Axil, Kevin, I know little about mesons but I agree with your assessments below regarding virtual photons defining nuclear decay. I am still convinced this is a relativistic effect where these virtual photons/vacuum pressure actually define C for physical matter trapped in a 3D plane. That is to say the radioactive particle actually experiences a normal decay rate from it’s own local perspective. I would however elaborate that when you focus virtual photons into a “small volume” that volume must contain nano geometry which is already restricting larger virtual particle/vacuum wavelengths so that you have some level of containment to amplify… Kevins’ point about the laser needing nano particles or nothing happens is well taken and I further like his suggestion regarding lesser levels of light energy coupled with magnetic energy focused on this “small volume” of NAE. I might prefer equal measures of laser and magnetic while also shotgunning spark gap PWM and shutting down thermal filaments used to bring the material initially to temp. Fran
From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 1:08 AM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:LENR <-> dark mater <-> DDL connection-- 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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com>> wrote: On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com<mailto: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
