In New Physics, where the Strong Nuclear Force is merely a chemical
bond of protons with neutrons, and although about 100X stronger than
the Coulomb force, that the strong nuclear was vulnerable to high
temperatures such as plasmas of the Sun or stars. And when the Sun
fuses, those newly minted fused atoms and their nucleus are then
stripped of their electrons in a process of ionization by extreme
heat, but also the nucleus is ionized of its protons with neutrons
bonding. Heat can strip an atom of all its electrons and all its
protons in the nucleus.

Now this energy pathway of total ionization of atoms in plasmas was
not taken into account in Old Physics where only fission was thought
to break nuclei apart, but here
we have extreme heat breaking apart nuclei.

Do we have any sort of experiments that would confirm a total
ionization of atoms in a
extreme heat environment? Perhaps the nuclear detonations, the fusion
bombs offers us evidence that not only was the lighter elements fused,
but that the atoms of the bomb casing, iron and other heavy elements,
their nuclei were turned into hydrogen ions. I think from reports of
test sites, that no atom of the bomb is ever recovered.

I may be mistaken but I do not think a plasma environment of the Sun's
core can be
replicated on Earth of a sufficient time to totally ionize the nuclei
of different atoms.

So it maybe a difficult experimental proof that the nuclei of atoms
are completely ionized if given enough heat over enough time.

But there is one fact that is hard to deny about stars and the Sun,
the fact that
there cores are mostly hydrogen with the scarcity of any other element
except helium.

So it makes sense that if the temperature is extremely hot, that not
only are the electrons of atoms stripped away, but that the protons
are stripped away from neutrons
in the nucleus and with enough time, hydrogen is what remains in star
cores.

Another fact that would support this idea, is the fact that nova and
supernova are rare events.

So if this mechanism of total-ionization occurs in hot stars would beg
the question why any stars undergo a nova or a supernova? The answer
to that would have to be that as the stars eventually become cooler
since they do lose mass, but not hydrogen, that they then begin to
slowly build up iron and heavier elements to make a nova or supernova
possible.

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Now I do have to be careful here because there may already be
experimental proof of the
proton-proton cycle where 1H + 1H gives 2H with neutrino and positron
and then another
1H +2H gives 3He with gamma ray.

What I do not like about that cycle is that how can two protons want
to fuse, want to get
together and then how in the world do we have positrons waiting around
to help two protons
get together. So that is messy and seems like implausible.

Can there be a better cycle for protons to fuse?

So, recently I came up with this idea of total-ionization that the
Strong Nuclear force is a
chemical bond of protons with neutrons and able to be split apart by
intense heat. That would
mean that there is free protons and free neutrons in the plasma of
star cores.

So would it make more sense that the proton-proton cycle does not
involve positrons
but rather we start the cycle with that of neutron meeting proton
bonding (or fusing).
We simply skip the positron need.

Now what I am thinking this may lead to, is the idea of what fuels
quasars. Quasars as close and nearby
galaxies that have a large number of very hot stars, so hot that they
make total ionization of the elements
in their cores and turn them into hydrogen atoms or ions. Total
ionization that even strips all the other elements and their nuclei
into becoming simply a hot plasma soup of protons, electrons and
neutrons.

So we skip this proton-proton cycle feature of requiring a positron.

Now it may sound as if total ionization is a contradiction of
conservation of energy, because if a star fuses and the heat thence
strips the elements back down to hydrogen, would seem like
conservation of energy is
broken. Not so, because there still is a gamma ray emitted in both
reactions.

But a exciting reason I bring up this total-ionization is that it
offers an intermediate energy cycle between that of fusion and that of
a matter to antimatter annihilation and gives a mechanism for quasar
brightness.

Matter to antimatter annihilation is the ultimate energy source, but
quasars are not matter to antimatter annihilation and quasar energy
appears stronger than what fusion cycles there are.

However, if there is a cycle in which hydrogen fuses in one instant
and quickly becomes ionized back into
hydrogen would be a more powerful cycle than just fusion alone. So
that if in one second two hydrogens fused and yielded energy and a
second later they were ionized back into hydrogen and then fused again
would be an intermediate cycle that is far stronger than any fusion
cycle and almost would rival the matter to antimatter mechanism.

Trouble with the Old Physics cycles of fusion is that they constantly
require strange particles of positrons to
aid and assist the cycle, while if we just had proton bond to neutron
we skip that mess.

And in Old Physics, radioactivity was crucial and critical in the
fusion cycles. But in this new idea, if true, we need no radioactivity
in stars because their elements beyond hydrogen are under so much
intense heat
that they become ionized and stripped of their nucleus and turned back
into more hydrogen. So there are few heavy elements remaining in these
hot stars to provide radioactive products.

So the idea of total-ionization allows for an intermediate power
source for very hot stars such as those found in quasars.

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

What I do not like about that cycle is that how can two protons want
to fuse, want to get
together and then how in the world do we have positrons waiting around
to help two protons
get together. So that is messy and seems like implausible.

Can there be a better cycle for protons to fuse?

So, recently I came up with this idea of total-ionization that the
Strong Nuclear force is a
chemical bond of protons with neutrons and able to be split apart by
intense heat. That would
mean that there is free protons and free neutrons in the plasma of
star cores.

So would it make more sense that the proton-proton cycle does not
involve positrons
but rather we start the cycle with that of neutron meeting proton
bonding (or fusing).
We simply skip the positron need.

Now what I am thinking this may lead to, is the idea of what fuels
quasars. Quasars as close and nearby
galaxies that have a large number of very hot stars, so hot that they
make total ionization of the elements
in their cores and turn them into hydrogen atoms or ions. Total
ionization that even strips all the other elements and their nuclei
into becoming simply a hot plasma soup of protons, electrons and
neutrons.

So we skip this proton-proton cycle feature of requiring a positron.

Now it may sound as if total ionization is a contradiction of
conservation of energy, because if a star fuses and the heat thence
strips the elements back down to hydrogen, would seem like
conservation of energy is
broken. Not so, because there still is a gamma ray emitted in both
reactions.

But a exciting reason I bring up this total-ionization is that it
offers an intermediate energy cycle between that of fusion and that of
a matter to antimatter annihilation and gives a mechanism for quasar
brightness.

Matter to antimatter annihilation is the ultimate energy source, but
quasars are not matter to antimatter annihilation and quasar energy
appears stronger than what fusion cycles there are.

However, if there is a cycle in which hydrogen fuses in one instant
and quickly becomes ionized back into
hydrogen would be a more powerful cycle than just fusion alone. So
that if in one second two hydrogens fused and yielded energy and a
second later they were ionized back into hydrogen and then fused again
would be an intermediate cycle that is far stronger than any fusion
cycle and almost would rival the matter to antimatter mechanism.

Trouble with the Old Physics cycles of fusion is that they constantly
require strange particles of positrons to
aid and assist the cycle, while if we just had proton bond to neutron
we skip that mess.

And in Old Physics, radioactivity was crucial and critical in the
fusion cycles. But in this new idea, if true, we need no radioactivity
in stars because their elements beyond hydrogen are under so much
intense heat
that they become ionized and stripped of their nucleus and turned back
into more hydrogen. So there are few heavy elements remaining in these
hot stars to provide radioactive products.

So the idea of total-ionization allows for an intermediate power
source for very hot stars such as those found in quasars.

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies