> ICF, also quite calculable). It doesn't seem to be working, so it's reasonable to expect it's wrong. >Second, proton capture for heavy nuclei is endothermic

> ICF, also quite calculable). It doesn't seem to be working, so it's reasonable to expect it's wrong. >Second, proton capture for heavy nuclei is endothermic (so you cool down) No, it isn't. Whoever calculated that Iron is where it ends forgot to add the binding energy of the added proton. The binding energy per nucleon decreases, but there is one nucleon more, so it's still a net gain. > there is no way "cycling" can produce energy since that would be a perpetual energy source. It wouldn't you're using up hydrogen. >We have A LOT of astro observations to back this up. There are also observations of lead rich stars.