seedload wrote: KitemanSA wrote:
seedload wrote: You and I have a very different understanding of nuclear scales.
This may be true. Please explain with appropriate data how this affects things. What "scale" do you assume I have, how is yours different, how does this effect things. Please.
Sorry, I don't have any data on K-capture happening with a foreign electron, since it doesn't happen.
In previously studied conditions that we know of.
seedload wrote: Again, the decay is temporally distant from the supposed electron escort of the proton. There remains no reason for there to be a foreign electron near the nucleus, oscillation or no oscillation.
Given that said electron is hypothesized to carry away a goodly amount of the original reaction energy, the escort electron would be SPACIALLY distant too.
However, If there are as many (or potentially more) electrons per unit volume in the conglomerate as there are nuclei in the lattice, and said conglomerate is bosonic, wouldn't the conglomerate tend to align with the nuclei of the lattice? And if it does, wouldn't that alignment potentially cause electrons to REGULARLY approach, even penetrate the nuclei?
seedload wrote: I was merely pointing out that nuclei are kinda tiny compared to all the free space in an atom and that the probability that an electron, even an electron going "THRU the Cu", is anywhere near the nucleus is ridiculously small.
Not if the VERY powerful positive electric field of the nuclei attracted the electron array in such a way as to align them. If this thing works, I can't see it working with electrons that wander around aimlessly.
seedload wrote:There is no reason that any extra electrons would be anywhere near the nucleus when the decay happens, thus the probability of EC decay is not changed by neighboring electrons. They call it K-capture decay for a reason.
Actually, the supposition is that electrons will get very near, even penetrate the nucleus REPEATEDLY before the nucleus would naturally decay by positron emission. Given the repeated electron presence, EC could very easily become the VASTLY preferred decay mode.
seedload wrote: The nucleus is something like eight orders of magnitude smaller than the overall size of the atom in terms of area. This is the nuclear scales to which I was referring.
But if the electron array is being drawn toward the nuclei of the lattice, wouldn't that suggest that electrons approach the nuclei REGULARLY? Seems reasonable to me.
Regarding EC probability in general, I will quote Rossi and Focardi for you:
The two decay processes (positron emission and EC) are alternative: their relative frequencies for the various copper isotopes are generally unknown with the only exception of Cu64 for which EC decay (7) is about twice as frequent as positron decay
So, I think you should just start claiming that EC is 100% and not depend on extra electrons to get you there.
"Just claiming" without cause would be "magical". Not interested. Besides, available electrons seem an almost certainty if this thing works as claimed.
seedload wrote: FYI, that is the same paper in which they claim that NI58 reactions are 100X more energetic than NI62 and 300X more energetic than NI64.
They are depleting the NI58? Go figure.
Link? It would be interesting to read what they ACTULLY wrote first hand.