflationFusion2.pdf
The initial Coulomb trapping energy formula for multiple simultaneous
electron trapping is given in the referenced report:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/PdFusion2.pdf
as follows:
Note: Deflated Electectron binding energy computed using E = x*(Z-x)*
(1.44E-9 ev m)/r
[ Initial average electron nuclear radius r estimated using r = 0.85*
(1.25E-15 m) * A^(1/3) ]
Here x is the number of deflated hydrogen atoms added
simultaneously. This is the formula noted above. This estimate of
the initial trapping energy can be way too low, depending on the
nature of the deflated state prior to tunneling.
I should also note, that if two electrons are initially involved,
i.e. one in the heavy nucleus, and one in the deflated state
hydrogen, that the initial magnetic potential probably should be
subtracted from the binding energy, because this energy may be
imparted in part as kinetic to the electron/proton pair upon
tunneling. When only an electron and ordninary heavy nucleus magnetic
moment are involved I think this correction is not important.
I could of course have clerical errors.
2011/12/17 Horace Heffner <[email protected]>
Deflation fusion theory provides a potential solution to the riddle
of why the radioactive byproducts 59CU29, 61Cu29 and 62Cu29 to the
Ni + p reactions do not appear in Rossi's byproducts. This
solution of the specific radioactive byproducts problem is manifest
if the following rules are obeyed by the environment, except in
extremely improbable instances:
1. The initial wavefunction collapse involves the Ni nucleus
plus two p*
2. As with all LENR, radioactive byproducts are energetically
disallowed.
Here p* represents a deflated hydrogen atom, consisting of a proton
and electron in a magnetically bound orbital, and v represents a
neutrino.
The above two rules result in the following energetically feasible
reactions:
58Ni28 + 2 p* --> 60Ni28 + 2 v + 18.822 MeV [-0.085]
60Ni28 + 2 p* --> 62Ni28 + 2 v + 16.852 MeV [-1.842]
60Ni28 + 2 p* --> 58Ni28 + 4He2 + 7.909 MeV [-10.786]
60Ni28 + 2 p* --> 61Ni28 + 1H1 + v + 7.038 MeV [-11.657]
61Ni28 + 2 p* --> 62Ni28 + 1H1 + v + 9.814 MeV [-8.777]
62Ni28 + 2 p* --> 64Ni28 + 2 v + 14.931 Mev [-3.560]
62Ni28 + 2 p* --> 64Zn30 + 13.835 MeV [-4.656]
62Ni28 + 2 p* --> 60Ni28 + 4He2 + 9.879 MeV [-8.612]
62Ni28 + 2 p* --> 63Cu29 + 1H1 + 6.122 MeV [-12.369]
62Ni28 + 2 p* --> 59Co27 + 4He2 + 1H1 + 00.346 MeV [-18.145]
64Ni28 + 2 p* --> 66Zn30 + 16.378 MeV [-1.918]
64Ni28 + 2 p* --> 62Ni28 + 4He2 + 11.800 MeV [-6.497]
64Ni28 + 2 p* --> 65Cu29 + 1H1 + 7.453 MeV [-10.843]
Ni28 + 2 p* ---> 2 1H1 + 0 MeV
Note that in the case where the second p* is rejected and results
in 1H1, ultimately a hydrogen atom, that the electron and proton
are not ejected at the same time. The large positive nuclear
charge ejects the proton immediately with approximately 6 MeV
kinetic energy.
This kind of zero point energy fueled proton ejection should result
in detectible brehmstrahlung. This energy is in addition to the
mass change energy listed above. The approximately 6 MeV free
energy so gained is made up from the zero point field via
uncertainty pressure expanding any remaining trapped electron's
wavefunction. Such energy may also be obtained from the direct
magnetic attraction of a pair of deflated protons, without the aid
of a lattice nucleus. This is of the form:
p* + P* --> 2 1H1
However, the repulsion of a proton from a proton is far less than
from a large nucleus, and the electrons in this case are not
trapped when the protons separate. However, some EuV radiation can
be expected from the ensemble breakup. A very very small rate of
pep reactions may occur:
p + p* --> D + e+ + v + 0.42 MeV
p* + p* --> D + e- + e+ + v + 0.42 MeV
These are followed immediately by:
e- + e+ --> 2 gamma + 0.59 MeV
and this gamma producing reaction was not observed above background
in the Rossi E-cats.
The following represent energetically feasible initial strong
reactions based on deflation fusion theory:
Compare to 18.822 MeV:
58Ni28 + p* --> 59Cu29 * + 3.419 MeV [-4.867 MeV]
58Ni28 + 2 p* --> 56Ni28 * + 4He2 + 5.829 MeV [-10.650 MeV]
58Ni28 + 2 p* --> 60Zn30 * + 8.538 MeV [-7.941 MeV]
Compare to: 16.852 MeV:
60Ni28 + p* --> 61Cu29 * + 4.801 MeV [-3.394 MeV]
60Ni28 + 2 p* --> 58Ni28 + 4He2 + 7.909 MeV [-8.391 MeV]
60Ni28 + 2 p* --> 62Zn30 * + 11.277 MeV [-5.022 MeV]
Compare to: 9.814 MeV
61Ni28 + p* --> 58Co27 * + 4He2 + 00.489 MeV [-7.661 MeV]
61Ni28 + p* --> 62Cu29 * + 5.866 MeV [-2.284 MeV]
61Ni28 + 2 p* --> 59Ni28 * + 4He2 + 9.088 MeV [-7.125 MeV]
61Ni28 + 2 p* --> 62Cu29 * + 1H1 + 5.866 MeV [-10.347 MeV]
61Ni28 + 2 p* --> 63Zn30 * + 12.570 MeV [-3.643 MeV]
Compare to: 14.931 Mev
62Ni28 + p* --> 59Co27 + 4He2 + 00.346 MeV [-7.760 MeV]
62Ni28 + p* --> 63Cu29 + 6.122 MeV [-1.984 MeV]
62Ni28 + 2 p* --> 64Zn30 + 13.835 MeV [-2.293 MeV]
Compare to: 16.378 MeV
64Ni28 + p* --> 65Cu29 + 7.453 MeV [-0.569 MeV]
64Ni28 + 2 p* --> 66Zn30 + 16.378 MeV [00.415 MeV]
In all cases the net reaction energies of the proposed reactions
exceed those the net energies from reactions that produce
radioactive isotopes. This makes rule 2 reasonable and
understandable on an energy only basis. The mechanism that
enforces the rule is more difficult to understand. Understanding
the mechanism requires understanding the initial energy deficit due
to the trapped electron. This deficit is shown in brackets above.
This deficit provides a limit to how far an energetically ejected
electron can travel out of the coulomb well before being pulled
back. If an electron is in the nucleus at the site of the initial
reaction, then a large part of the energy that normally goes into
ejecting a gamma goes into ejecting the trapped electron. However,
given that this energy is insufficient, the electron has numerous
delayed passes through the nucleus in which to effect a weak
reaction. The electron, when outside the nucleus and accelerating,
is free to radiate large numbers of gammas in much smaller than
normal energies. It is also notable that the electron energy
deficits noted are only initial lower limits. The actual initial
energy deficit can be much higher, depending on the radius of the
deflated proton or deflated quark involved.
The tendency for Ni + 2 p* reactions to occur rather than Ni + p*
reactions may be due to a tunneling energy threshold. The tandem
aligned 3 poles configuration, N-S N-S N-S contains more potential
than the corresponding two pole configuration, N-S N-S. For this
reason it seems a strong magnetic field may benefit the reaction
rate, even above the Debye temperature.
For background on deflation fusion theory see:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg59132.html
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
--
Daniel Rocha - RJ
[email protected]
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
