Re: [Vo]:Spin amplification and nucleon disintegration

[Axil Axil]

More...

[image: Inline image 1]

[image: Inline image 2]

On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 9:48 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 9:11 PM,  wrote:
>
>> I
>> This implies
>> lots of neutrons, and lots of T neither of which are seen to any great
>> extent.
>>
>>  As you know, quarks are monopoles, Quarks make up protons. When a proton
> is exposed to a monopole magnetic field, it will decay.
>
>
> http://physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/EP/rubakov_rpp_51_189_88.pdf
>
> Monopole catalysis of proton decay
>
> Because Holmlid is seeing mesons, this a strong indicator that an Exotic
> Neutral Particle is producing a monopole field to disrupt protons.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Spin amplification and nucleon disintegration

[Axil Axil]

more...

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.1374.pdf

Monopole catalysis of proton decay

The possibility that a GUT monopole could catalyse a baryon number
violating process was suggested as early as 1980 [117]. The central core of
a GUT monopole retains the original symmetry and contains the fields of the
superheavy gauge bosons that mediate baryon number violation. Within this
core the forces of the universe are still indistinguishable from one
another and the quarks and their leptons are, in this domain, the same
particles. Thus, it is not unreasonable to expect that baryon number
conservation could be violated in baryon-monopole scattering. However, it
was originally thought that the cross section of this process would be of
the order of the tiny geometrical cross section of the monopole core (∼
10−58 cm2 ). Figure 1: A depiction of a proton decay into a positron and a
neutral pion catalysed by a GUT monopole. Later studies by Rubakov [118,
119] and Callan [120, 121] concluded that these processes are not
suppressed by powers of the gauge boson mass. Instead, catalysis processes
such as p + Monopole→e + + π 0 , pictured in Fig. 1, could have strong
interaction rates. An explanation for a potentially large monopole
catalysis cross section is the following. The monopole core should be
surrounded by a fermion-antifermion condensate. Some of the condensate will
have baryon number violating terms extending up to the confinement region.
The increase in size of this region gives rise to the essentially geometric
cross-section: σBβ ∼ 10−27 cm2 , where β = v/c. However, there are
theoretical uncertainties in this arena and it is not certain that strong
catalysis is a general feature of all GUT theories. It may be that
catalysis does occur but at considerably lower rates, as is discussed
elsewhere [122, 123]. For example, it has been proposed [123, 124] that the
monopole catalysis cross section could have a 1/β 2 -dependence: σ ∼ (1
GeV)−2/β2 , at least for sufficiently low monopole-proton relative
velocities. It should also be noted that intermediate mass monopoles
arising at later stages of symmetry breaking, such as the doubly charged
monopoles of the SO(10) theory, do not catalyse baryon number violation.

On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 9:53 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> More...
>
> [image: Inline image 1]
>
> [image: Inline image 2]
>
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 9:48 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 9:11 PM,  wrote:
>>
>>> I
>>> This implies
>>> lots of neutrons, and lots of T neither of which are seen to any great
>>> extent.
>>>
>>>  As you know, quarks are monopoles, Quarks make up protons. When a
>> proton is exposed to a monopole magnetic field, it will decay.
>>
>>
>> http://physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/EP/rubakov_rpp_51_189_88.pdf
>>
>> Monopole catalysis of proton decay
>>
>> Because Holmlid is seeing mesons, this a strong indicator that an Exotic
>> Neutral Particle is producing a monopole field to disrupt protons.
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Spin amplification and nucleon disintegration

[mixent]

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Mon, 30 Nov 2015 11:59:11 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
>As you may surmise, all of this comes back to an emerging premise for 
>understanding LENR based on Holmlid’s work. That premise is that at the very 
>heart of the reaction we find nucleon disintegration, first and foremost - 
>which is identified by a growing population of muons, which deposit some 
>excess energy but are also able to catalyze fusion, in the known way. 

Muon catalyzed DD fusion results in the standard branching ratios. This implies
lots of neutrons, and lots of T neither of which are seen to any great extent.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Spin amplification and nucleon disintegration

[Axil Axil]

On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 9:11 PM,  wrote:

> I
> This implies
> lots of neutrons, and lots of T neither of which are seen to any great
> extent.
>
>  As you know, quarks are monopoles, Quarks make up protons. When a proton
is exposed to a monopole magnetic field, it will decay.


http://physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/EP/rubakov_rpp_51_189_88.pdf

Monopole catalysis of proton decay

Because Holmlid is seeing mesons, this a strong indicator that an Exotic
Neutral Particle is producing a monopole field to disrupt protons.

Re: [Vo]:Spin amplification and nucleon disintegration

[Axil Axil]

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.1374.pdf
Non-collider searches for stable massive particles

*Abstract*
The theoretical motivation for exotic stable massive particles (SMPs) and
the results of SMP searches at non-collider facilities are reviewed. SMPs
are defined such that they would be sufficiently long-lived so as to still
exist in the cosmos either as Big Bang relics or secondary collision
products, and sufficiently massive such that they are typically beyond the
reach of any conceivable accelerator-based experiment. The discovery of
SMPs would address a number of important questions in modern physics, such
as the origin and composition of dark matter and the unification of the
fundamental forces. This review outlines the scenarios predicting SMPs and
the techniques used at non-collider experiments to look for SMPs in cosmic
rays and bound in matter. The limits so far obtained on the fluxes and
matter densities of SMPs which possess various detection-relevant
properties such as electric and magnetic charge are given.

Holmlid should read this paper. It shows what can produce pions without
using a collider.

It is my contention that Rydberg matter produces these exotic stable
massive particles (SMPs) as an nanometric topological antenna that receives
and stores EMF in the context of a bose condensate.

As you know, quarks are monopoles. Quarks make up protons. When a proton is
exposed to a monopole magnetic field, it will decay.

http://physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/EP/rubakov_rpp_51_189_88.pdf

Monopole catalysis of proton decay

Because Holmlid is seeing mesons, this a strong indicator that an Exotic
Neutral Particle is producing a monopole field to disrupt protons.





On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 10:52 PM,  wrote:

> In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Mon, 14 Dec 2015 21:48:30 -0500:
> Hi Axil,
> [snip]
>
> I wasn't arguing against the general idea, just pointing out that if muons
> are
> being produced, then they are not catalyzing many fusion reactions.
>
> >On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 9:11 PM,  wrote:
> >
> >> I
> >> This implies
> >> lots of neutrons, and lots of T neither of which are seen to any great
> >> extent.
> >>
> >>  As you know, quarks are monopoles, Quarks make up protons. When a
> proton
> >is exposed to a monopole magnetic field, it will decay.
> >
> >
> >
> http://physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/EP/rubakov_rpp_51_189_88.pdf
> >
> >Monopole catalysis of proton decay
> >
> >Because Holmlid is seeing mesons, this a strong indicator that an Exotic
> >Neutral Particle is producing a monopole field to disrupt protons.
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Spin amplification and nucleon disintegration

[mixent]

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Mon, 14 Dec 2015 21:48:30 -0500:
Hi Axil,
[snip]

I wasn't arguing against the general idea, just pointing out that if muons are
being produced, then they are not catalyzing many fusion reactions.

>On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 9:11 PM,  wrote:
>
>> I
>> This implies
>> lots of neutrons, and lots of T neither of which are seen to any great
>> extent.
>>
>>  As you know, quarks are monopoles, Quarks make up protons. When a proton
>is exposed to a monopole magnetic field, it will decay.
>
>
>http://physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/EP/rubakov_rpp_51_189_88.pdf
>
>Monopole catalysis of proton decay
>
>Because Holmlid is seeing mesons, this a strong indicator that an Exotic
>Neutral Particle is producing a monopole field to disrupt protons.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Spin amplification and nucleon disintegration

[Axil Axil]

It is uncertain to how large a magnetic effect that SPPs can produce. The
DGT reports from Dr. Kim indicate that the effect can be large,

*Magnetic monopole beam *

One of the amazing revelations that has come out of nanoplasmonic research
and experimentation is the explanation of how the “dark mode” polariton
soliton can produce a monopole magnetic beam. This amazing revelation is
not theory; it is based on experimental results. But there is a theoretical
explanation that goes along with the experimental data (10). The monopole
magnetic beam becomes pronounced at polariton soliton (PS) intermediate
energy levels since the Surface Plasmon Polariton (SPP) aligns all the
spins of the polaritons inside the soliton to project out of the soliton
from its center perpendicular to its direction of wave rotation.

The polariton has a spin of 2. The number of polaritons that can be
absorbed into the soliton is not limited by the Pauli exclusion principle.
There is even an experimental micrograph that shows the soliton and the
monopole beam coming out of it.



This beam can project out to 100 microns away from the soliton.



It is not only the spin of the polaritons that contribute to the power of
the monopole beam but it is also the angular momentum of polariton rotation
that multiplies the magnetic power of the beam. The vortex rotation rate
acts like a train of gears where the microparticle (large gear) drives the
angular momentum of the hydrogen Rydberg matter (small gear).



In the most dramatic case, the 100 micron particle transfers angular
momentum to a hydrogen Rydberg matter particle which is comprised of a
large number of graphite like layered hexagonal disk assemblages with a
diameter just a few atoms across.



Each atomic layer receives angular momentum from the vortex on the surface
of the micro particle and that vortex motion is transferred to the small
atomic hexagonal disks comprising the Rydberg matter. The spin multiplier
that comprises the monopole beam is proportional to the ratio between the
circumference of the 100 micron particle to the circumference of the
hydrogen Rydberg matter hexagonal disk.



The monopole magnetic beam is a primary mechanism of catalytic action in
LENR. The beam can reach out without being depleted and disrupt an
indeterminate number of atomic sites. The experiments of J,C.Fisher can be
explained by the action of this beam.

markfisher.net/johnfisher/papers/Bigshower.pdfEnergetic
 particle
shower in the vapor from electrolysis

This experiment informs us about the nature of the NAE. The experiment
related in this article uses CR-39 particle detectors to show the
production of energetic particles in the mobile NAE afloat in the vapor
above an electrolytic LENR cell. This NAE has become mobile after it has
become detached from its point of creation somewhere on the lattice of the
electrodes within the cell as it moves upward in the vapor produced by the
action of electrolysis and the heat that this electrode produces. This NAE
produces hundreds of thousands of charged particles as it floats upward out
of the cell. This reaction most probably produces alpha particles as the
NAE raises on the vapor currents upward out of the cell. The analysis in
the article finds that this NAE is a point source of these alpha particles
by correlating the angles of the pits produced by the charged particles as
the NAE rises. This behavior implies that the NAE supports a continuous and
long lasting LENR process that proceeds over a considerable duration of
time. This mobile type of NAE must decouple from its point of creation on
the lattice of the electrode and floats on air currents like a particle of
dust. The mesoscopic NAE must be massive in size to be so driven by
molecules of air and water vapor. In this experiment, the monopole beam
projects out of the center of the mobile soliton up to 100 microns as it
floats upward. The mobile SPP soliton can produce LENR reactions at a
distance or it can enter the CR-39 detector strips and initiate LENR
reactions inside the structure of the detectors as John Fisher has reported
in his experiments.

10 - Half-solitons in a polariton quantum fluid behave like magnetic
monopoles
arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1204/1204.3564.pdf

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> *From:* Axil Axil
>
> *http://physik.uni-graz.at/~dk-user/talks/Chernodub_25112013.pdf*
> 
>
> Ø   This article shows how a strong magnetic field destroys color in
> matter to produce mesons.
>
> Although this paper is about the extreme magnetic fields (10^15 T) of heavy
> ions in a very hot plasma, there could be relevance to what we are
> talking about in much colder conditions … surprisingly… this is because
> the orbital size of dense deuterium is reduced to a few picometers (2.3
> pm) according to Holmlid.
>

RE: [Vo]:Spin amplification and nucleon disintegration

[Jones Beene]

From: Axil Axil 

http://physik.uni-graz.at/~dk-user/talks/Chernodub_25112013.pdf

*   This article shows how a strong magnetic field destroys color in matter 
to produce mesons.

Although this paper is about the extreme magnetic fields (10^15 T) of heavy 
ions in a very hot plasma, there could be relevance to what we are talking 
about in much colder conditions … surprisingly… this is because the orbital 
size of dense deuterium is reduced to a few picometers (2.3 pm) according to 
Holmlid. 

We can assume that inverse square applies, no? At the Bohr radius (53 pm), the 
electron of a deuteron supplies a field of 12.5 Tesla. When the orbital is 
reduced by a factor of 24, this would put the effective field very high but 
less … but certainly QCD should be affected. There is even an argument that 
inverse square goes to inverse cube at picometers….

Re: [Vo]:Spin amplification and nucleon disintegration

[Axil Axil]

http://physik.uni-graz.at/~dk-user/talks/Chernodub_25112013.pdf

THis article shows how a strong magnetic field destroys color in matter to
produce mesons.

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 7:19 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:

> The same EM circular polarization Jones has described can also interact
> with orbital spin states of electrons in metal lattices and/or mere atoms.
> At resonant frequencies, disintegration of the lattice can occur and the
> excess angular momentum must be distributed in small quanta of H/2pi.  The
> same thing may happen when the nuclear spin states are excited with
> distribution of angular momentum to the lattice electrons.  Resonance may
> be the ticket to get the desired coupling.
>
> In addition the alignment of reactants in a magnetic field may act to
> change spin energy states to further facilitate coupling between the
> nucleus and the electronic structure.
>
> The neutrino would be a natural occurrence, given its spin quanta and
> variable energy configurations assuming it has mass.  LENR reactor designs
> may be nothing  more than providing an engineered system to allow the
> sharing of small spin quanta without the production of neutrinos (or in
> concert with their production) and production of phonons—enhanced orbital
> spin energy states.
>
> Jones, I remember the idea of spin disintegration from 50 years back and
> was under the impression it was a real reaction.  I assumed the technology
> became classified, since it disappeared from sight.
>
> The same thing happened when heavy water was brought to attention of the
> physics community in the mid 60’s.  That technology also disappeared from
> sight.  In hind sight it may have dealt with DDL hydrogen and reflects the
> Mill’s reactor’s technology.
>
> And I happen to believe that laser-induced fusion developed by a company
> out of Michigan in the mid to late 60’s had its technology classified.
> Classification is an inventor’s worst nightmare.
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
> *From:* Jones Beene 
> *Sent:* Monday, November 30, 2015 11:59 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* [Vo]:Spin amplification and nucleon disintegration
>
>
> Fifty years ago, there was a fair amount of scientific effort put into
> the study of “direct nucleon disintegration”. This process can be far
> more energetic in output than nuclear fusion, but ironically most of the
> energy is lost… in the sense of decay to neutrinos, which are weakly
> interacting. Perhaps that is why photonuclear disintegration was nearly
> abandoned. Fortunately, it is being revived now, in the context of LENR.
>
> One (expensive) way to accomplish the disintegration of hydrogen is via
> high velocity colliding ions, using a beam line; but a simpler and more
> interesting way is via what can be simplified as “spin disintegration.” There
> are several kinds of spin, and one of them is transferable (via laser) from
> photons to nucleons, even though there is a great disparity in wavelength
> vs the target diameter. The transferred energy derives from photon
> amplification and absorption and it can reach a critical threshold at a
> surprisingly low level. The devastation that follows from excess spin is
> similar to the centrifugal destruction of any high RPM object. Yet, here
> we see it at the tiniest scale. There is a merger of quantum and
> classical spin mediated by SPP, which requires more study.
>
> For the purposes of LENR, it will be proposed that an overlooked way that
> photons interact with nucleons is via depositing focused spin energy,
> leading to self-destruction. The spin angular momentum of light, or SAM - is
> associated with circular polarization. Circular polarization happens when
> electric and magnetic fields rotate around an axis during the propagation,
> such as in the SPP plasmon. Focusing occurs in what appears to be a
> vortex geometry.
>
> SAM is manifested as SPP which once absorbed beyond a critical level results
> in the internal disruption of QCD color exchange, allowing stable Efimov
> states in quarks to disassemble. In short, and in defense of Holmlid’s
> work – one part of the nuclear establishment has known for fifty years that
> there is an alternate route to vast amounts of energy without fusion of 
> nucleons,
> by facilitating nucleons degeneration via spin interference with QCD.
>
> Laser emissions are not inherently circularly polarized. Holmlid may have
> overlooked the importance of polarization (or maybe this is a trade
> secret of his). Since he has been successful, apparently without using
> polarization, then there appears to be an easy route to improvement or
> else it is inherent to SPP. Below are a few examples of the old ideas on
> using photon spin for nucleon disintegration. Dozens of further citations
> have not yet made their way into the digital world.
>
> Was this kind of thinking “dated” or was it ahead-of- its-time?
>
> 

Re: [Vo]:Spin amplification and nucleon disintegration

[Bob Cook]

Spin amplification and nucleon disintegrationThe same EM circular polarization 
Jones has described can also interact with orbital spin states of electrons in 
metal lattices and/or mere atoms.  At resonant frequencies, disintegration of 
the lattice can occur and the excess angular momentum must be distributed in 
small quanta of H/2pi.  The same thing may happen when the nuclear spin states 
are excited with distribution of angular momentum to the lattice electrons.  
Resonance may be the ticket to get the desired coupling.

In addition the alignment of reactants in a magnetic field may act to change 
spin energy states to further facilitate coupling between the nucleus and the 
electronic structure. 

The neutrino would be a natural occurrence, given its spin quanta and variable 
energy configurations assuming it has mass.  LENR reactor designs  may be 
nothing  more than providing an engineered system to allow the sharing of small 
spin quanta without the production of neutrinos (or in concert with their 
production) and production of phonons—enhanced orbital spin energy states.  

Jones, I remember the idea of spin disintegration from 50 years back and was 
under the impression it was a real reaction.  I assumed the technology became 
classified, since it disappeared from sight.  

The same thing happened when heavy water was brought to attention of the 
physics community in the mid 60’s.  That technology also disappeared from 
sight.  In hind sight it may have dealt with DDL hydrogen and reflects the 
Mill’s reactor’s technology.   

And I happen to believe that laser-induced fusion developed by a company out of 
Michigan in the mid to late 60’s had its technology classified.  Classification 
is an inventor’s worst nightmare.   

Bob Cook

  
From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 11:59 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: [Vo]:Spin amplification and nucleon disintegration

Fifty years ago, there was a fair amount of scientific effort put into the 
study of “direct nucleon disintegration”. This process can be far more 
energetic in output than nuclear fusion, but ironically most of the energy is 
lost… in the sense of decay to neutrinos, which are weakly interacting. Perhaps 
that is why photonuclear disintegration was nearly abandoned. Fortunately, it 
is being revived now, in the context of LENR.

One (expensive) way to accomplish the disintegration of hydrogen is via high 
velocity colliding ions, using a beam line; but a simpler and more interesting 
way is via what can be simplified as “spin disintegration.” There are several 
kinds of spin, and one of them is transferable (via laser) from photons to 
nucleons, even though there is a great disparity in wavelength vs the target 
diameter. The transferred energy derives from photon amplification and 
absorption and it can reach a critical threshold at a surprisingly low level. 
The devastation that follows from excess spin is similar to the centrifugal 
destruction of any high RPM object. Yet, here we see it at the tiniest scale. 
There is a merger of quantum and classical spin mediated by SPP, which requires 
more study.

For the purposes of LENR, it will be proposed that an overlooked way that 
photons interact with nucleons is via depositing focused spin energy, leading 
to self-destruction. The spin angular momentum of light, or SAM - is associated 
with circular polarization. Circular polarization happens when electric and 
magnetic fields rotate around an axis during the propagation, such as in the 
SPP plasmon. Focusing occurs in what appears to be a vortex geometry.

SAM is manifested as SPP which once absorbed beyond a critical level results in 
the internal disruption of QCD color exchange, allowing stable Efimov states in 
quarks to disassemble. In short, and in defense of Holmlid’s work – one part of 
the nuclear establishment has known for fifty years that there is an alternate 
route to vast amounts of energy without fusion of nucleons, by facilitating 
nucleons degeneration via spin interference with QCD.

Laser emissions are not inherently circularly polarized. Holmlid may have 
overlooked the importance of polarization (or maybe this is a trade secret of 
his). Since he has been successful, apparently without using polarization, then 
there appears to be an easy route to improvement or else it is inherent to SPP. 
Below are a few examples of the old ideas on using photon spin for nucleon 
disintegration. Dozens of further citations have not yet made their way into 
the digital world. 

Was this kind of thinking “dated” or was it ahead-of- its-time?


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0029558261903534

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0370269377900090


https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:7250209


As you may surmise, all of this comes back to an emerging premise for 
understanding LENR based on Holmlid’s work. That premise is that at the very 
heart of the reaction we find 

RE: [Vo]:Spin amplification and nucleon disintegration

[Jones Beene]

Bob,

It would be interesting to get info on that Michigan company.

Side Note: There is a little known “Law of Conservation of Nuclear Number”. 
This law states that the sum of protons and neutrons before and after a 
radioactive decay reaction will be the same. It has been stretched to include 
nuclear fusion and fission. In all of these, there is conversion of matter to 
energy but the matter that is converted is never a full nucleon.

Nucleon disintegration is different. It is neither fusion nor fission nor 
radioactive decay. It is incorrect to label it as anything else. Thus, the Law 
of Conservation of Nuclear Number does not apply to nucleon disintegration, as 
we have known since the 1930s. 

From: Bob Cook 

The same EM circular polarization Jones has described can also interact with 
orbital spin states of electrons in metal lattices and/or mere atoms.  At 
resonant frequencies, disintegration of the lattice can occur and the excess 
angular momentum must be distributed in small quanta of H/2pi.  The same thing 
may happen when the nuclear spin states are excited with distribution of 
angular momentum to the lattice electrons.  Resonance may be the ticket to get 
the desired coupling.
 
In addition the alignment of reactants in a magnetic field may act to change 
spin energy states to further facilitate coupling between the nucleus and the 
electronic structure. 
 
The neutrino would be a natural occurrence, given its spin quanta and variable 
energy configurations assuming it has mass.  LENR reactor designs  may be 
nothing  more than providing an engineered system to allow the sharing of small 
spin quanta without the production of neutrinos (or in concert with their 
production) and production of phonons—enhanced orbital spin energy states.  
 
Jones, I remember the idea of spin disintegration from 50 years back and was 
under the impression it was a real reaction.  I assumed the technology became 
classified, since it disappeared from sight.  
 
The same thing happened when heavy water was brought to attention of the 
physics community in the mid 60’s.  That technology also disappeared from 
sight.  In hind sight it may have dealt with DDL hydrogen and reflects the 
Mill’s reactor’s technology.   
 
And I happen to believe that laser-induced fusion developed by a company out of 
Michigan in the mid to late 60’s had its technology classified.  Classification 
is an inventor’s worst nightmare.   
 
Bob Cook
 
  
From: Jones Beene    
Fifty years ago, there was a fair amount of scientific effort put into the 
study of “direct nucleon disintegration”. This process can be far more 
energetic in output than nuclear fusion, but ironically most of the energy is 
lost… in the sense of decay to neutrinos, which are weakly interacting. Perhaps 
that is why photonuclear disintegration was nearly abandoned. Fortunately, it 
is being revived now, in the context of LENR.
One (expensive) way to accomplish the disintegration of hydrogen is via high 
velocity colliding ions, using a beam line; but a simpler and more interesting 
way is via what can be simplified as “spin disintegration.” There are several 
kinds of spin, and one of them is transferable (via laser) from photons to 
nucleons, even though there is a great disparity in wavelength vs the target 
diameter. The transferred energy derives from photon amplification and 
absorption and it can reach a critical threshold at a surprisingly low level. 
The devastation that follows from excess spin is similar to the centrifugal 
destruction of any high RPM object. Yet, here we see it at the tiniest scale. 
There is a merger of quantum and classical spin mediated by SPP, which requires 
more study.
For the purposes of LENR, it will be proposed that an overlooked way that 
photons interact with nucleons is via depositing focused spin energy, leading 
to self-destruction. The spin angular momentum of light, or SAM - is associated 
with circular polarization. Circular polarization happens when electric and 
magnetic fields rotate around an axis during the propagation, such as in the 
SPP plasmon. Focusing occurs in what appears to be a vortex geometry.
SAM is manifested as SPP which once absorbed beyond a critical level results in 
the internal disruption of QCD color exchange, allowing stable Efimov states in 
quarks to disassemble. In short, and in defense of Holmlid’s work – one part of 
the nuclear establishment has known for fifty years that there is an alternate 
route to vast amounts of energy without fusion of nucleons, by facilitating 
nucleons degeneration via spin interference with QCD.
Laser emissions are not inherently circularly polarized. Holmlid may have 
overlooked the importance of polarization (or maybe this is a trade secret of 
his). Since he has been successful, apparently without using polarization, then 
there appears to be an easy route to improvement or else it is inherent to SPP. 
Below are a few examples 

Re: [Vo]:Spin amplification and nucleon disintegration

[Axil Axil]

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0801/0801.2752.pdf

Here is the math support for the “Mössbauer Effect”. It shows that a
monopole magnetic field is the most sensitive element to the Mössbauer
effect.

>From the Urutskoiev exploding titanium foil experiment experiment

4) Various difficulties of interpretation gradually led Urutskoiev and his
research team to the conclusion that magnetic poles could be a possible
source of the strange radiation effects they had observed. They became
aware of the present author’s work and a fruitful collaboration has been
initiated.

>From the very beginning, an important experiment was realized by Urutskoiev
and Ivoilov [54], using the fact that 57Fe is at the same time magnetic and
the most sensitive element to the Mössbauer effect. They irradiated, at
some meters from the source of the supposed monopoles, a sample of 57Fe .
Behind the iron sample was one pole of a long linear magnet, in order to
repel the monopoles of the same sign and attract the monopoles of the
opposite sign. Owing to the Mössbauer effect, they found a distinct shift
of a characteristic γ ray.

They repeated the experiment with the other pole of the magnet behind the
iron sample and, with the same exposure they found a γ ray shift in the
opposite direction [54].

One can make two remarks about this experiment :

 a) This is one of the most brilliant proof of monopole magnetism. But
there are others : for instance, the fact that Ivoilov focused a monopole
beam with an electromagnet.

b) If the 57Fe target sample used in the Mössbauer experiment is abandoned
for three days, the preceding characteristic γ ray spectrum goes back to
its mean normal position. This half-life effect seems to hold for all the
effects of magnetism induced by monopoles: they seem to have a limited time
of life (not predicted by theory). But other effects, such isotopic shifts
are definitive.


>From this experimental result, the half life of SPP monopole magnetism is
three days.

54. N. Ivoilov & L. Urutskoiev, The influence of « strange » radiation on
Mössbauer spectrum of F57 in metallic foils, Rus. Applied Physics, N° 5,
2004 (in Russian).

http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-297/aflb297m331.pdf



On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 9:50 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> It is uncertain to how large a magnetic effect that SPPs can produce. The
> DGT reports from Dr. Kim indicate that the effect can be large,
>
> *Magnetic monopole beam *
>
> One of the amazing revelations that has come out of nanoplasmonic research
> and experimentation is the explanation of how the “dark mode” polariton
> soliton can produce a monopole magnetic beam. This amazing revelation is
> not theory; it is based on experimental results. But there is a theoretical
> explanation that goes along with the experimental data (10). The monopole
> magnetic beam becomes pronounced at polariton soliton (PS) intermediate
> energy levels since the Surface Plasmon Polariton (SPP) aligns all the
> spins of the polaritons inside the soliton to project out of the soliton
> from its center perpendicular to its direction of wave rotation.
>
> The polariton has a spin of 2. The number of polaritons that can be
> absorbed into the soliton is not limited by the Pauli exclusion principle.
> There is even an experimental micrograph that shows the soliton and the
> monopole beam coming out of it.
>
>
>
> This beam can project out to 100 microns away from the soliton.
>
>
>
> It is not only the spin of the polaritons that contribute to the power of
> the monopole beam but it is also the angular momentum of polariton rotation
> that multiplies the magnetic power of the beam. The vortex rotation rate
> acts like a train of gears where the microparticle (large gear) drives the
> angular momentum of the hydrogen Rydberg matter (small gear).
>
>
>
> In the most dramatic case, the 100 micron particle transfers angular
> momentum to a hydrogen Rydberg matter particle which is comprised of a
> large number of graphite like layered hexagonal disk assemblages with a
> diameter just a few atoms across.
>
>
>
> Each atomic layer receives angular momentum from the vortex on the surface
> of the micro particle and that vortex motion is transferred to the small
> atomic hexagonal disks comprising the Rydberg matter. The spin multiplier
> that comprises the monopole beam is proportional to the ratio between the
> circumference of the 100 micron particle to the circumference of the
> hydrogen Rydberg matter hexagonal disk.
>
>
>
> The monopole magnetic beam is a primary mechanism of catalytic action in
> LENR. The beam can reach out without being depleted and disrupt an
> indeterminate number of atomic sites. The experiments of J,C.Fisher can be
> explained by the action of this beam.
>
> markfisher.net/johnfisher/papers/Bigshower.pdfEnergetic
>  particle
> shower in the vapor from electrolysis
>
> This experiment informs us about