*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 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 > > >
