Re: Solid Hydrogen, Sonofusion

From: Franz Heymann (notfranz.heymann_at_btopenworld.com)
Date: 10/31/04 

Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 09:10:50 +0000 (UTC)

"Thomas Lee Elifritz" <lifeform1@atlantic.net> wrote in message
news:29de1a66.0410301316.47f73e6@posting.google.com...
> October 30, 2004
>
> "Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
:
>
> > >
> > > > > > Hydrogen cannot undergo any direct fusion reaction.
> > > > >
> > > > > Who are we to believe, Franz or Hans?
> > > > >
> > > > > http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/energy/ppchain.html
> > > > >
> > > > > > You have a problem getting rid of one unit of positive
charge.
> > > > >
> > > > > Not a problem in this universe.
> > > > >
> >
http://genesismission.jpl.nasa.gov/science/mod3_SunlightSolarHeat/FusionChemistry/
> > > > .
> > > > I said Hydrogen cannot undergo any direct fusion reaction. If
it
> > > > could, the lifetime of the sun would have been a mere matter
of a
> > few
> > > > seconds, and not billions of years, The process by which
Hydrogen
> > is
> > > > converted into Heluim in the sun involves a series of
successive
> > > > reactions,
> > >
> > > The first of which is the direct fusion of hydrogen.
> > >
> > > > including an essential stage in which the weak interaction
> > > > is involved. The weak interaction derived its name from the
fact
> > > > thgat it is very weak.
> > >
> > > And charge is conserved by positron emission and subsequent
electron
> > positron
> > > annihilation, contrary to your claim of it being a problem.
Mistakes
> > are ok, I make
> > > them all the time, but you just lie, by omission, and spin, and
your
> > superficial
> > > understanding of physics, in order to avoid actually having to
do
> > any physics to
> > > improve peoples lives. Also distinctly absent from any of your
> > arguments are scholarly
> > > references, citations and internet links to references, thus,
you
> > promulgate
> > > scientific ignorance, disinformation and apathy.
> >
> > Cut the bull***. What I said was entirely correct.
>
> No it wasn't, and you did not justify any of it at all with any
> evidence, so it's just your word over Hans Bethe's. I'll go with
Hans
> and the evidence.

Me too.

> Hydrogen dissociates into protons, the protons ionize,

That sentence shows up your lack of knowledge. Would you care to
repeat it?
Hint: After the hydrogen has dissociated into a proton and an
electron, there is nothing more left to ionise.

> they overcome
> the coulomb repulsion and fuse into deuterium, emitting a positron
and
> an electron neutrino,

No quibble. If you look at what I said, you will notice that I said
that this stage of the multistage process involved the weak
interaction and it is the tiny transition rate for this process which
ensures the loingevity of the sun.

> and then the positron recombines with one of the
> electrons creating a high energy photon. At this point two protons
> have fused directly. What happens after that is irrelevant, as the
> deuterium exists within the solar nebula and has a finite but small
> lifetime.

I am happy to admit that I overstated the case by saying that fusion
of 2 protons is impossible. The cross section is just so negligibly
small that it is not a realistic pathway for energy production here on
earth. The sun, after all, has already struggled for billions of
years to consume its protons.

When talking about fusion energy, one usually thinks in terms of a
strong interaction between the nucleids. If protons could fuse via
the strong interaction, the sun would have had a life of only a few
seconds.
>
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/solarpp.html#c1
>
> > > The situation is analogous to electrolysis of water,
> >
> > There is no discernible analogy between the solar energy cycle and
the
> > electrolysis of water. Which kindergarten book did you look at to
> > come to that conclusion? One is a sequence of nuclear reactions
and
> > the other is merelty a rearrangement of the electron structures
around
> > unchanging nucleii.
>
> The analogy is that the reaction proceeds in steps, involves
multiple
> pairs of particles, and that structure is rearranged, and energy is
> absorbed and released, and charge and momentum are conserved.

There are more properties than charge and momentum conserved in the
process of which you speak.

> There
> are also differences of course, as you pointed out, weak force
> participation, transmutation, etc. It's an analogy. Nature is like
> that, you know.

It is a quite useless analogy.
You might as well have used me walking as an analogy. That also
proceeds as in your exposition in the first sentence.

[snip]

Franz

Quantcast