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 <mailto:jone...@pacbell.net> 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 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. https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg104933.html With the bottom line being that we can plug Holmlid’s results directly, or as interpreted by others, as a fundamental insight into the dynamics of LENR going back to 1989… and it all makes more sense than before. This is especially true when the Letts/Cravens effect is added into the mix. And one irony is that neither Holmlid nor Letts/Cravens seems to have been aware of the importance of SPP, which is shaping up as the key dynamic. Jones
