Re: [Vo]:Gamma fractionalization and the DDL via Quantum dots
I doubt the NRC aauthority extends to LENR yet. Bob Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE SmartphoneKevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi knows that in order to get his reactors to be approved in the USA, he needs to show zero nuclear effects. He KNOWS it is nucular, but to the authorities he will be saying showing NO nucular effects. none. By the time he sells ten thousand units, the NRC gets wise and has no capability to reign him in. On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Ø Rossi saw 512KeV gamma from positrons in his early reactors. No, he didn’t. Rossi says over and over that there is no gamma radiation. He says Focardi’s theory had predicted gamma, but none was ever observed. On the other hand, Celani said he did measure gamma radiation during Rossi's test. Rossi was very upset with him for bringing in the meters. I do not know what to make of it, but that is what happened. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gamma fractionalization and the DDL via Quantum dots
Jones I think Celani had a coincidence counter setup to look for e-p annihaltion. Bob Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE SmartphoneKevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi knows that in order to get his reactors to be approved in the USA, he needs to show zero nuclear effects. He KNOWS it is nucular, but to the authorities he will be saying showing NO nucular effects. none. By the time he sells ten thousand units, the NRC gets wise and has no capability to reign him in. On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Ø Rossi saw 512KeV gamma from positrons in his early reactors. No, he didn’t. Rossi says over and over that there is no gamma radiation. He says Focardi’s theory had predicted gamma, but none was ever observed. On the other hand, Celani said he did measure gamma radiation during Rossi's test. Rossi was very upset with him for bringing in the meters. I do not know what to make of it, but that is what happened. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gamma fractionalization and the DDL via Quantum dots
Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: By the time he sells ten thousand units, the NRC gets wise and has no capability to reign him in. What would stop them? Even if he sold 10 million units, the government can start regulating them anytime it wants. The government did not begin effective regulation of automobile safety until the mid-1960s, long after millions of vehicles had been sold. I doubt the NRC has the authority to rein him in at present, but if they decide this is a nuclear effect I'm sure they would either extend their own authority, or they would ask the Congress and the administration to do so. They would have the capability to rein him in anytime they want it. This is reasonable in my opinion. If it is shown that cold fusion is dangerous it should be regulated carefully. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gamma fractionalization and the DDL via Quantum dots
Robin It may be possible to measure differential voltages vs time at different places on the SC, if it is not instantaneous. I would expect to see no differential voltages. Bob Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphonemix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to frobertcook's message of Tue, 30 Sep 2014 09:32:26 +0200: Hi, [snip] Bob In semi conductors electrons r enter and seem to change the energy states of all the electrons in the semi conductor over a considerable distance associated with QM system of the SC. TMK it's instantaneous. ...but could you tell the difference between instantaneous and the speed of light? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Gamma fractionalization and the DDL via Quantum dots
I think putative DDL state hydrogen (Df/H) and probably hydrinos would be more stable that you give them credit. At our environmental temperatures, the average kinetic energy is 1.5 kT which is about .04 eV at room temperature. Hydrinos would probably need 50eV in an inelastic collision to re-inflate, and Df/H would need something like 500keV. So, hydrinos would find some ppm of re-inflation on the tail of the Boltzmann curve, but the Df/H atoms would not. Long before you got to a 500keV collision, the Df/H would fuse with its collision target. Bob Higgins On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:32 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 8:26 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: I have previously suggested that a dense cluster might also absorb the energy in the form of kinetic energy distributed among thousands of densely clustered atoms. I see that Robin and Jones were talking about hydrino reinflation yesterday, so my observation was a little late. One detail to add is that, it seems to me, unless there are a sufficient number of Mills catalysts lying around to further shrink wayward hydrinos that are thinking of reinflating, I assume they would all eventually reinflate through (endothermic) inelastic collisions. You'd start out with normal matter, get hydrinos, and end with (fully) normal matter. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Gamma fractionalization and the DDL via Quantum dots
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 3:16 AM, frobertcook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: I doubt the NRC aauthority extends to LENR yet. It extends to anything producing ionizing radiation.
Re: [Vo]:Gamma fractionalization and the DDL via Quantum dots
Terry It is my understanding that NRC authority only applies to radioactive materials made in fission reactors using fissile materials. Thus, for example, accelerator activated materials are not controled by NRC. However the Energy Reorganization Act which created the NRC spells out the details. Bob Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE SmartphoneTerry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 3:16 AM, frobertcook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: I doubt the NRC aauthority extends to LENR yet. It extends to anything producing ionizing radiation.
Re: [Vo]:Gamma fractionalization and the DDL via Quantum dots
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: Hydrinos would probably need 50eV in an inelastic collision to re-inflate, and Df/H would need something like 500keV. Yes, this occurred to me, too. It will no doubt depend upon the population of hydrinos and how far shrunken they are. In a protected environment like the surface of the earth, perhaps they could be fairly stable. Out in space, in the solar wind, for example, I doubt this would still be the case. I'm not familiar with the considerations involved with Df/H, DDL hydrogen and inverse Rydberg hydrogen. Eric
RE: [Vo]:Gamma fractionalization and the DDL via Quantum dots
-Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com In reply to Bob Higgins's message: Isn't the problem with this scenario that the ground state H/D atom must GIVE UP energy to enter the DDL state. RvS: Actually this may not be so far from the truth. Consider a situation where lots of Hydrinos/Deuterinos as forming and giving up energy as they do, resulting in a large population of shrunken atoms. If the occasional fusion reaction happens and the energy is used to inflate a few thousand of the millions of Hydrinos that are present, then no one would notice the fusion reaction. JB: The dynamics of gain could happen either way. Exotherm on shrinkage to DDL, followed by endotherm on forced expansion is one way; but endotherm to DDL followed by exotherm on expansion works as well. In either event the fusion reaction, which would be novel and not mainstream fusion, and it would balance the books in the sense of providing the net exotherm but not by a hot photon. This allows LENR to merge with CQM in a unique way which can be molded to meet all of the reported results - especially when it happens with Ni58 +D → Ni60. RvS: The only problem I have with this scenario is the time factor, i.e. the distance from the nuclear reaction to the Hydrinos, and the speed of light. IOW how would such a reaction be able to compete with gamma emission? JB: The revise mechanics of the gammaless reaction is what is answered more elegantly by Hagelstein in his latest suggestion. According to Ahern, who attended the most recent Swartz/Hagelstein presentation at MIT, PH now proposes that the reaction does not really happen until the excess energy is already dissipated. That time reversed delay is what makes the underlying reaction novel. In effect, this is actually NOT gamma fractionalization at all. It is a QM book balancing act. There never is or never was a gamma to deal with. ≫ RvS: I guess the answer depends on the gamma emission time. If it's order E-17 seconds, then light can travel about 3 nm in that time. So thousands of Hydrinos would need to be packed into a sphere with a radius of less than 3 nm. This doesn't seem very likely to me, unless they are magnetically bound together in a huge cluster (not impossible, the magnetic binding energy could be significant, and on the order of chemical binding energies). JB: As mentioned, the time factor doesn't matter if the gamma reaction never happens. A substituted QM reaction does not really involve the same dynamics. This type of QM explanation works best with the deep species - DDL, for the reasons mentioned in the original post, which is going all the way to phonons is too large a ratio, even for QM. Mills' formula actually does not predict this DDL species, since his value for dark matter comes up on the low side of the actual value. Naudts' value does work. ≫ RvS: BTW, IRH would also appear to fill the bill in this scenario. JB: Yes, I have been equating IRH with DDL, but there is one big difference. ≫ RvS: This notion has one other point in its favor: The fusion reaction wouldn't happen in the first place unless the cluster is present... In this regard IRH *may* be more likely than Hydrino clusters. JB: Exactly. When there is this kind of pseudo-fusion reaction, nothing dramatic happens until after the energy has already been dissipated, and then what we have is only the QM balancing act… which is to say a novel form of quantum mechanics where a new isotope appears without a gamma at all. This is NOT related to thermonuclear fusion ! and there is no gamma, ever. But of course the mass to be converted to energy has to be the same in both cases. You seem to favoring the terminology of IRH over DDL and that is fine with me, however, DDL invokes Dirac, which is wise - and also it is not necessarily limited to two dimensions as is IRH which means the reaction can occur in a fully loaded quantum dot, which is fully entangled to begin with. The quantum dot at 10 nm can have the correct number of deuterons to make it all happen. But this also implies 3D instead of 2D, so that is another reason to use DDL instead of IRH or hydrino. Better yet, Df/D is a designation which would refer to deep fractional deuterium, and we can define it from the start to match results (hopefully from Mizuno in November. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:Gamma fractionalization and the DDL via Quantum dots
The following message did not appear, presumably because it contained a table, which has been dropped. From: Axil Axil * Rossi saw 512KeV gamma from positrons in his early reactors. No, he didn’t. Rossi says over and over that there is no gamma radiation. He says Focardi’s theory had predicted gamma, but none was ever observed. * In this article, it is noted that Rossi and Focardi had a twin gamma ray detector set up in order to detect e+e- annihilation that was expected by Focardi based on previous experiments. The results from that set up were not meaningful during the guests time in the room. Of course the results were meaningful, but negative. That is what Bianchini clearly states. This is copied from the report. * no significant radiation above background, summarized here: [table from Bianchini report deleted as vortex sever does not permit images]
Re: [Vo]:Gamma fractionalization and the DDL via Quantum dots
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Ø Rossi saw 512KeV gamma from positrons in his early reactors. No, he didn’t. Rossi says over and over that there is no gamma radiation. He says Focardi’s theory had predicted gamma, but none was ever observed. On the other hand, Celani said he did measure gamma radiation during Rossi's test. Rossi was very upset with him for bringing in the meters. I do not know what to make of it, but that is what happened. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gamma fractionalization and the DDL via Quantum dots
Why would Rossi enclose his reactor in LEAD if no gamma's were ever seen? Is it in his interest to mislead the world in believing that no gammas were seen, I think it would be. It would keep the NRC out of his business. Is Rossi totally honest in everything he says, I think he is not. Are you deluding yourself when you believe Rossi's statements on radiation from his reactor? I think you are. On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *The following message did not appear, presumably because it contained a table, which has been dropped.* *From:* Axil Axil Ø Rossi saw 512KeV gamma from positrons in his early reactors. No, he didn’t. Rossi says over and over that there is no gamma radiation. He says Focardi’s theory had predicted gamma, but none was ever observed. Ø In this article, it is noted that Rossi and Focardi had a twin gamma ray detector set up in order to detect e+e- annihilation that was expected by Focardi based on previous experiments. The results from that set up were not meaningful during the guests time in the room. Of course the results were meaningful, but negative. That is what Bianchini clearly states. This is copied from the report. · *no significant radiation above background*, summarized here: [table from Bianchini report deleted as vortex sever does not permit images]
Re: [Vo]:Gamma fractionalization and the DDL via Quantum dots
question is the dose... Rossi mostly said that ther was no dangerous radiation, not much above baclground. a peak, eg at 511kev is not necessarily a danger yet can be detected. from ed Storms books and papers it is clear there are x-rays, but not much and there is a cutoff energy... section 4.6 of the science of LENr talk of it. 2014-09-30 19:43 GMT+02:00 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Ø Rossi saw 512KeV gamma from positrons in his early reactors. No, he didn’t. Rossi says over and over that there is no gamma radiation. He says Focardi’s theory had predicted gamma, but none was ever observed. On the other hand, Celani said he did measure gamma radiation during Rossi's test. Rossi was very upset with him for bringing in the meters. I do not know what to make of it, but that is what happened. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gamma fractionalization and the DDL via Quantum dots
The point about gamma radiation is a theoretical one. In order to claim that a polariton condensate can fractionalize gamma frequencies, there must be gamma radiation produces by LENR in some circumstances at the least. Jones primary position states that LENR does not produce gamma radiation because LENR is not a nuclear process. Therefore, gamma level radiation cannot be produced in any conceivable event. This is the same position that Mills takes. Jones cannot accept that gamma fractionalization can be so complete. I states that gamma is produced is some situations but can be completely fractionalized in LENR, especially by LENR+; the LENR of the Ni/H reactor. On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: question is the dose... Rossi mostly said that ther was no dangerous radiation, not much above baclground. a peak, eg at 511kev is not necessarily a danger yet can be detected. from ed Storms books and papers it is clear there are x-rays, but not much and there is a cutoff energy... section 4.6 of the science of LENr talk of it. 2014-09-30 19:43 GMT+02:00 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Ø Rossi saw 512KeV gamma from positrons in his early reactors. No, he didn’t. Rossi says over and over that there is no gamma radiation. He says Focardi’s theory had predicted gamma, but none was ever observed. On the other hand, Celani said he did measure gamma radiation during Rossi's test. Rossi was very upset with him for bringing in the meters. I do not know what to make of it, but that is what happened. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gamma fractionalization and the DDL via Quantum dots
In reply to frobertcook's message of Tue, 30 Sep 2014 09:32:26 +0200: Hi, [snip] Bob In semi conductors electrons r enter and seem to change the energy states of all the electrons in the semi conductor over a considerable distance associated with QM system of the SC. TMK it's instantaneous. ...but could you tell the difference between instantaneous and the speed of light? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Gamma fractionalization and the DDL via Quantum dots
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 30 Sep 2014 07:12:23 -0700: Hi, [snip] You seem to favoring the terminology of IRH over DDL and that is fine with me, however, DDL invokes Dirac, which is wise - and also it is not necessarily limited to two dimensions as is IRH which means the reaction can occur in a fully loaded quantum dot, which is fully entangled to begin with. I see no reason why sheets of IRH can't be stacked on top of one another such as to magnetically attract. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:Gamma fractionalization and the DDL via Quantum dots
From: Axil Axil Jones primary position states that LENR does not produce gamma radiation because LENR is not a nuclear process. Therefore, gamma level radiation cannot be produced in any conceivable event. This is the same position that Mills takes. Axil - this is incorrect, except for Mills. As mentioned, after discovering from Ahern, who went to the lecture at MIT- that Hagelstein also believes that gamma radiation cannot be produced in any conceivable LENR event, there is no good reason not to support the major part of his theory. It is QM based. You have badly misinterpreted what he has been saying, as I was also doing. He actually seldom mentions gamma rays, because there are none at all. IOW gammas do not exist in the LENR reaction because it is not a thermonuclear reaction - which is precisely what I have been saying all along. You have been claiming they are emitted, but then absorbed. That is not Hagelstein’s view – far from it! I was unaware of that precise detail. In fact, the energy of the reaction has been completely dissipated before it ever occurs. That is pure QM, in the sense of time reversal. Gammas are thermonuclear. They cannot be absorbed easily, and especially not by polaritons or plasmons. Jones cannot accept that gamma fractionalization can be so complete. I states that gamma is produced is some situations but can be completely fractionalized in LENR, especially by LENR+; the LENR of the Ni/H reactor. Yes that part is right – I cannot accept your version - because for one thing, there is no support for it on the technical level nor on the practical level. In short, there is no expert opinion support for the viewpoint of fractionalization, as you have described it. Certainly, it is not what Hagelstein believes – if his theory is what you had been using as your authority. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Gamma fractionalization and the DDL via Quantum dots
Rossi knows that in order to get his reactors to be approved in the USA, he needs to show zero nuclear effects. He KNOWS it is nucular, but to the authorities he will be saying showing NO nucular effects. none. By the time he sells ten thousand units, the NRC gets wise and has no capability to reign him in. On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Ø Rossi saw 512KeV gamma from positrons in his early reactors. No, he didn’t. Rossi says over and over that there is no gamma radiation. He says Focardi’s theory had predicted gamma, but none was ever observed. On the other hand, Celani said he did measure gamma radiation during Rossi's test. Rossi was very upset with him for bringing in the meters. I do not know what to make of it, but that is what happened. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gamma fractionalization and the DDL via Quantum dots
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 8:26 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: I have previously suggested that a dense cluster might also absorb the energy in the form of kinetic energy distributed among thousands of densely clustered atoms. I see that Robin and Jones were talking about hydrino reinflation yesterday, so my observation was a little late. One detail to add is that, it seems to me, unless there are a sufficient number of Mills catalysts lying around to further shrink wayward hydrinos that are thinking of reinflating, I assume they would all eventually reinflate through (endothermic) inelastic collisions. You'd start out with normal matter, get hydrinos, and end with (fully) normal matter. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Gamma fractionalization and the DDL via Quantum dots
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Why would Rossi enclose his reactor in LEAD if no gamma's were ever seen? In Rossi's own 2010 patent, he states that the lead (and boron) shield is there to protect from harmful radiation: In particular, the inventive apparatus is coated by boron layers and lead plates both for restraining noxious radiations and transforming them into energy, without generating residue radiations and radioactive materials. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Gamma fractionalization and the DDL via Quantum dots
I wrote: In Rossi's own 2010 patent, he states that the lead (and boron) shield is there to protect from harmful radiation: In particular, the inventive apparatus is coated by boron layers and lead plates both for restraining noxious radiations and transforming them into energy, without generating residue radiations and radioactive materials. Sorry, that's patent application, not patent. This is not a direct admission of seeing gammas. But it's a most relevant detail to keep in one's mind in assessing other statements from Rossi concerning ionizing radiation. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Gamma fractionalization and the DDL via Quantum dots
Jones, Isn't the problem with this scenario that the ground state H/D atom must GIVE UP energy to enter the DDL state. What you propose is that the H/D atoms could absorb the gamma emission from the transmutation and fractionate the photons to DDL energy chunks. For this to occur, the coupled atoms would already have to be in the DDL state and would then all jump back to the ground state after each absorbed a fraction of the nuclear emitted gamma. While this is not ruled out because it could occur via a coupled-state non-photonic exhange, you must explain how you have so many coupled DDL state atoms in place ready to receive and fractionate a gamma photo. AND how would the ensemble of atoms reset to a DDL state to be ready to absorb/fractionate the next gamma photon. At least in Hagelsteins's theory, the assemblage of coupled atoms is the condensed matter lattice with strong electronic coupling (though it is mostly nearest neighbor coupling). This coupled structure is there to begin with - it is not formed ad hoc just for fractionating. Bob Higgins On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: The almost intractable problem for explaining LENR to physicists, or even undergrads in physics - is that there is no gamma - presenting a major obstacle to our understanding if there is to be real fusion. Almost all of the other problems in Ni-D, the Mizuno reaction, including lack of transmutation products and lack of neutrons have a possible explanation, since there is a known reaction with a short half-life that converts Ni58 and a deuteron to Ni60, leaving no lingering radioactivity. As mentioned in prior postings, Ni58 is a bit of an anomaly in having too few neutrons (lower amu than cobalt, for instance). Ni58 could be favored for this kind of reaction. Unfortunately, this reaction is so energetic in net energy, that the lack of gamma is almost as problematic as the situation with putative fusion of deuterons to helium. The most accepted solution to the lack of gammas is based on Hagelstein's evolving theory, which can be called gamma fractionalization. That theory is based on downshifting of gamma level energy, but without the photon emission, all the way to phonon vibrations at 8-16 THz, which is a massive drop of about 8-9 orders of magnitude - or a ratio of at least 100,000,000:1 (100 million to one) - which is an enormous reduction in energy over a very short time frame. Yet, the Hagelstein model, as a general premise could apply to the fractionalization to other energy levels - other than all the way to weak phonon vibrations, which are a fractional eV. For instance, a fractionalization down to the DDL (dark matter) level, is intriguing - in which case the ratio is much easier to deal with. Apparently, PH has never considered this as an option, so it is worth mentioning as a possibility for future inclusion into a broader theory. In Ni-D, such as the recent Mizuno experiment, where deuterium would transmute Ni58 to Ni60, if that much energy (12 MeV prompt + 6 MeV delayed) could be taken away as spin, transferred to a large number of atoms - then voila, that would be a solution. The spin would serve to decrease electron orbitals of deuterons to form the DDL. The ratio which is required drops from (100 million to one) all the way down to a few thousand to one. In short, Hagelstein's general premise can be improved via a DDL mechanism (dense deuterium or deep Dirac level). For this to work in practice, there would need to be perhaps 3000+ molecules of deuterium-loaded-nickel, operating as a unit (quantum dot unit) with some level of quantum wave coherence, with which to share the 12 MeV... which energy release would provide about 3.5 keV per molecule of deuterium - to push the molecule down into the DDL state. This level would have escaped detection. The quantum dot is typically the correct size, but is typically a semiconductor, like NiO instead of a metal. Most of these shrunken molecules simply re-expand, giving back the 3.5 keV (which is the signature of dark matter) which is undetectable in operation, but if at least one or two of them were to fuse to nickel, in order to repeat the cycle, then we have a limited chain reaction. The problem is that even if this scenario worked most of the time, we should see a percentage of high energy gammas. When none are seen, this casts doubt on the entire explanation. But it is worth mentioning, especially if Mizuno's new results should report an relative increase in Ni60 relative to Ni58 - or radiation in the 3-4 keV range. Jones
RE: [Vo]:Gamma fractionalization and the DDL via Quantum dots
From: Bob Higgins Isn't the problem with this scenario that the ground state H/D atom must GIVE UP energy to enter the DDL state. That would be true under Mills theory, but one big objection to Mills concept is that if it were true - as a logical matter, there would be nothing to keep hydrogen stable for normal chemistry, especially in a plasma. It is arguable that under a more accurate theory - the Rydberg levels could indeed be relatively stable plateaus for ground state redundancy, but that getting to those levels is endothermic, not exothermic. After all, Mills still has no independently replicated gainful device - after 24 years of trying.
Re: [Vo]:Gamma fractionalization and the DDL via Quantum dots
*Dear Jones,* *I have been trying to move you to the “Superabsorption” concept for the last year or two. I am pleased that you are getting nearer to appreciate Superabsorption of gamma radiation.* *Superabsorption is the reciprocal concept to Superradiance. * *You were kind enough to clue me onto the guy who merged superradiance into LENR.* *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuliano_Preparata http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuliano_Preparata* *Giuliano Preparata postulated that a condensate that was synchronized though a common EMF signal would demonstrate both superradiance and superabsorption.* *There have been extensive discussions about superradiance here on vortex in the last couple of years. Jones Beene has kept the concept alive over the years as a major power amplification mechanism in LENR.* *Superabsorption is the opposite face of superradiance. The principle of symmetry demands that the powerful emission of energy be matched in kind by a powerful mechanism for the absorption of energy.* *The polariton condensate is the quantum mechanical platform that supports these complimentary superradiance mechanisms.* * The soliton acts like a capacitor which stores energy and releases it rapidly under the trigger of quantum uncertainty. The NAE is the volume of space that holds the atoms that are within the volume of the focused beam of magnetism that is released by the soliton.* *The mechanism that underpins this behavior is the magnetic polariton. The coherence of this condensate is mediated through a single EMF intercommunication frequency.* *Giuliano Preparata quote: “The basic mechanism that makes superradiance work is that there must be a system that can communicate electromagnetically only on a well-defined, sharp frequency. If you have a lot of frequencies, this radiation simply disperses itself. If electrons emit always at one particular frequency, then you have a tremendous amplification effect. “* *The polaritons are Bosons: the carriers of EMF. High frequency EMF from positron/electron annihilation and nuclear binding energy is shared among each polariton and whose high frequencies are factionalized in proportions to the square of the total number of polaritons in the entire LENR system. If a polariton soliton contains an estimated 10^^23 polaritons, and there are a billion such solitons, the ability to absorb gamma radiation is truly prodigious.* *Electron–positron annihilation occurs when an electron (e−) and a positron (e+, the electron's antiparticle) collide. The result of the collision is the annihilation of the electron and positron, and the creation of gamma ray photons or,* *e− + e+ → γ + γ* *Reference:* *http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1991/eirv18n24-19910621/eirv18n24-19910621_022-dr_giuliano_preparata.pdf http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1991/eirv18n24-19910621/eirv18n24-19910621_022-dr_giuliano_preparata.pdf* On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: The almost intractable problem for explaining LENR to physicists, or even undergrads in physics - is that there is no gamma - presenting a major obstacle to our understanding if there is to be real fusion. Almost all of the other problems in Ni-D, the Mizuno reaction, including lack of transmutation products and lack of neutrons have a possible explanation, since there is a known reaction with a short half-life that converts Ni58 and a deuteron to Ni60, leaving no lingering radioactivity. As mentioned in prior postings, Ni58 is a bit of an anomaly in having too few neutrons (lower amu than cobalt, for instance). Ni58 could be favored for this kind of reaction. Unfortunately, this reaction is so energetic in net energy, that the lack of gamma is almost as problematic as the situation with putative fusion of deuterons to helium. The most accepted solution to the lack of gammas is based on Hagelstein's evolving theory, which can be called gamma fractionalization. That theory is based on downshifting of gamma level energy, but without the photon emission, all the way to phonon vibrations at 8-16 THz, which is a massive drop of about 8-9 orders of magnitude - or a ratio of at least 100,000,000:1 (100 million to one) - which is an enormous reduction in energy over a very short time frame. Yet, the Hagelstein model, as a general premise could apply to the fractionalization to other energy levels - other than all the way to weak phonon vibrations, which are a fractional eV. For instance, a fractionalization down to the DDL (dark matter) level, is intriguing - in which case the ratio is much easier to deal with. Apparently, PH has never considered this as an option, so it is worth mentioning as a possibility for future inclusion into a broader theory. In Ni-D, such as the recent Mizuno experiment, where deuterium would transmute Ni58 to Ni60, if that much energy (12 MeV prompt + 6 MeV delayed) could be taken away as
Re: [Vo]:Gamma fractionalization and the DDL via Quantum dots
The reason why a quantum dot idea won't work is the fact that electrons conform to the Pauli exclusion principle. The quantum dot can be thought of as a single atom with thousands of ascending electron orbital energy levels. As these levels absorb gamma radiation, it get increasingly harder for the higher energy levels to absorb ever higher energy photons. With bosons, this limitation does not exist. On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: The almost intractable problem for explaining LENR to physicists, or even undergrads in physics - is that there is no gamma - presenting a major obstacle to our understanding if there is to be real fusion. Almost all of the other problems in Ni-D, the Mizuno reaction, including lack of transmutation products and lack of neutrons have a possible explanation, since there is a known reaction with a short half-life that converts Ni58 and a deuteron to Ni60, leaving no lingering radioactivity. As mentioned in prior postings, Ni58 is a bit of an anomaly in having too few neutrons (lower amu than cobalt, for instance). Ni58 could be favored for this kind of reaction. Unfortunately, this reaction is so energetic in net energy, that the lack of gamma is almost as problematic as the situation with putative fusion of deuterons to helium. The most accepted solution to the lack of gammas is based on Hagelstein's evolving theory, which can be called gamma fractionalization. That theory is based on downshifting of gamma level energy, but without the photon emission, all the way to phonon vibrations at 8-16 THz, which is a massive drop of about 8-9 orders of magnitude - or a ratio of at least 100,000,000:1 (100 million to one) - which is an enormous reduction in energy over a very short time frame. Yet, the Hagelstein model, as a general premise could apply to the fractionalization to other energy levels - other than all the way to weak phonon vibrations, which are a fractional eV. For instance, a fractionalization down to the DDL (dark matter) level, is intriguing - in which case the ratio is much easier to deal with. Apparently, PH has never considered this as an option, so it is worth mentioning as a possibility for future inclusion into a broader theory. In Ni-D, such as the recent Mizuno experiment, where deuterium would transmute Ni58 to Ni60, if that much energy (12 MeV prompt + 6 MeV delayed) could be taken away as spin, transferred to a large number of atoms - then voila, that would be a solution. The spin would serve to decrease electron orbitals of deuterons to form the DDL. The ratio which is required drops from (100 million to one) all the way down to a few thousand to one. In short, Hagelstein's general premise can be improved via a DDL mechanism (dense deuterium or deep Dirac level). For this to work in practice, there would need to be perhaps 3000+ molecules of deuterium-loaded-nickel, operating as a unit (quantum dot unit) with some level of quantum wave coherence, with which to share the 12 MeV... which energy release would provide about 3.5 keV per molecule of deuterium - to push the molecule down into the DDL state. This level would have escaped detection. The quantum dot is typically the correct size, but is typically a semiconductor, like NiO instead of a metal. Most of these shrunken molecules simply re-expand, giving back the 3.5 keV (which is the signature of dark matter) which is undetectable in operation, but if at least one or two of them were to fuse to nickel, in order to repeat the cycle, then we have a limited chain reaction. The problem is that even if this scenario worked most of the time, we should see a percentage of high energy gammas. When none are seen, this casts doubt on the entire explanation. But it is worth mentioning, especially if Mizuno's new results should report an relative increase in Ni60 relative to Ni58 - or radiation in the 3-4 keV range. Jones
RE: [Vo]:Gamma fractionalization and the DDL via Quantum dots
Axil, Of all the wild possibilities that we consider on vortex – most of which are eventually rejected as impossible, gamma fractionalization still appears to me to be the least likely major holdover theory (from the cold fusion era) to be a physical reality in the NiH era. This is despite it being arguably more likely if there were a more energetic damping avenue to consider – such as DDL or even hydrinos. Were it not for Mizuno’s recent experiment, gamma fractionalization would likely continue to die a slow death, since Ni-H can be adequately explained without it. Until Mizuno, it was looking like deuterium could be on the way out too, but now it looks like only palladium is a goner. The November report cannot come fast enough. It makes no sense scientifically, or as a practical possibility to propose this kind of massive attenuation - unless you can demonstrate some small relic of the effect independently in the Lab. The primary problem is not just that the energy damping ratio is so extreme – 100 million to one; but also there is the 100% exclusivity. And equally important is the practical consideration. Why is there no proof of a valuable phenomenon which should be possible to demonstrate independently of cold fusion – if true. Once demonstrated, any kind of gamma shielding would be extraordinarily valuable since it would allow aircraft or even road vehicles to be powered with small fission reactors. However, despite the massive financial and military advantages, not a single experiment of the kind proposed to show gamma attenuation from deuterium loading has been reported to be successful. The lack of positive results speak for themselves, and the silence is deafening. From: Axil Axil Dear Jones, I have been trying to move you to the “Superabsorption” concept for the last year or two. I am pleased that you are getting nearer to appreciate Superabsorption of gamma radiation. Superabsorption is the reciprocal concept to Superradiance. You were kind enough to clue me onto the guy who merged superradiance into LENR. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuliano_Preparata Giuliano Preparata postulated that a condensate that was synchronized though a common EMF signal would demonstrate both superradiance and superabsorption.
Re: [Vo]:Gamma fractionalization and the DDL via Quantum dots
Rossi saw 512KeV gamma from positrons in his early reactors. He put this fact into his 2010 patent in reference to nickel to copper transmutation. On January the 14th 2011, Rossi and Focardi gave the first public demonstration of the low temperature E-Cat to a personally invited group. A short time afterwards, Francesco Celani, who was present at the demonstration, sent a review for the event to New Energy Times. *Francesco Celani record of first public E-Cat demonstration in New Energy Times http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/36/3623rf-celani.shtml* In this article, it is noted that Rossi and Focardi had a twin gamma ray detector set up in order to detect e+e- annihilation that was expected by Focardi based on previous experiments. The results from that set up were not meaningful during the guests time in the room. Bob Greenyer was keen to understand more about this event, so in the day following ICCF-18, he quizzed Francesco on the matter. Here is a fresh account of that event. Francesco was sitting down with other scientists and guests waiting to be called in for the demonstration, they were 7 – 8m away from E-Cat which was behind a door in another room. Francesco had 2 gamma detectors with him, 1 very cheap and 1 very expensive battery operated 1.25” NaI(TI) detection range of 25keV to 2000 keV. He notes that the background in Frascatti is normally around 120 because of local geology, but in Bologna it is 60, Francesco Celani set the detectors accordingly and the assembled group sat there patiently waiting. Suddenly and for about 1 second, both detectors topped out 1000+ counts PER SECOND and sounded their alarms (they could not show any more). Several of the invited observers considered literally running from the building as it was speculated that Rossi might be leveraging a radioactive source in his experiment. Why such concern? Well, radiation falls off according to Newtons 1/d^2 law as you can see *here. http://www.ndt-ed.org/GeneralResources/Formula/RTFormula/InverseSquare/InverseSquareLaw.htm* Plugging the minimum 1000 counts per second and 8 meters into the formula would mean that 50cm from the E-Cat, the counts would be over a quarter million per second - not good! However, luckily the momentary signal collapsed and about two minutes later, Rossi came into the waiting room to invite people in to see the E-cat saying “the reaction has started”. Francesco and the rest of the invited guests then went into the room where the E-Cat was. Whilst in that room and using the NaI(TI) near the operating reactor, there was a 50-100% count increase over background which was erratic. Francesco decided to try and get a spectra from the detector, in order to understand what might be going on and so he switched mode on the detector. Rossi however saw what he was doing, got upset and Celani was told to stop the measurements, which he did. In addition, Celani said that he noted a number of gas cylinders in the room – but that it would only be speculation to say what they were. If E-Cats do indeed produce high gamma busts prepping for 'switch on' or elevated emissions during operation, that might explain challenges in getting domestic certification and the determination to keep below a fixed cop and using staged cascades of small to big E-Cats to create larger effective COPs. Whatever happened that day, Francesco Celani started investigating surface modified transition metals with hydrogen the following month. On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 5:51 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Axil, Of all the wild possibilities that we consider on vortex – most of which are eventually rejected as impossible, gamma fractionalization still appears to me to be the least likely major holdover theory (from the cold fusion era) to be a physical reality in the NiH era. This is despite it being arguably more likely if there were a more energetic damping avenue to consider – such as DDL or even hydrinos. Were it not for Mizuno’s recent experiment, gamma fractionalization would likely continue to die a slow death, since Ni-H can be adequately explained without it. Until Mizuno, it was looking like deuterium could be on the way out too, but now it looks like only palladium is a goner. The November report cannot come fast enough. It makes no sense scientifically, or as a practical possibility to propose this kind of massive attenuation - unless you can demonstrate some small relic of the effect independently in the Lab. The primary problem is not just that the energy damping ratio is so extreme – 100 million to one; but also there is the 100% exclusivity. And equally important is the practical consideration. Why is there no proof of a valuable phenomenon which should be possible to demonstrate independently of cold fusion – if true. Once demonstrated, any kind of gamma shielding would be extraordinarily valuable since it would allow aircraft or even road vehicles to be powered with
Re: [Vo]:Gamma fractionalization and the DDL via Quantum dots
In reply to Bob Higgins's message of Mon, 29 Sep 2014 11:42:39 -0600: Hi, [snip] Jones, Isn't the problem with this scenario that the ground state H/D atom must GIVE UP energy to enter the DDL state. What you propose is that the H/D atoms could absorb the gamma emission from the transmutation and fractionate the photons to DDL energy chunks. For this to occur, the coupled atoms would already have to be in the DDL state and would then all jump back to the ground state after each absorbed a fraction of the nuclear emitted gamma. While this is not ruled out because it could occur via a coupled-state non-photonic exhange, you must explain how you have so many coupled DDL state atoms in place ready to receive and fractionate a gamma photo. AND how would the ensemble of atoms reset to a DDL state to be ready to absorb/fractionate the next gamma photon. At least in Hagelsteins's theory, the assemblage of coupled atoms is the condensed matter lattice with strong electronic coupling (though it is mostly nearest neighbor coupling). This coupled structure is there to begin with - it is not formed ad hoc just for fractionating. Bob Higgins Actually this may not be so far from the truth. Consider a situation where lots of Hydrinos/Deuterinos as forming and giving up energy as they do, resulting in a large population of shrunken atoms. If the occasional fusion reaction happens and the energy is used to inflate a few thousand of the millions of Hydrinos that are present, then no one would notice the fusion reaction. The only problem I have with this scenario is the time factor, i.e. the distance from the nuclear reaction to the Hydrinos, and the speed of light. IOW how would such a reaction be able to compete with gamma emission? I guess the answer depends on the gamma emission time. If it's order E-17 seconds, then light can travel about 3 nm in that time. So thousands of Hydrinos would need to be packed into a sphere with a radius of less than 3 nm. This doesn't seem very likely to me, unless they are magnetically bound together in a huge cluster (not impossible, the magnetic binding energy could be significant, and on the order of chemical binding energies). BTW IRH would also appear to fill the bill in this scenario. I have previously suggested that a dense cluster might also absorb the energy in the form of kinetic energy distributed among thousands of densely clustered atoms. It seems likely that both forms of energy absorption would play a role. This notion has one other point in it's favour:- The fusion reaction wouldn't happen in the first place unless the cluster is present (though a cluster of 2, would probably result in some detectable radiation). In this regard IRH *may* be more likely than Hydrino clusters. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
