The SPP's not only focus magnetic photons, it also focuses virtual photons.
Virtual photons create the magnetic field that define the rate of nuclear decay. Usually, the vacuum produces a fixed average rate of virtual photon production. So the rate of radioactive decay is stable. When the SPP focuses virtual photons into a small volume, the rate of radioactive decay increases a lot. This answers why there is no radioactive byproducts produced in LENR. The Rate of photon production is increased in the same way through focusing, so the chance that a meson is produced by magnetic interaction with the proton goes up a lot. The two photon reactions both real and virtual are directly proportional. So if radioactive half-life in reduced though virtual particle production, the rate(probability) of meson production is increased proportionally as demonstrated by the same concurrent photon focusing mechanism. There is always a chance that a meson is created from the vacuum. Magnetic focusing also increases the chance of seeing a whopper of a virtual energy increase in the proton so meson production goes way up too. This increased chance of a large virtual energy contribution per unit time also increases the chances for meson creation. On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 12:35 AM, Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com> wrote: > Axil: > > I enjoy seeing that reference and don't mind seeing it pointed out > multiple times. But I do not understand how it counteracts what Eric says > about muons. Can you please connect the dots? > > > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 9:13 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Repeated many times in previous posts and except in part here as follows: >> >> I have referenced papers here to show how the confinement of electrons >> actually SPPs on the surface of gold nanoparticles: a nanoplasmonic >> mechanism can change the half-life of U232 from 69 years to 6 >> microseconds. It also causes thorium to fission. >> >> >> >> See references: >> >> >> >> >> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1112.6276&ei=nI6UUeG1Fq-N0QGypIAg&usg=AFQjCNFB59F1wkDv-NzeYg5TpnyZV1kpKQ&sig2=fhdWJ_enNKlLA4HboFBTUA&bvm=bv.46471029,d.dmQ >> >> >> Nothing happens when there is only a laser used with NO nanoparticles, >> >> >> Using this nanoparticle method, I wonder if increased radioactive decay >> could be detected if simply caused initiated by a bright light source or a >> milliwatt laser pointer when that light energy is cataluzed to magnetic >> energy. >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:52 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/08/fundamental-causation-mechanisms-of-lenr.html >>>> >>>> What is the issues with this line of thinking as a source of muons? >>>> >>> >>> I am out of my element in this topic, but I will offer some feedback >>> nonetheless. First, I'm infinitely skeptical that any kind of fusion will >>> occur with virtual mesons, some of which decay to muons with "mostly" >>> virtual energy. For anything interesting to happen, I'm assuming you will >>> need real mesons and real muons. >>> >>> I understand that mesons can lead to nuclear reactions on their own. >>> But for the sake of thinking things through, we can ask how many muons >>> would be needed for 1 Watt power production (if only muons were catalyzing >>> nuclear reactions). Consider that a typical nickel proton capture reaction >>> will yield ~ 5 MeV. That means 1 Joule * s^-1 = 6.24e12 MeV * s^-1 = >>> 1.25e12 proton captures * s^-1. Using your number, a muon can catalyze 150 >>> reactions. Assuming this is the right order of magnitude not only for d+t >>> muon catalyzed fusion but also for proton capture in nickel, I think over >>> time that would average out to around 1.25e12 captures * s^-1 / (150 >>> captures * muon^-1) = 8.32e9 muons per second which would need to be >>> produced by the magnetic field. The muons will come about as a result of >>> pion decays, for which we will need 8.32e9 negative pions per second. >>> >>> The energy needed to produce a negative pion is ~ 140 MeV. Your >>> challenge, then, would seem to be to work out how strong a magnetic field >>> is needed to generate 8.32e9 pions per second along the Boltzmann tail >>> (assuming a Boltzmann distribution). Even if the energy needed for the >>> pion production is found in the long tail, I'm guessing the average energy >>> of the distribution will still be considerable at this rate of production. >>> I'm also skeptical that human beings have ever even created a magnetic >>> field that is strong enough to simply will negative pions from out of the >>> vasty deep. >>> >>> (If anyone spots a mistake in any of these calculations, please call it >>> out.) >>> >>> Note that a negative muon reacts with a proton to create a neutral pion >>> and a neutron. Note also that a proton capture in nickel is likely to >>> cause short-lived radioisotopes and energetic states in the daughter nuclei >>> which will need to decay somehow. This is likely to happen through beta >>> and beta plus decay, and there's likely to be annihilation photons. So if >>> this is what is going on it would seem to be inconsistent with your >>> assumption early in the article about radioactive byproducts: "The fact >>> that no radioactive isotopes are found in the ash of the cold fusion >>> reaction is unequivocal proof ...". >>> >>> Eric >>> >>> >> >
