<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
As fusion runs down its fuel supply a cooling occurs causing the planet to collapse as the weight of the mass falls inward where the temperature zone used to be. The resulting inward acceleration then causes a rapid heating coupled with the initial fracture that occured when the planet fell inward. The result is a tremendous release of energy through mantle and crust vents and ejection of the planets matter into space. The fractured remains would resemble asteroids, comets resemble the high velocity ejected material and liquid oceans would vaporize and be carried off into space. - MV
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
The model you describe has a couple of problems:
(1) the center of the core has the least gravitational field of the entire planetary space and thus would not form a fissionable matrix at the center and, more importantly to your statement, "The resulting inward acceleration", such acceleration is toward the greatest gravitational field which is at some spherical layer, not at the center of the core. This is both intuitive and demonstrable. The greatest concentration or accretion of fissile material would be at a layer depth further from the center so the energy would be conducted both toward the surface and toward the center. The presumed elements of the core, usually considered to be mostly iron, are fair modifiers for nuclear reactions, meaning they act to retard the reaction. Other probable core elements such as sodium, carbon, and other common elements absorb the energy/energetic particles and disperse the heat energy through conduction.
(2)"As fusion runs down its fuel supply a cooling occurs". In order for a sustained fission reaction to occur as you describe, the reactor would almost certainly be a breeder, making more fuel as the reaction sustains itself. If that continuously new fuel supply migrates through the fissile body towards the center, it will congregate and "boil" itself back to the fissile mass rather than explode. Critical mass does not necessarily mean explosion, it simply means that the mass is emitting more energy than the mass by itself can contain. At a certain temperature-pressure relationship, the atoms "boil off". If the reaction rate is greater than the physical structure can contain, the structure explodes. If you raise the temperature of water in an open vessel, it explodes at a rate that sustains the body below violent explosion, i.e., it boils. If you attempt to boil the water in a closed vessel, the pressure increase defeats the boiling until the vessel can no longer contain that pressure, but the vessel still radiates thermal energy even before the vessel fails.
But we're not talking about water, we're talking about heavy elements in a high pressure, high temperature setting. These elements begin to emit high energy particles/energy (I don't care to debate "duality" here). If that fisson reaction is real, then we should be able to detect those emissions. I disagree with all the claims related to experimental methods to date to detect neutrinos, the detectors used will give the predicted results even without neutrinos impinging on them.
What we "see" is excess heat. I agree that fission is a possible source of this excess heat, but how that relates to EPH is not explained by your statement.
I feel an equally plausible explanation for EPH is that the reaction is generating some amount of antimatter and that is somehow concentrating at the center of the core in a natural magnetic "bottle"--until the bottle fails. Obviously, I have no way to substantiate this purely intuitive idea, since antimatter is still a purely theoretical concept, Cern's assertions not withstanding.
I would like very much for someone to tell me I'm wrong, if they also tell me why.
Ozman
