Re: [Vo]:LENR on the sun
Sunspots, the source of solar flares are produced by plasma vortexes, or more apply plasma hurricanes that actually disrupt the convection of energy carrying photons from the sun's core deeper in the sun. Sunspots are temporary phenomena on the surface of the Photosphere that appear as dark spots compared to the surrounding regions. They are caused by intense magnetic activity, which inhibits convection, forming areas of lower surface temperatures. If a Sunspot were isolated from its surrounding Photosphere, it would be brighter than an electric arc. Sunspots expand and contract as they move across the surface of the sun. They can be as large as 50,000 miles in diameter making the larger ones visible from Earth. In more detail, it is now believed that the twisting magnetic action in the plasma Convection Zone just below the sun's surface causes sunspots to form, flares, etc. to form, and the sun's magnetic field to reverse itself every 22 years. (The earth's magnetic field also reverses itself, but only about once every million years. If the sunspot was a significant source of nuclear activity at the surface of the sun, the spots would be brighter than the surrounding surface area. The case for nuclear production inside the vortex during its formation might be carried by the fact that neutrinos begin to increase some 36 hours before the solar flare erupts. Purdue nuclear engineer Jere Jenkins, while measuring the decay rate of manganese-54, a short-lived isotope used in medical diagnostics, noticed that the rate dropped slightly during the flare, a decrease that started about a day and a half before the flare. The assumption is that the increase in neutrino production and associated nuclear activity decreases the rate of radioactive decay. Flares are formed when intense magnetic fields from below the sun's surface link up with magnetic fields in the outer Corona in a process called Magnetic Reconnection. Flares are powered by the sudden release of magnetic energy stored in the sun's Corona. The same energy release may also produce a Coronal Mass Ejection (CME), but not always. And, sometimes CMEs form without Flares. The connection between Flares and CMEs is not well understood. Magnetic Reconnection is a physical process in highly conductive plasmas where magnetic fields clash, re-configure themselves into a lower energy level, and the excess magnetic energy is then converted into kinetic and thermal energy. Big Flares are equivalent to billions of megatons of TNT exploding within a few seconds. A big flare can produce one sixth of the total energy output of the sum localized at a small spot on the sun. Billions of tons of electrons, protons, and other particles that are accelerated by Magnetic Reconnection in a Flare approach the speed of light. It is still not possible to predict when a CME or Flare will erupt because the trigger mechanism isn't known. It might be that the flare and the CME occur at a later stage of the magnetic field formation process. Nuclear reactions caused by the magnetic mechanisms inside the sunspot gradually increase over days before a flare occurs. Strangely, the video from Purdue referenced below shows that there is a precise relationship between the total production of EMF in the sun and the radioactive decay rate seen on earth at about 26 minutes into the video. IMHO, this is an alternative causation posit to the neutrino causation posit. Whatever it is, this effect goes as the inverse square of the distance from the sun. When the experiments at the earthbound source of neutrinos are conclusively tested at a nuclear reactor, and no effect on isotope decay rates are bot seen, then EMF production from the sun will remain as the probable source of this effect. And this effect must be a magnetically based LENR effect if the reaction is happening locally here on earth. E. Fischbach, New Evidence for a Solar Influence on Nuclear Decay Rates https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzOOkR3a4vM On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 11:23 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sat, 19 Apr 2014 20:01:26 -0400: Hi, [snip] Sunspots must be producing neutrinos as a result of magnetically induced nuclear reactions, since radioactive decay is affected by sunspots. I suspect you are right about nuclear reactions in sunspots, however I don't think you have shown that they are necessarily magnetically induced. (Though they may be.) The strong magnetic fields that accompany sunspots may be a consequence of the nuclear reactions, rather than the cause. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
[Vo]:Positronium Hydride, PSMA and spillover hydrogen
Positronium hydride (PsH) is a normally rare molecule consisting of one proton, two electrons, and one positron. The binding energy is 1.1 eV. The lifetime of the molecule is 0.65 nanoseconds in 3-space. Positronium deuteride also has the same lifetime in 3-space. In 1-space, things can be different. When protons are adsorbed into a surface layer as spillover the geometry can sometimes approach one dimension. In that case PsH may not be so rare, and the 1.1 eV gain could be the expected result as Ps returns to 1-space. Activated carbon is known to adsorb hydrogen in this way, as is nickel and palladium. The decay of positronium is normally detected by the two gamma ray photons of 511 keV of energy. Even when gamma photons are not seen or rarely seen, the binding energy of PsH could be available in 3-space, and the decay energy (of the gamma) stays in the vacuum as negative energy. The structure of PsH is normally a comparatively large diatomic molecule, with a radius of many angstroms. However, a DDL version of PsH should be available whenever protons are adsorbed into a spillover, catalyst like nickel. Essentially this is what is known as IRH or inverted Rydberg hydrogen. Jones Addendum: Portal site mediated adsorption is a model for site-selective activated gas adsorption in metallic or metallic-dielectric catalytic systems. In such systems, geometry- in the form of edge and corner sites can exhibit significantly lower adsorption enthalpies. A common defect site which facilitates proton adsorption is found in carbon. These geometric sites can serve as portals for very rapid proton adsorption into metals. The phenomenon is part of the larger spillover effect. The PSMA model explains seemingly inconsistent observations of gas adsorption thermodynamics and kinetics in catalytic systems, and it has been successfully applied to bimetallic catalytic systems where synergistic activity is observed. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC Portland wastes millions of gallons of water for no reason
The dream state is cognition deprived of kinesthetic and visual sensory inputs -- inputs which are imputed via confabulation. Other sensory inputs are still available and that is why you will frequently wake up to a sound which you were incorporating into your dream in some way. The urge to urinate is, like the sound that wakes you, sensory input that is available to your dreams. Dream interpretation like that which we read from H Veeder is, shall we say, exaggerated. On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 11:34 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: from http://dreammoods.com/cgibin/dreamdictionarysearch.pl?method=exactheader=dreamsymbolsearch=urination *Urination * To see urine in your dream represents the feelings you have rejected. Alternatively, the dream may be a pun on your pissy attitude. To dream that you are urinating symbolizes a cleansing and a release of negative or repressed emotions. Depending on your dream context, urination is symbolic of having or lacking basic control of your life. You are literally pissed off and not expressing yourself in a positive or constructive manner. To dream that you are urinating in public symbolizes a lack of privacy in some personal matter. Alternatively, the dream means that you are trying to establish your boundary and mark your territory. To dream that someone is urinating on you means that you are feeling the emotional burden of this person. They are dumping all their feelings on you. Alternatively, the dream symbolizes your lacking sense of self-worth. If you dream that you accidentally urinated on yourself or wet your pants, then it implies that you are on the verge of an emotional outburst. You are desperate to release all the feelings that you have kept bottled up inside of you. harry On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: A recent news item: http://time.com/66459/portland-reservoir-pee/ Portland Dumps 38 Million Gallons of Water After Man Pees in Reservoir April 17, 2014 The city plans to dump 38 million gallons of water after authorities say a 19-year-old urinated in a large, uncovered reservoir during an early morning jaunt with two other friends, even though the contamination likely poses little risk . . . Little risk is incorrect. This poses absolutely no risk. Birds and other animals defecate into reservoirs at a far higher rate than this. This is an example of the kind of unscientific thinking that has dogged society in recent years. I say it is OFF TOPIC in the title, but it is actually somewhat on topic. Some of the resistance to cold fusion comes from this kind of anti-science attitude. Here is a comment about this I wrote on Slate: This is an example of unscientific, irrational thinking. This is same kind of nonsense that causes people to doubt the efficacy of vaccinations. The city of Portland should resist doing this because it is not scientific and there is absolutely no technical or medical justification for it. Officials who understand science should not give in to mass hysteria based on ignorance. That is a dangerous thing to do. In this case it merely wastes water, energy and money. In other cases it may endanger the public. Irrational fears cause decision makers to put far too much emphasis on some preventive measures, which means they do not have the resources to deal with other measures that would do more good. - Jed
[Vo]:Giordano Bruno was only burned as icon, and rather imprisoned...
About mediatic and academic myth, similar to cold fusion , I fall on 3 possible challenge to our beliefs the first one is really surprising, but they seems documented it is in French http://bibliothequedecombat.wordpress.com/2013/05/16/la-legende-de-giordano-bruno-une-escroquerie-anti-catholique/ http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=ensl=autotl=enu=http%3A%2F%2Fbibliothequedecombat.wordpress.com%2F2013%2F05%2F16%2Fla-legende-de-giordano-bruno-une-escroquerie-anti-catholique%2Fsandbox=1 Basically they says that the declaration that Bruuno was burned alive is based on a dubious document, and that it seems only his icon was burned and he was rather imprisoned. I'm not sure of that claims, as it is an activist source, but I won't be surprised of such manipulation as I know a dozen of others of that kind. beside that I've found an article that confirm the fact that during Middleage people were believing in round earth... http://bibliothequedecombat.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/le-moyen-age-na-jamais-cru-que-la-terre-etait-plate/ http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=ensl=autotl=enu=http%3A%2F%2Fbibliothequedecombat.wordpress.com%2F2013%2F07%2F12%2Fle-moyen-age-na-jamais-cru-que-la-terre-etait-plate%2Fsandbox=1 this comment describe the real story of Galileo, who tried to screw the pope for a publication, after asking for imprimatur and giving a different version of the paper for printing... He was never imprisoned in fact. http://bibliothequedecombat.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/le-moyen-age-na-jamais-cru-que-la-terre-etait-plate/#comment-2442 too bad those articles are in french, but maybe people here know equivalent sources. It seems that in the 19th century many authors manipulated history to attack Church and the opponents of their time... I know similar manipulation about inquisition, with huge exaggeration and much lack of understanding of the practice of the time. all that make me think about the Titanic paper of Jed http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusion.pdf#page=4 it seems to be a rule.
Re: [Vo]:Giordano Bruno was only burned as icon, and rather imprisoned...
I just found that version of the history of Bruno : - he was burned - but for serious herezy, telling god was rather a magician... http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03016a.htm the manipulation of history is confirmed, but the question is how far. the previous authors deny the presence of confirmed evidence of his burning, saying he was rather jailed. 2014-04-20 19:34 GMT+02:00 Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com: About mediatic and academic myth, similar to cold fusion , I fall on 3 possible challenge to our beliefs the first one is really surprising, but they seems documented it is in French http://bibliothequedecombat.wordpress.com/2013/05/16/la-legende-de-giordano-bruno-une-escroquerie-anti-catholique/ http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=ensl=autotl=enu=http%3A%2F%2Fbibliothequedecombat.wordpress.com%2F2013%2F05%2F16%2Fla-legende-de-giordano-bruno-une-escroquerie-anti-catholique%2Fsandbox=1 Basically they says that the declaration that Bruuno was burned alive is based on a dubious document, and that it seems only his icon was burned and he was rather imprisoned. I'm not sure of that claims, as it is an activist source, but I won't be surprised of such manipulation as I know a dozen of others of that kind. beside that I've found an article that confirm the fact that during Middleage people were believing in round earth... http://bibliothequedecombat.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/le-moyen-age-na-jamais-cru-que-la-terre-etait-plate/ http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=ensl=autotl=enu=http%3A%2F%2Fbibliothequedecombat.wordpress.com%2F2013%2F07%2F12%2Fle-moyen-age-na-jamais-cru-que-la-terre-etait-plate%2Fsandbox=1 this comment describe the real story of Galileo, who tried to screw the pope for a publication, after asking for imprimatur and giving a different version of the paper for printing... He was never imprisoned in fact. http://bibliothequedecombat.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/le-moyen-age-na-jamais-cru-que-la-terre-etait-plate/#comment-2442 too bad those articles are in french, but maybe people here know equivalent sources. It seems that in the 19th century many authors manipulated history to attack Church and the opponents of their time... I know similar manipulation about inquisition, with huge exaggeration and much lack of understanding of the practice of the time. all that make me think about the Titanic paper of Jed http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusion.pdf#page=4 it seems to be a rule.
Re: [Vo]:Giordano Bruno was only burned as icon, and rather imprisoned...
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 1:41 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: I just found that version of the history of Bruno : - he was burned - but for serious herezy, telling god was rather a magician... http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03016a.htm Excerpt: God and the world are one; matter and spirit, body and soul, are two phases of the same substance; the universe is infinite; beyond the visible world there is an infinity of other worlds, each of which is inhabited; this terrestrial globe has a soul; in fact, each and every part of it, mineral as well as plant and animal, is animated; all matter is made up of the same elements (no distinction between terrestrial and celestial matter); all souls are akin (transmigration is, therefore, not impossible). end Not unlike current scientific debate: https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/5e7ed624986d http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=450560
Re: [Vo]:Rossi long term test -- end June?
* Andrea Rossi April 19th, 2014 at 6:14 PM Frank Acland: It is absolutely sure that the report will be published, whatever the results, positive or negative as they might be. This is the imposition given to us from the Third Indipendent Party Professors as a condition to accept to make the test. They demanded that they will publish the results inconditionally, even if the results will be negative. What said above is granted. What follows is an opinion of mine, that could be wrong: the report should be published by the end of June. My opinion is based upon the fact that yesterday I have talked with two of the Commettee members and they said that possibly the publication could be made by the end of June. I did not get any anticipation regarding the calculation of the efficiency, while they repeated to me that to analyse millions of data takes time. Warm Regards, A.R.
Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC Portland wastes millions of gallons of water for no reason
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 11:57 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: The dream state is cognition deprived of kinesthetic and visual sensory inputs -- inputs which are imputed via confabulation. Other sensory inputs are still available and that is why you will frequently wake up to a sound which you were incorporating into your dream in some way. The urge to urinate is, like the sound that wakes you, sensory input that is available to your dreams. Dream interpretation like that which we read from H Veeder is, shall we say, exaggerated. True, but the act of urinating into a communal reservoir as well as the reaction could both have symbolic overtones similar to those found in dream interpretation. Harry On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 11:34 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: from http://dreammoods.com/cgibin/dreamdictionarysearch.pl?method=exactheader=dreamsymbolsearch=urination *Urination * To see urine in your dream represents the feelings you have rejected. Alternatively, the dream may be a pun on your pissy attitude. To dream that you are urinating symbolizes a cleansing and a release of negative or repressed emotions. Depending on your dream context, urination is symbolic of having or lacking basic control of your life. You are literally pissed off and not expressing yourself in a positive or constructive manner. To dream that you are urinating in public symbolizes a lack of privacy in some personal matter. Alternatively, the dream means that you are trying to establish your boundary and mark your territory. To dream that someone is urinating on you means that you are feeling the emotional burden of this person. They are dumping all their feelings on you. Alternatively, the dream symbolizes your lacking sense of self-worth. If you dream that you accidentally urinated on yourself or wet your pants, then it implies that you are on the verge of an emotional outburst. You are desperate to release all the feelings that you have kept bottled up inside of you. harry On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: A recent news item: http://time.com/66459/portland-reservoir-pee/ Portland Dumps 38 Million Gallons of Water After Man Pees in Reservoir April 17, 2014 The city plans to dump 38 million gallons of water after authorities say a 19-year-old urinated in a large, uncovered reservoir during an early morning jaunt with two other friends, even though the contamination likely poses little risk . . . Little risk is incorrect. This poses absolutely no risk. Birds and other animals defecate into reservoirs at a far higher rate than this. This is an example of the kind of unscientific thinking that has dogged society in recent years. I say it is OFF TOPIC in the title, but it is actually somewhat on topic. Some of the resistance to cold fusion comes from this kind of anti-science attitude. Here is a comment about this I wrote on Slate: This is an example of unscientific, irrational thinking. This is same kind of nonsense that causes people to doubt the efficacy of vaccinations. The city of Portland should resist doing this because it is not scientific and there is absolutely no technical or medical justification for it. Officials who understand science should not give in to mass hysteria based on ignorance. That is a dangerous thing to do. In this case it merely wastes water, energy and money. In other cases it may endanger the public. Irrational fears cause decision makers to put far too much emphasis on some preventive measures, which means they do not have the resources to deal with other measures that would do more good. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC Portland wastes millions of gallons of water for no reason
http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/04/draining-reservoir-after-urination-incident-shows-tenuous-grasp-of-science/ In an interviewhttp://www.vocativ.com/tech/internet/portlands-teen-urinator-speaks-whiz-seen-round-world/with Vocativ, the teenager in question, Dallas Swonger, denied urinating in the reservoir at all, stating he actually hit a wall instead. I leaned up against the wall and pissed on it, Swonger said. Swonger also contested the cleanliness of the reservoir prior to his actions: I’ve seen dead birds in there. During the summer time I’ve see hella dead animals in there, Swonger told Vocativ. In 2011, Shaff told the *Mercury* that the reservoir is not shut down for nature's transgressions. If we did that, we'd be shutting it off all the time. We fish out animals or things that have blown in all the time, Shaff said. The reservoir will reportedly cost $35,000 to clean and had just had one of its twice-yearly cleanings three weeks ago. On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: A recent news item: http://time.com/66459/portland-reservoir-pee/ Portland Dumps 38 Million Gallons of Water After Man Pees in Reservoir April 17, 2014 The city plans to dump 38 million gallons of water after authorities say a 19-year-old urinated in a large, uncovered reservoir during an early morning jaunt with two other friends, even though the contamination likely poses little risk . . . Little risk is incorrect. This poses absolutely no risk. Birds and other animals defecate into reservoirs at a far higher rate than this. This is an example of the kind of unscientific thinking that has dogged society in recent years. I say it is OFF TOPIC in the title, but it is actually somewhat on topic. Some of the resistance to cold fusion comes from this kind of anti-science attitude. Here is a comment about this I wrote on Slate: This is an example of unscientific, irrational thinking. This is same kind of nonsense that causes people to doubt the efficacy of vaccinations. The city of Portland should resist doing this because it is not scientific and there is absolutely no technical or medical justification for it. Officials who understand science should not give in to mass hysteria based on ignorance. That is a dangerous thing to do. In this case it merely wastes water, energy and money. In other cases it may endanger the public. Irrational fears cause decision makers to put far too much emphasis on some preventive measures, which means they do not have the resources to deal with other measures that would do more good. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:LENR on the sun
The strong magnetic fields that accompany sunspots may be a consequence of the nuclear reactions, rather than the cause. Or it could be that the two work together in a positive feedback fashion leading to large magnetic field lines and increased nuclear reactions. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Apr 19, 2014 11:23 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR on the sun In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sat, 19 Apr 2014 20:01:26 -0400: Hi, [snip] Sunspots must be producing neutrinos as a result of magnetically induced nuclear reactions, since radioactive decay is affected by sunspots. I suspect you are right about nuclear reactions in sunspots, however I don't think you have shown that they are necessarily magnetically induced. (Though they may be.) The strong magnetic fields that accompany sunspots may be a consequence of the nuclear reactions, rather than the cause. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:LENR on the sun
Regarding the intensity of magnetic fields on the Sun, I wonder how they compare to those in a high susceptibility metal like Mu metal? It may be that engineered magnetic fields in solid state metals produce much greater fields and more access to the Dirac Sea of virtual particles than the Sun's magnetic fields. There would not be may solid state, high susceptibility materials on the Sun's surface. The flux neutrinos associated with Sun spots may be in fact be spin polarized by the magnetic field and be able to escape the Sun more readily from reactions occurring deep below the surface. The bigger question is how would neutrinos change the half life of a nucleus in any case?The reaction cross section must be very small. Has Frishbach suggested any mechanism for the change in decay rate? Bob - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2014 6:36 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR on the sun Sunspots, the source of solar flares are produced by plasma vortexes, or more apply plasma hurricanes that actually disrupt the convection of energy carrying photons from the sun's core deeper in the sun. Sunspots are temporary phenomena on the surface of the Photosphere that appear as dark spots compared to the surrounding regions. They are caused by intense magnetic activity, which inhibits convection, forming areas of lower surface temperatures. If a Sunspot were isolated from its surrounding Photosphere, it would be brighter than an electric arc. Sunspots expand and contract as they move across the surface of the sun. They can be as large as 50,000 miles in diameter making the larger ones visible from Earth. In more detail, it is now believed that the twisting magnetic action in the plasma Convection Zone just below the sun's surface causes sunspots to form, flares, etc. to form, and the sun's magnetic field to reverse itself every 22 years. (The earth's magnetic field also reverses itself, but only about once every million years. If the sunspot was a significant source of nuclear activity at the surface of the sun, the spots would be brighter than the surrounding surface area. The case for nuclear production inside the vortex during its formation might be carried by the fact that neutrinos begin to increase some 36 hours before the solar flare erupts. Purdue nuclear engineer Jere Jenkins, while measuring the decay rate of manganese-54, a short-lived isotope used in medical diagnostics, noticed that the rate dropped slightly during the flare, a decrease that started about a day and a half before the flare. The assumption is that the increase in neutrino production and associated nuclear activity decreases the rate of radioactive decay. Flares are formed when intense magnetic fields from below the sun's surface link up with magnetic fields in the outer Corona in a process called Magnetic Reconnection. Flares are powered by the sudden release of magnetic energy stored in the sun's Corona. The same energy release may also produce a Coronal Mass Ejection (CME), but not always. And, sometimes CMEs form without Flares. The connection between Flares and CMEs is not well understood. Magnetic Reconnection is a physical process in highly conductive plasmas where magnetic fields clash, re-configure themselves into a lower energy level, and the excess magnetic energy is then converted into kinetic and thermal energy. Big Flares are equivalent to billions of megatons of TNT exploding within a few seconds. A big flare can produce one sixth of the total energy output of the sum localized at a small spot on the sun. Billions of tons of electrons, protons, and other particles that are accelerated by Magnetic Reconnection in a Flare approach the speed of light. It is still not possible to predict when a CME or Flare will erupt because the trigger mechanism isn't known. It might be that the flare and the CME occur at a later stage of the magnetic field formation process. Nuclear reactions caused by the magnetic mechanisms inside the sunspot gradually increase over days before a flare occurs. Strangely, the video from Purdue referenced below shows that there is a precise relationship between the total production of EMF in the sun and the radioactive decay rate seen on earth at about 26 minutes into the video. IMHO, this is an alternative causation posit to the neutrino causation posit. Whatever it is, this effect goes as the inverse square of the distance from the sun. When the experiments at the earthbound source of neutrinos are conclusively tested at a nuclear reactor, and no effect on isotope decay rates are bot seen, then EMF production from the sun will remain as the probable source of this effect. And this effect must be a magnetically based LENR effect if the reaction is happening locally here on earth. E. Fischbach, New Evidence for a Solar Influence on Nuclear Decay Rates
Re: [Vo]:LENR on the sun
Fischbach should sputter some of the same Mn radioactive isotopes on a mu metal and subject the isotopes to intense magnetic fields and see if the decay rate changes any. It very well may have an effect. Bob - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2014 6:36 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR on the sun Sunspots, the source of solar flares are produced by plasma vortexes, or more apply plasma hurricanes that actually disrupt the convection of energy carrying photons from the sun's core deeper in the sun. Sunspots are temporary phenomena on the surface of the Photosphere that appear as dark spots compared to the surrounding regions. They are caused by intense magnetic activity, which inhibits convection, forming areas of lower surface temperatures. If a Sunspot were isolated from its surrounding Photosphere, it would be brighter than an electric arc. Sunspots expand and contract as they move across the surface of the sun. They can be as large as 50,000 miles in diameter making the larger ones visible from Earth. In more detail, it is now believed that the twisting magnetic action in the plasma Convection Zone just below the sun's surface causes sunspots to form, flares, etc. to form, and the sun's magnetic field to reverse itself every 22 years. (The earth's magnetic field also reverses itself, but only about once every million years. If the sunspot was a significant source of nuclear activity at the surface of the sun, the spots would be brighter than the surrounding surface area. The case for nuclear production inside the vortex during its formation might be carried by the fact that neutrinos begin to increase some 36 hours before the solar flare erupts. Purdue nuclear engineer Jere Jenkins, while measuring the decay rate of manganese-54, a short-lived isotope used in medical diagnostics, noticed that the rate dropped slightly during the flare, a decrease that started about a day and a half before the flare. The assumption is that the increase in neutrino production and associated nuclear activity decreases the rate of radioactive decay. Flares are formed when intense magnetic fields from below the sun's surface link up with magnetic fields in the outer Corona in a process called Magnetic Reconnection. Flares are powered by the sudden release of magnetic energy stored in the sun's Corona. The same energy release may also produce a Coronal Mass Ejection (CME), but not always. And, sometimes CMEs form without Flares. The connection between Flares and CMEs is not well understood. Magnetic Reconnection is a physical process in highly conductive plasmas where magnetic fields clash, re-configure themselves into a lower energy level, and the excess magnetic energy is then converted into kinetic and thermal energy. Big Flares are equivalent to billions of megatons of TNT exploding within a few seconds. A big flare can produce one sixth of the total energy output of the sum localized at a small spot on the sun. Billions of tons of electrons, protons, and other particles that are accelerated by Magnetic Reconnection in a Flare approach the speed of light. It is still not possible to predict when a CME or Flare will erupt because the trigger mechanism isn't known. It might be that the flare and the CME occur at a later stage of the magnetic field formation process. Nuclear reactions caused by the magnetic mechanisms inside the sunspot gradually increase over days before a flare occurs. Strangely, the video from Purdue referenced below shows that there is a precise relationship between the total production of EMF in the sun and the radioactive decay rate seen on earth at about 26 minutes into the video. IMHO, this is an alternative causation posit to the neutrino causation posit. Whatever it is, this effect goes as the inverse square of the distance from the sun. When the experiments at the earthbound source of neutrinos are conclusively tested at a nuclear reactor, and no effect on isotope decay rates are bot seen, then EMF production from the sun will remain as the probable source of this effect. And this effect must be a magnetically based LENR effect if the reaction is happening locally here on earth. E. Fischbach, New Evidence for a Solar Influence on Nuclear Decay Rates https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzOOkR3a4vM On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 11:23 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sat, 19 Apr 2014 20:01:26 -0400: Hi, [snip] Sunspots must be producing neutrinos as a result of magnetically induced nuclear reactions, since radioactive decay is affected by sunspots. I suspect you are right about nuclear reactions in sunspots, however I don't think you have shown that they are necessarily magnetically induced. (Though they may be.) The strong magnetic fields that accompany sunspots may be a
[Vo]:Re: LENR on the sun
Bob Cook wrote: | The bigger question is how would neutrinos change the half life of a nucleus in any case? | The reaction cross section must be very small. | Has Frishbach suggested any mechanism for the change in decay rate? ...At approximately the 29 minute mark of the previously posted video, he makes a rather provocative suggestion: Spin-dependent long range force coupling to neutrinos (and the last question asked after the talk is relevant to that suggestion): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzOOkR3a4vM ... Many of the slides for the presentation can be found here: http://moriond.in2p3.fr/J11/transparents/fischbach.pdf This is rather old stuff, actually. If you head to arXiv and fish out the latest papers authored by Fischbach, you can catch up on latest in the nuclear decay rate situation. I’m not aware of any further suggestions made by this collaboration of researchers. Some further info on possible refutations are touched upon, here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N76lx-4fN-g Since this effect has apparently also been seen with Alpha Decay, it has raised more questions concerning suggestions such as Fischbach, et al.’s, above... ... The suggestion of a direct or catalytic effect had been made by Falkenberg back in 2001 (don’t think he’s the first to suggest this): http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V08NO2PDF/V08N2FAL.pdf The aphelion/perihelion solar neutrino flux variation is about +/- 3.2 or 3.3% and the effect he saw with tritium was +/- 0.37% or about 1/9th the variation. That data was taken in the 1981 timeframe. - Mark Jurich
