Re: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer
In reply to Bob Cook's message of Mon, 19 May 2014 16:37:16 -0700: Hi, [snip] Robin-- Would a crack cause alignment of magnetic lines of force better than the uniform lattice. If so, a crack in conjunction with magnetic field may be the NAE Ed has discussed. Bob I would think that due to the existence of magnetic domains in the lattice it would actually be better at conducting (and hence aligning) magnetic field lines than a crack. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer
You see something similar in Andrew Meulenberg's Extended Lochon Model, accept that he emphasizes the importance of electrostatic forces in and around linear NAE. All the best models, I think, are pointing in this direction of a sort of trap (whether magnetic or electrostatic). Even Ed's theory postulates an accumulation of charge along the inner walls of the NAE, which creates a space that allows for other nucleons to sort of settle into a resonating polymer structure. On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 5:18 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Bob Cook's message of Mon, 19 May 2014 16:37:16 -0700: Hi, [snip] Robin-- Would a crack cause alignment of magnetic lines of force better than the uniform lattice. If so, a crack in conjunction with magnetic field may be the NAE Ed has discussed. Bob I would think that due to the existence of magnetic domains in the lattice it would actually be better at conducting (and hence aligning) magnetic field lines than a crack. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer
From: David Roberson I believe that the term gamma ray is reserved for photons that originate from the nucleus. The energy of these rays is not the criteria. One would suppose that the energy contained within the radiation emitted by the nucleus is determined by the energy steps between the stored quanta. Dave, Bob In modern usage, and as taught at Universities today (so we should use this convention on vortex) the gamma ray is the highest energy photon and its point of origin is not usually considered relevant, only its frequency, or energy. I will go into greater detail below, since this terminology is a source of continuing confusion on the internet; plus there is one notable exception to the rule above. Gamma rays typically have frequencies above 10^19 Hz and energies above 100 keV but the dividing line on the low-end is arbitrary - and 100 keV is considered the standard, below which we find x-rays, regardless of point of origin - but there is one exception. All radiation from radioactive decay is defined as gamma, no matter what the energy level. That is usually no problem since the lower limit to gamma energy derived from radioactive decay is often around 100 keV anyway, and only in a few situations is the energy of nuclear decay sometimes less than that - tritium decay and neutron decay. In short, the nucleus CANNOT normally emit wavelengths below gamma, due to its own small size, since it must act as an antenna in order to radiate (and its small circumference would determine that wavelength limit, if there was no QM). Nevertheless, it is fair to say that visible light or UV cannot be emitted by any nucleus. Another reason to end the association of gamma radiation with the nucleus is that most gamma radiation (cosmologically) originates outside of any nucleus; and on earth gamma radiation that is NOT associated with a nuclear origin can easily arise from electron-positron annihilation or other kinds of matter/antimatter interaction, pion decay, bremsstrahlung, inverse Compton scattering, and synchrotron radiation. Historically bremsstrahlung or braking radiation was reserved for x-rays, regardless of energy - since it is usually produced in inner electron orbitals - but in modern usage - if the radiation has energy larger than 100 keV it should be called gamma or gamma bremsstrahlung. BTW - If we wanted to help out another theory with a plausible scenario - i.e. to invent a kludge which would make the pre-radiation of adequate UV photons before the actual fusion event [DD-He] explanation work, especially in the context of antenna theory, this can be done. However, I doubt anyone will borrow this: This explanation would be that D+D occasionally forms incompletely, not as 4He but instead as a two proton core - the diproton species (2He) with neutrons only slightly bound to this core, and at a substantial distance away (in short as a halo). This species can be called the diproton with halo and could shed the full 24 MeV, which cannot be done via electrons. The 2He nucleus does have a short lifetime, which is possibly extended long enough by having a halo to do the following: the two neutrons become separated in a remote halo orbital, from whence the circumference is adequate for them to shed UV photons (possibly in the 100+eV range) which are easily thermalized. This species (which will be called the diproton with halo) could then be positioned to shed the full 24 MeV in as a few as 250,000 sequential photons, at the same time as the halo orbital is shrinking down. This would all transpire sub-nanosecond. In the end, the two halo neutrons spiral down to collapse into the 2He core, forming an alpha, but with almost no excess mass. The falsifiability is a matter of documenting the EUV emission. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sat, 17 May 2014 16:39:46 -0700: Hi, [snip] -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com I don't think Ed was necessarily claiming that the method of energy loss was through conversion of electron mass. Well Robin, he did say the energy in his theory was shed as photons. There are only two possibilities for the source - electrons or nuclei. Note that I said electron mass, not electrons. In short I think that your mention of electron mass conversion is a straw man. As far as I know, the nucleus sheds photons as gamma rays. AFAIK there is no apparent mechanism to shed photons from the nucleus at less energy than gamma ... but this is a weekend and I may not be thinking clearly. Tell me, is there any evidence in the literature of nuclei (not atoms but nuclei) shedding energy in quanta below gamma rays? Jones Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Sat, 17 May 2014 20:06:20 -0700: Hi, [snip] I'm not sure what other forces are thought to be at play, but I think that Ed believes the cracks in his theory to be responsible or partly responsible for confining the precursors to a single dimension. What has always bothered me with this is that a crack can never confine atoms into a row as well as the lattice itself. In short if it can happen in a crack, then why not in the lattice? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Thu, 15 May 2014 15:26:56 -0700: Hi Jones, What do you make of the following message from the archives? http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg90378.html -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com Well, there is also a possible analogy of the QM depletion zone, which might arise in a combined type of Millsean-LENR situation, such that the makeup nuclear reaction only occurs in a severely depleted zone (due to orbital redundancy being brought back up to equilibrium by time-reversed fusion reaction.) This sounds like Ed's theory. ;) ...Except... there is a rather huge fundamental difference between: a) fusion-first followed by thousands of stepwise decreases in energy release, delayed over an extended time frame. and b) millions of small energy releases happening first - from a non-nuclear mechanism, followed by a new type of QM tunneling fusion reaction which can only happen in a severely depleted spatial zone. My apologies to Ed if he has changed his view to reconcile the two. Jones Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer
Hi Robin, Sounds more like Randell Mills than Storms ... and now that you mention it, I remember being surprised to hear this from Ed at the time - since it raises more questions than it answers. The HUGE unsolved problem is that with deuterium as the active gas, two deuterons cannot shed anywhere close to enough mass-energy to eliminate gammas, at least not without reducing their own nuclear mass significantly. The two electrons - even if completely converted to photons - are deficient in mass energy - reducing the ~24 MeV known to occur in deuteron fusion by only a few MeV (3 MeV if one e- remains to catalyze the fusion). In short, the deuterium fusion, if there is any via QM time reversal, needs to be prompted by a massively larger zone of depletion - and not from simply the two atoms. Now it gets interesting if one wants to stick to the two-atom-only explanation. If some portion deuteron mass can be physically converted to energy, say up to 11 MeV via UV/x-ray photon release - even in principle- then there is no reason to proceed all the way to fusion to see spectacular gain. Any gain prior to fusion should show up easily as an extremely intense light source. In fact, deuterium-filled arc emission bulbs for lighting have been used for 50 years in microscopy, with no reported thermal anomaly. Could that kind of anomaly have gone unnoticed? -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com What do you make of the following message from the archives? http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg90378.html Well, there is also a possible analogy of the QM depletion zone, which might arise in a combined type of Millsean-LENR situation, such that the makeup nuclear reaction only occurs in a severely depleted zone (due to orbital redundancy being brought back up to equilibrium by time-reversed fusion reaction.) This sounds like Ed's theory. ;) ...Except... there is a rather huge fundamental difference between: a) fusion-first followed by thousands of stepwise decreases in energy release, delayed over an extended time frame. and b) millions of small energy releases happening first - from a non-nuclear mechanism, followed by a new type of QM tunneling fusion reaction which can only happen in a severely depleted spatial zone. My apologies to Ed if he has changed his view to reconcile the two.
Re: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer
The D's may be able to shed they mass energy via SPIN COUPLING, IF they combine to form a virtual He with a high spin state/energy that can be distributed to many other particles in the QM system, including the electrons, all without gammas being emitted. Again the question is the coupling. IMHO there is no reason why virtual particles cannot have high energy spin states to handle excess mass energy in the short term. Jones--You seem to conclude spin coupling is possible, why not in this case. Everything that has not been discovered to date has been unnoticed heretofore by definition. Other reactions of D may not have had the necessary structure/parameter control to allow the coupling. Consider just one parameter, the appropriate alignment of magnetic fields. Was this parameter addressed in light bulbs in the past? Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2014 7:11 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer Hi Robin, Sounds more like Randell Mills than Storms ... and now that you mention it, I remember being surprised to hear this from Ed at the time - since it raises more questions than it answers. The HUGE unsolved problem is that with deuterium as the active gas, two deuterons cannot shed anywhere close to enough mass-energy to eliminate gammas, at least not without reducing their own nuclear mass significantly. The two electrons - even if completely converted to photons - are deficient in mass energy - reducing the ~24 MeV known to occur in deuteron fusion by only a few MeV (3 MeV if one e- remains to catalyze the fusion). In short, the deuterium fusion, if there is any via QM time reversal, needs to be prompted by a massively larger zone of depletion - and not from simply the two atoms. Now it gets interesting if one wants to stick to the two-atom-only explanation. If some portion deuteron mass can be physically converted to energy, say up to 11 MeV via UV/x-ray photon release - even in principle- then there is no reason to proceed all the way to fusion to see spectacular gain. Any gain prior to fusion should show up easily as an extremely intense light source. In fact, deuterium-filled arc emission bulbs for lighting have been used for 50 years in microscopy, with no reported thermal anomaly. Could that kind of anomaly have gone unnoticed? -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com What do you make of the following message from the archives? http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg90378.html Well, there is also a possible analogy of the QM depletion zone, which might arise in a combined type of Millsean-LENR situation, such that the makeup nuclear reaction only occurs in a severely depleted zone (due to orbital redundancy being brought back up to equilibrium by time-reversed fusion reaction.) This sounds like Ed's theory. ;) ...Except... there is a rather huge fundamental difference between: a) fusion-first followed by thousands of stepwise decreases in energy release, delayed over an extended time frame. and b) millions of small energy releases happening first - from a non-nuclear mechanism, followed by a new type of QM tunneling fusion reaction which can only happen in a severely depleted spatial zone. My apologies to Ed if he has changed his view to reconcile the two.
RE: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer
-Original Message- From: Bob Cook Jones--You seem to conclude spin coupling is possible, why not in this case. Bob - Spin coupling should easily be possible for a low to intermediate range of energies per atom - my guess is that it is sub-eV range, possibly milli-eV, but even if it goes up to keV that may not be enough to fit into the circumstances of ~24 MeV fusion. The very large energy to be shed, and the time required to accomplish that, in order to get to helium from deuterium, is the problem. Can you find anything in the literature that would indicate the very high levels of energy transfer via spin coupling which would be necessary? That would be a good start. After all, we are talking about nuclear spin coupling, which is presumably 500-800 times lower in intensity than EM spin coupling, based on the same geometry. BTW - since we are surely talking about another form of induction - what is the most efficient electrical transformer, in terms of energy transferred per unit of mass of the transformer? Can we work backwards from there? If not, why not? The recent distrust with DGT is another problem for spin coupling - since they claimed a magnetic field in the range of what implies high energy spin coupling. If that can be verified, then we are in new territory. When all is said and done - I like spin coupling as the preferred energy transfer mechanism in LENR, but find that it is much more defensible as a way to transfer the tiny amount of sequential energy of say - the Lamb Shift, or the Casimir dynamical effect, or at the high end, the binding energy of positronium - instead of the huge amount of energy of deuterium fusion to helium. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 12:55 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Can you find anything in the literature that would indicate the very high levels of energy transfer via spin coupling which would be necessary? That would be a good start. After all, we are talking about nuclear spin coupling, which is presumably 500-800 times lower in intensity than EM spin coupling, based on the same geometry. Ah, but can you assume the same environment in the presence of the strong force?
Re: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer
Jones--Thanks for your ideas. One feature of QM systems that I have assumed is that the differential energy gaps between states increase and align with magnetic field strength. In other words the quanta of energy available when changing from one state to another can be whatever you want depending on the applied field. If one were to get merely 24 ev between states, it would only take 1 million receptors or fewer to allow the distribution of the 24 Mev mass energy you are concerned about. Resonant magnetic field frequencies may help the coupling and provide available receptor particles including electronic electrons. Variable magnetic frequencies may allow inclusion of more particles and receptive areas in a lattice for participation in the fractionation process increasing resonant conditions. The quantum system involved in the coupling may be as large as a nano particle with may more particles than necessary to accept the 24 MEV in small energy quanta donations. In addition the decay process of a virtual excited He-4 nucleus may slow some to wait for available resonant conditions for the spin energy distribution to happen. Again the above model for energy distribution depends upon coupling in nano sized particles, which we know little about. As far as I know the theory/math for the coupling does not exist. However, if there are overlapping wave function from one particle to the next, then the whole system could be coupled. Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2014 9:55 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer -Original Message- From: Bob Cook Jones--You seem to conclude spin coupling is possible, why not in this case. Bob - Spin coupling should easily be possible for a low to intermediate range of energies per atom - my guess is that it is sub-eV range, possibly milli-eV, but even if it goes up to keV that may not be enough to fit into the circumstances of ~24 MeV fusion. The very large energy to be shed, and the time required to accomplish that, in order to get to helium from deuterium, is the problem. Can you find anything in the literature that would indicate the very high levels of energy transfer via spin coupling which would be necessary? That would be a good start. After all, we are talking about nuclear spin coupling, which is presumably 500-800 times lower in intensity than EM spin coupling, based on the same geometry. BTW - since we are surely talking about another form of induction - what is the most efficient electrical transformer, in terms of energy transferred per unit of mass of the transformer? Can we work backwards from there? If not, why not? The recent distrust with DGT is another problem for spin coupling - since they claimed a magnetic field in the range of what implies high energy spin coupling. If that can be verified, then we are in new territory. When all is said and done - I like spin coupling as the preferred energy transfer mechanism in LENR, but find that it is much more defensible as a way to transfer the tiny amount of sequential energy of say - the Lamb Shift, or the Casimir dynamical effect, or at the high end, the binding energy of positronium - instead of the huge amount of energy of deuterium fusion to helium. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer
The magnetic fields in the nucleus may be more than 800 times the field strength for EM spin coupling we know about. The energy would be comparable, since the energy of a rotating magnetic moment I believe is proportional to the strength of the field. Bob - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2014 11:16 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 12:55 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Can you find anything in the literature that would indicate the very high levels of energy transfer via spin coupling which would be necessary? That would be a good start. After all, we are talking about nuclear spin coupling, which is presumably 500-800 times lower in intensity than EM spin coupling, based on the same geometry. Ah, but can you assume the same environment in the presence of the strong force?
Re: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sat, 17 May 2014 07:11:07 -0700: Hi, [snip] Hi Robin, Sounds more like Randell Mills than Storms ... and now that you mention it, I remember being surprised to hear this from Ed at the time - since it raises more questions than it answers. The HUGE unsolved problem is that with deuterium as the active gas, two deuterons cannot shed anywhere close to enough mass-energy to eliminate gammas, at least not without reducing their own nuclear mass significantly. I agree, however I think the claim was that they do lose a significant portion of their own mass, though I'm not at all clear on how that is supposed to happen. The two electrons - even if completely converted to photons - are deficient in mass energy - I don't think Ed was necessarily claiming that the method of energy loss was through conversion of electron mass. In fact I didn't notice any explanation at all. I do know that he thinks there is an electron capture reaction followed by a beta-decay, which I think is only possible if the electron capture reaction happens first outside the nucleus, à la WL, but Ed doesn't agree. He seems to think it happens inside the nucleus. I can't see why two opposite beta decay reactions would follow one another. reducing the ~24 MeV known to occur in deuteron fusion by only a few MeV (3 MeV if one e- remains to catalyze the fusion). Not sure where you get the 3 MeV from. BTW one would need to remove at least 4.033 MeV worth of mass from the participants in the reaction beforehand in order to prohibit the D+D - T + p reaction. (Words chosen carefully.) In short, the deuterium fusion, if there is any via QM time reversal, needs to be prompted by a massively larger zone of depletion - and not from simply the two atoms. Now it gets interesting if one wants to stick to the two-atom-only explanation. If some portion deuteron mass can be physically converted to energy, say up to 11 MeV via UV/x-ray photon release - even in principle- then there is no reason to proceed all the way to fusion to see spectacular gain. Any gain prior to fusion should show up easily as an extremely intense light source. unless the two are inextricably linked. I.e. no mass loss = no fusion no fusion = no mass loss. They would both need to be part and parcel of the same reaction. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer
-Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com I don't think Ed was necessarily claiming that the method of energy loss was through conversion of electron mass. Well Robin, he did say the energy in his theory was shed as photons. There are only two possibilities for the source - electrons or nuclei. As far as I know, the nucleus sheds photons as gamma rays. AFAIK there is no apparent mechanism to shed photons from the nucleus at less energy than gamma ... but this is a weekend and I may not be thinking clearly. Tell me, is there any evidence in the literature of nuclei (not atoms but nuclei) shedding energy in quanta below gamma rays? Jones
Re: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 4:10 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: I agree, however I think the claim was that they do lose a significant portion of their own mass, though I'm not at all clear on how that is supposed to happen. This is how I understand Ed's theory. The mass-energy that is converted to low energy photons is from the nucleons themselves, as they slowly fuse into either 4He or D. The process is supposed to occur gradually, somehow. The image I had was of the nucleons slowly sliding together along a single dimension and yielding mass as they go in the form of photons. (This obviously sets aside the usual considerations about the strong force and coulomb repulsion.) I don't think Ed was necessarily claiming that the method of energy loss was through conversion of electron mass. In fact I didn't notice any explanation at all. I don't recall a specific explanation for this particular step, either, except that Ed believes the behavior of the nuclei within the hydroton to be a completely different from that in normal fusion, made possible by the unique context of the nuclear-active environment. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer
Jones, I believe that the term gamma ray is reserved for photons that originate from the nucleus. The energy of these rays is not the criteria. One would suppose that the energy contained within the radiation emitted by the nucleus is determined by the energy steps between the stored quanta. At the moment we are assuming that the energy is stored as spin states that have a certain minimum amount of energy. How do we establish the energy between steps? If they are calculated by measuring the energy spectrum due to nuclear reactions then the exact nature of those reactions must be understood. Who knows whether or not the levels measured to date have been made under conditions associated with LENR reactions? There is discussion about how resonances coupled into the nuclei via the large magnetic fields might be able to focus the energy at their frequencies by allowing easy transport of energy. This method of transport has not been well established AFAIK. But some technique must exist to prevent the dangerous radiation from being emitted as is expected by the physics community and this seems to be the best candidate so far. I find the fact that the electromagnetic energy can be released after a time delay to be significant. Whatever determines this delay period might also find a way to distribute the energy into many lower energy units instead of a concentrated burst. I can visualize this as somewhat similar to the filtering of a wide band noise spectrum into smaller more coherent slots. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, May 17, 2014 7:39 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com I don't think Ed was necessarily claiming that the method of energy loss was through conversion of electron mass. Well Robin, he did say the energy in his theory was shed as photons. There are only two possibilities for the source - electrons or nuclei. As far as I know, the nucleus sheds photons as gamma rays. AFAIK there is no apparent mechanism to shed photons from the nucleus at less energy than gamma ... but this is a weekend and I may not be thinking clearly. Tell me, is there any evidence in the literature of nuclei (not atoms but nuclei) shedding energy in quanta below gamma rays? Jones
Re: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer
Eric, If your description of the process is accurate then one must assume that the nucleons become attracted and bound to each other as the fusion progresses. This must be true because it will take energy equal to that which is radiated in order to tear them apart again. Perhaps the extreme magnetic field that many are speculating about is able to confine the nucleons and one or more electrons in such a manner that this can occur in 1 dimension. I can imagine that a large magnetic field working along with the standard electric fields would be capable of restricting the electron positioned between the various active hydrogen nuclei. Think some form of crossed field device sort of like a magnetron. Those electrons that are aligned with the proton's electric field lines and the external magnetic field lines move easily while those at right angles are retarded. Maybe we need a cookbook of how to make proton stew. :-) Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, May 17, 2014 10:15 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 4:10 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: I agree, however I think the claim was that they do lose a significant portion of their own mass, though I'm not at all clear on how that is supposed to happen. This is how I understand Ed's theory. The mass-energy that is converted to low energy photons is from the nucleons themselves, as they slowly fuse into either 4He or D. The process is supposed to occur gradually, somehow. The image I had was of the nucleons slowly sliding together along a single dimension and yielding mass as they go in the form of photons. (This obviously sets aside the usual considerations about the strong force and coulomb repulsion.) I don't think Ed was necessarily claiming that the method of energy loss was through conversion of electron mass. In fact I didn't notice any explanation at all. I don't recall a specific explanation for this particular step, either, except that Ed believes the behavior of the nuclei within the hydroton to be a completely different from that in normal fusion, made possible by the unique context of the nuclear-active environment. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 7:57 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: If your description of the process is accurate then one must assume that the nucleons become attracted and bound to each other as the fusion progresses. Personally, I do not set much store in Ed's theory. I'm no nuclear physicist. But it seems to me that in any context except perhaps a quark plasma the strong interaction and coulomb repulsion will continue to apply. Coulomb repulsion means that when you try to push two nuclei together, they'll bounce apart, like magnets with the same pole facing each other. The strong force means that if you somehow overcome this repulsion and push them close enough together, they'll snap together with great force. But Ed wants the process to be gradual rather than violent. There's also the problem of the weak interaction. Two protons will not stay together long, so you need to have an inverse beta decay if protons are the starting point. But inverse beta decay normally happens very infrequently, so for Ed's process to work, either you have to find a way to speed the weak interaction up, or to say that the weak interaction doesn't apply. All of this combines to make the nuclear-active environment very unique indeed. Perhaps the extreme magnetic field that many are speculating about is able to confine the nucleons and one or more electrons in such a manner that this can occur in 1 dimension. I'm not sure what other forces are thought to be at play, but I think that Ed believes the cracks in his theory to be responsible or partly responsible for confining the precursors to a single dimension. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer
Dave-- I am thinking along the same lines that you suggest below. Bob - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2014 7:39 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer Jones, I believe that the term gamma ray is reserved for photons that originate from the nucleus. The energy of these rays is not the criteria. One would suppose that the energy contained within the radiation emitted by the nucleus is determined by the energy steps between the stored quanta. At the moment we are assuming that the energy is stored as spin states that have a certain minimum amount of energy. How do we establish the energy between steps? If they are calculated by measuring the energy spectrum due to nuclear reactions then the exact nature of those reactions must be understood. Who knows whether or not the levels measured to date have been made under conditions associated with LENR reactions? There is discussion about how resonances coupled into the nuclei via the large magnetic fields might be able to focus the energy at their frequencies by allowing easy transport of energy. This method of transport has not been well established AFAIK. But some technique must exist to prevent the dangerous radiation from being emitted as is expected by the physics community and this seems to be the best candidate so far. I find the fact that the electromagnetic energy can be released after a time delay to be significant. Whatever determines this delay period might also find a way to distribute the energy into many lower energy units instead of a concentrated burst. I can visualize this as somewhat similar to the filtering of a wide band noise spectrum into smaller more coherent slots. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, May 17, 2014 7:39 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com I don't think Ed was necessarily claiming that the method of energy loss was through conversion of electron mass. Well Robin, he did say the energy in his theory was shed as photons. There are only two possibilities for the source - electrons or nuclei. As far as I know, the nucleus sheds photons as gamma rays. AFAIK there is no apparent mechanism to shed photons from the nucleus at less energy than gamma ... but this is a weekend and I may not be thinking clearly. Tell me, is there any evidence in the literature of nuclei (not atoms but nuclei) shedding energy in quanta below gamma rays? Jones
Re: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer
In reply to Bob Cook's message of Thu, 15 May 2014 17:38:02 -0700: Hi, Nucleons are little magnets. Different orientations mean differing amounts of magnetic energy, hence different energy states for the nucleus as a whole. Obviously there is one combination of orientations which is less stressed than any of the others. This is the ground state. (Actually there may be several that are equally stable). Dave already answered the linear momentum question. As for the angular momentum of the gamma ray, that comes from spin flipping of a nucleon, e.g. from -1/2 to +1/2. When flipping the spin of any single nucleon would only result in a higher energy state of the nucleus rather than a lower one, while the nucleus is already in an excited state, then you have what is known as a meta-stable state. IOW the nucleus is essentially stuck in an energy rich state because it can't get the angular momentum needed for the gamma ray by flipping the spin of a single nucleon, (flipping the spin of multiple nucleons concurrently is far less likely, hence the stuckedness. ;) Robin-- You stated: Different combinations of spin states show up as excited states of the nucleus. Usually these relax to the ground state in short order with emission of a gamma ray. How do spin states with no kinetic energy relax to a ground state with a gamma ray emission with both angular momentum (spin) and kinetic energy (linear momentum)? Where does the linear momentum come from? You raise the question: When does linear momentum need to be conserved? Is it conserved in nuclear transitions? Bob Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer
In reply to Bob Cook's message of Thu, 15 May 2014 17:38:02 -0700: Hi, [snip] Robin-- You stated: Different combinations of spin states show up as excited states of the nucleus. Usually these relax to the ground state in short order with emission of a gamma ray. BTW, I should have said one or more gamma rays. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer
Robin-- I agree with Mark. It seems resonances are the key to many reactions. Nuclear are no exception, especially when it comes to magnetic resonances with dipole and quadrapole moments. Quantum Mechanical entanglement also seems to need resonances. The communication across the boundary to the Dirac sea of particles also may involve resonances. And I think some reaction resonances need to be better matched to occur frequently. Mark's comment is right on. Bob - Original Message - From: MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 9:06 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer I beg to differ, Robin... Nature does have a preference... resonances/harmonics. A channel's probability is a function of how well the oscillations are matched. -mark -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 2:55 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 14 May 2014 09:04:35 -0700: Hi, [snip] Since nature prefers the simplest way - which is via radiation, any mention of exclusivity presents an almost insurmountable problem, especially if there is no model in standard nuclear physics. Actually nature has no preference. Each channel occurs with its own probability. The channel that will happen most often is the channel with the highest probability (i.e. the shortest half life). Since particle emission has a much higher probability than gamma emission, it happens far more frequently, when it is possible. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer
In reply to MarkI-ZeroPoint's message of Wed, 14 May 2014 21:06:43 -0700: Hi Mark, [snip] I beg to differ, Robin... Nature does have a preference... resonances/harmonics. A channel's probability is a function of how well the oscillations are matched. Actually, you are not disagreeing. ;) You are talking about something else. I was talking about outcomes based on probabilities, while you are talking about what influences the probabilities. The two are not in conflict. In short, I was talking about what comes out, while you are talking about how it goes in. -mark -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 2:55 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 14 May 2014 09:04:35 -0700: Hi, [snip] Since nature prefers the simplest way - which is via radiation, any mention of exclusivity presents an almost insurmountable problem, especially if there is no model in standard nuclear physics. Actually nature has no preference. Each channel occurs with its own probability. The channel that will happen most often is the channel with the highest probability (i.e. the shortest half life). Since particle emission has a much higher probability than gamma emission, it happens far more frequently, when it is possible. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer
In reply to David Roberson's message of Wed, 14 May 2014 18:18:23 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] Much depends upon how the reaction energy is stored within the nucleus. Does anyone recall seeing good evidence that it is stored as spin energy of the nucleons? Large nuclei such as nickel likely have much of the energy hidden within the distribution of the protons and neutrons that can take on different forms. Helium or deuteron are too simple to have these sinks as far as I know. I am not aware of the possible distributions and magnitudes of spin energy storage but that dovetails nicely with our thoughts about interaction with large magnetic fields. Dave Different combinations of spin states show up as excited states of the nucleus. Usually these relax to the ground state in short order with emission of a gamma ray. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 14 May 2014 15:39:43 -0700: Hi, [snip] Well, there is also a possible analogy of the QM depletion zone, which might arise in a combined type of Millsean-LENR situation, such that the makeup nuclear reaction only occurs in a severely energy depleted zone (due to relatively large zones of orbital redundancy being brought back up to equilibrium by time-reversed fusion reaction.) This sounds like Ed's theory. ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer
-Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com Well, there is also a possible analogy of the QM depletion zone, which might arise in a combined type of Millsean-LENR situation, such that the makeup nuclear reaction only occurs in a severely depleted zone (due to orbital redundancy being brought back up to equilibrium by time-reversed fusion reaction.) This sounds like Ed's theory. ;) ...Except... there is a rather huge fundamental difference between: a) fusion-first followed by thousands of stepwise decreases in energy release, delayed over an extended time frame. and b) millions of small energy releases happening first - from a non-nuclear mechanism, followed by a new type of QM tunneling fusion reaction which can only happen in a severely depleted spatial zone. My apologies to Ed if he has changed his view to reconcile the two. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer
Mark-- A simple definition of a metastable nuclear isomer and how they can be created is warranted to further the understanding of your comments. As I understand, an isomer is merely a nuclear energy state above the ground state for any given nucleus. Such energy states I think can be spin states above the ground spin states. There may be other electric dipole isomer states and magnetic dipole states both of which are above the ground energy state of the nucleus in question. The magnetic and electric dipole states can be created by resonant input energy either magnetic or electric or both, I believe. Quadrapole interactions are also possible. The magnetic resonance is behind the mechanism of MRI machines. (As I recently noted GE has just announced a hyperdipole imaging device using C-13 as any excitable nucleus. They even call their device SPINlab.) The name suggests isomeric spin states of C-13 or electric or magnetic dipole states are being created.) I don't understand the quantum energy levels possible as a result of strong nuclear force coupling between neutrons and protons. The key question is what are the rules for creating metastable states--ones that cannot decay back to the ground states after energy stimulation is removed? Energetic coupling to electrons via acceleration in an electric field or spin coupling may be possible. Although a dislodged inner electron would not create a gamma (associated with nuclear decay) x-rays would occur. Mark--Does this make any sense? Bob - Original Message - From: MarkI-ZeroPoint To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 10:33 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer To follow up, another interesting tidbit in that Wikipage is this: --- High spin suppression of decay The most common mechanism for suppression of gamma decay of excited nuclei, and thus the existence of a metastable isomer for the nucleus, is lack of a decay route for the excited state that will change nuclear angular momentum (along any given direction) by the most common amount of 1 quantum unit (h-bar) of spin angular momentum. Such a change is necessary to emit a gamma photon, which has a spin of 1 unit in this system. --- All together now. Where, oh where, did the gamma rays go... Oh where, oh where can they be! -mark iverson From: MarkI-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 10:26 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer Vorts, A Fellow Friend of Fringe Facts sent me to gander at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_isomer And here is what caught my attention that might apply to LENR/CF: --- Internal conversion Metastable isomers may also decay by internal conversion - ***a process in which the energy of nuclear de-excitation is NOT emitted as a gamma ray***, but instead used to accelerate one of the inner electrons of the atom, so that it leaves at high speed and energy. This result occurs because inner atomic electrons penetrate the nucleus, where they are subject to the intense electric fields which result when the protons of the nucleus re-arrange in a different way. In nuclei which are far from stability in energy, still other decay modes are known. --- An added bonus was this statement which supports my model for electrons as dipole-like oscillations which either skirt, and/or pass thru the nucleus. .because inner atomic electrons penetrate the nucleus I guess it's going to take a 2x4 to the head to get the science mainstream's attention. or, to interrupt their mesmerized state brought on by indoctrination to the current paradigm. -mark iverson
RE: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer
Does it make sense? Somewhat, however, my point is that the nuclear isomer seems to be a possible explanation as to why we don't see gammas and neutrons (and dead grad students). some of the mechanisms on the Wikipedia page explain how the energy is channeled to other 'things' instead of the usual emission of a gamma photon. -mark From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 11:27 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer Mark-- A simple definition of a metastable nuclear isomer and how they can be created is warranted to further the understanding of your comments. As I understand, an isomer is merely a nuclear energy state above the ground state for any given nucleus. Such energy states I think can be spin states above the ground spin states. There may be other electric dipole isomer states and magnetic dipole states both of which are above the ground energy state of the nucleus in question. The magnetic and electric dipole states can be created by resonant input energy either magnetic or electric or both, I believe. Quadrapole interactions are also possible. The magnetic resonance is behind the mechanism of MRI machines. (As I recently noted GE has just announced a hyperdipole imaging device using C-13 as any excitable nucleus. They even call their device SPINlab.) The name suggests isomeric spin states of C-13 or electric or magnetic dipole states are being created.) I don't understand the quantum energy levels possible as a result of strong nuclear force coupling between neutrons and protons. The key question is what are the rules for creating metastable states--ones that cannot decay back to the ground states after energy stimulation is removed? Energetic coupling to electrons via acceleration in an electric field or spin coupling may be possible. Although a dislodged inner electron would not create a gamma (associated with nuclear decay) x-rays would occur. Mark--Does this make any sense? Bob - Original Message - From: MarkI-ZeroPoint mailto:zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 10:33 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer To follow up, another interesting tidbit in that Wikipage is this: --- High spin suppression of decay The most common mechanism for suppression of gamma decay of excited nuclei, and thus the existence of a metastable isomer for the nucleus, is lack of a decay route for the excited state that will change nuclear angular momentum (along any given direction) by the most common amount of 1 quantum unit (h-bar) of spin angular momentum. Such a change is necessary to emit a gamma photon, which has a spin of 1 unit in this system. --- All together now. Where, oh where, did the gamma rays go... Oh where, oh where can they be! -mark iverson From: MarkI-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 10:26 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer Vorts, A Fellow Friend of Fringe Facts sent me to gander at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_isomer And here is what caught my attention that might apply to LENR/CF: --- Internal conversion Metastable isomers may also decay by internal conversion - ***a process in which the energy of nuclear de-excitation is NOT emitted as a gamma ray***, but instead used to accelerate one of the inner electrons of the atom, so that it leaves at high speed and energy. This result occurs because inner atomic electrons penetrate the nucleus, where they are subject to the intense electric fields which result when the protons of the nucleus re-arrange in a different way. In nuclei which are far from stability in energy, still other decay modes are known. --- An added bonus was this statement which supports my model for electrons as dipole-like oscillations which either skirt, and/or pass thru the nucleus. .because inner atomic electrons penetrate the nucleus I guess it's going to take a 2x4 to the head to get the science mainstream's attention. or, to interrupt their mesmerized state brought on by indoctrination to the current paradigm. -mark iverson
RE: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer
This is somewhat similar to the lochon explanation: Lochon Catalyzed D-D Fusion in Deuterated Palladium in the Solid State by Sinha and Meulenberg Lochons are hypothesized to be electron pairs which can form on a deuteron to give D- (which is a bosonic ion) in Palladium Deuteride. Supposedly, lochons which are close - similar to a DDL, so that they then catalyze D-D fusion, resulting in a type of internal conversion leading to the formation of He plus production of lots of energy which is carried by the alpha and the ejected electron-pair. Problem is - the alpha is slow and the electrons are very fast - so that with this and other forms of IC, the ejected electron(s) is extremely energetic and the bremsstrahlung from it would be just as obvious as gamma rays, if not more so. From: MarkI-ZeroPoint A Fellow Friend of Fringe Facts sent me to gander at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_isomer And here is what caught my attention that might apply to LENR/CF: --- Internal conversion Metastable isomers may also decay by internal conversion - ***a process in which the energy of nuclear de-excitation is NOT emitted as a gamma ray***, but instead used to accelerate one of the inner electrons of the atom, so that it leaves at high speed and energy. This result occurs because inner atomic electrons penetrate the nucleus, where they are subject to the intense electric fields which result when the protons of the nucleus re-arrange in a different way. In nuclei which are far from stability in energy, still other decay modes are known. --- An added bonus was this statement which supports my model for electrons as dipole-like oscillations which either skirt, and/or pass thru the nucleus... ...because inner atomic electrons penetrate the nucleus I guess it's going to take a 2x4 to the head to get the science mainstream's attention... or, to interrupt their mesmerized state brought on by indoctrination to the current paradigm. -mark iverson attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer
Could a relativistic component as suggested by Naudts possibly disguise/dilate/down convert Bremsstahlung? _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 9:36 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer This is somewhat similar to the lochon explanation: Lochon Catalyzed D-D Fusion in Deuterated Palladium in the Solid State by Sinha and Meulenberg Lochons are hypothesized to be electron pairs which can form on a deuteron to give D- (which is a bosonic ion) in Palladium Deuteride. Supposedly, lochons which are close - similar to a DDL, so that they then catalyze D-D fusion, resulting in a type of internal conversion leading to the formation of He plus production of lots of energy which is carried by the alpha and the ejected electron-pair. Problem is - the alpha is slow and the electrons are very fast - so that with this and other forms of IC, the ejected electron(s) is extremely energetic and the bremsstrahlung from it would be just as obvious as gamma rays, if not more so. From: MarkI-ZeroPoint A Fellow Friend of Fringe Facts sent me to gander at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_isomer And here is what caught my attention that might apply to LENR/CF: --- Internal conversion Metastable isomers may also decay by internal conversion - ***a process in which the energy of nuclear de-excitation is NOT emitted as a gamma ray***, but instead used to accelerate one of the inner electrons of the atom, so that it leaves at high speed and energy. This result occurs because inner atomic electrons penetrate the nucleus, where they are subject to the intense electric fields which result when the protons of the nucleus re-arrange in a different way. In nuclei which are far from stability in energy, still other decay modes are known. --- An added bonus was this statement which supports my model for electrons as dipole-like oscillations which either skirt, and/or pass thru the nucleus... ...because inner atomic electrons penetrate the nucleus I guess it's going to take a 2x4 to the head to get the science mainstream's attention... or, to interrupt their mesmerized state brought on by indoctrination to the current paradigm. -mark iverson
RE: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer
Fran, The good-news bad-news problem with down-conversion of x-rays, as well as the other hypotheses for the absence of high energy gamma radiation, including that of Hagelstein, is that yes, they could possibly operate some of the time, or even most of the time. The mechanism may sound logical, on paper and at first glance. But nature prefers radiation, as a general rule. The bad-news problem with any such naïve suggestion, is that the would need to operate all of time without exception. We are talking about deadly radiation requiring thick plates of lead to shield normally, and we know that nature already favors the preferred pathway - radiation. Think about a dental x-ray and the elaborate precautions taken there. That radiation is puny by comparison, both in its low power (15 keV) and in miniscule intensity (duration) which is a few nanoseconds. LENR, such as the recent Mizuno experiment, at many watts for many days, would be trillions of times more intense, and no shielding except from the reactor. A lapse of a millisecond and we have radiation burns and cancer, or worse. In short - instead of the single miracle of the nuclear reaction itself, you would also need the larger miracle of a brand new way to hide the high energy radiation, plus the further miracle that the new mechanism operates without fail. The theorist would seem to be better off to propose an underlying reaction which can be shielded by the reactor (few keV range or less). In fact, it is arguable that any hypothetical radiation shielding mechanism, if it existed, would be as valuable or more valuable than LENR itself, since it would permit the use of subcritical fission with desktop accelerators - say in automobiles. From: Roarty, Francis X Could a relativistic component as suggested by Naudts possibly disguise/dilate/down convert Bremsstahlung? _ From: Jones Beene This is somewhat similar to the lochon explanation: Lochon Catalyzed D-D Fusion in Deuterated Palladium in the Solid State by Sinha and Meulenberg Lochons are hypothesized to be electron pairs which can form on a deuteron to give D- (which is a bosonic ion) in Palladium Deuteride. Supposedly, lochons which are close - similar to a DDL, so that they then catalyze D-D fusion, resulting in a type of internal conversion leading to the formation of He plus production of lots of energy which is carried by the alpha and the ejected electron-pair. Problem is - the alpha is slow and the electrons are very fast - so that with this and other forms of IC, the ejected electron(s) is extremely energetic and the bremsstrahlung from it would be just as obvious as gamma rays, if not more so. From: MarkI-ZeroPoint A Fellow Friend of Fringe Facts sent me to gander at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_isomer And here is what caught my attention that might apply to LENR/CF: --- Internal conversion Metastable isomers may also decay by internal conversion - ***a process in which the energy of nuclear de-excitation is NOT emitted as a gamma ray***, but instead used to accelerate one of the inner electrons of the atom, so that it leaves at high speed and energy. This result occurs because inner atomic electrons penetrate the nucleus, where they are subject to the intense electric fields which result when the protons of the nucleus re-arrange in a different way. In nuclei which are far from stability in energy, still other decay modes are known. --- An added bonus was this statement which supports my model for electrons as dipole-like oscillations which either skirt, and/or pass thru the nucleus... ...because inner atomic electrons penetrate the nucleus I guess it's going to take a 2x4 to the head to get the science mainstream's attention... or, to interrupt their mesmerized state brought on by indoctrination to the current paradigm. -mark iverson attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer
Jones-- As I have suggested in the past, spin coupling of nucleons with electrons or other nucleons may not involve the gammas and x-rays you fear must occur in nuclear transitions. High isomeric spin states can involve high energies above a ground energy state of a nucleus. Transitions to lower energy states should not involve gammas or x-rays only distribution/conservation of angular momentum. Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 8:05 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer Fran, The good-news bad-news problem with down-conversion of x-rays, as well as the other hypotheses for the absence of high energy gamma radiation, including that of Hagelstein, is that yes, they could possibly operate some of the time, or even most of the time. The mechanism may sound logical, on paper and at first glance. But nature prefers radiation, as a general rule. The bad-news problem with any such naïve suggestion, is that the would need to operate all of time without exception. We are talking about deadly radiation requiring thick plates of lead to shield normally, and we know that nature already favors the preferred pathway - radiation. Think about a dental x-ray and the elaborate precautions taken there. That radiation is puny by comparison, both in its low power (15 keV) and in miniscule intensity (duration) which is a few nanoseconds. LENR, such as the recent Mizuno experiment, at many watts for many days, would be trillions of times more intense, and no shielding except from the reactor. A lapse of a millisecond and we have radiation burns and cancer, or worse. In short - instead of the single miracle of the nuclear reaction itself, you would also need the larger miracle of a brand new way to hide the high energy radiation, plus the further miracle that the new mechanism operates without fail. The theorist would seem to be better off to propose an underlying reaction which can be shielded by the reactor (few keV range or less). In fact, it is arguable that any hypothetical radiation shielding mechanism, if it existed, would be as valuable or more valuable than LENR itself, since it would permit the use of subcritical fission with desktop accelerators - say in automobiles. From: Roarty, Francis X Could a relativistic component as suggested by Naudts possibly disguise/dilate/down convert Bremsstahlung? _ From: Jones Beene This is somewhat similar to the lochon explanation: Lochon Catalyzed D-D Fusion in Deuterated Palladium in the Solid State by Sinha and Meulenberg Lochons are hypothesized to be electron pairs which can form on a deuteron to give D- (which is a bosonic ion) in Palladium Deuteride. Supposedly, lochons which are close - similar to a DDL, so that they then catalyze D-D fusion, resulting in a type of internal conversion leading to the formation of He plus production of lots of energy which is carried by the alpha and the ejected electron-pair. Problem is - the alpha is slow and the electrons are very fast - so that with this and other forms of IC, the ejected electron(s) is extremely energetic and the bremsstrahlung from it would be just as obvious as gamma rays, if not more so. From: MarkI-ZeroPoint A Fellow Friend of Fringe Facts sent me to gander at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_isomer And here is what caught my attention that might apply to LENR/CF: --- Internal conversion Metastable isomers may also decay by internal conversion - ***a process in which the energy of nuclear de-excitation is NOT emitted as a gamma ray***, but instead used to accelerate one of the inner electrons of the atom, so that it leaves at high speed and energy. This result occurs because inner atomic electrons penetrate the nucleus, where they are subject to the intense electric fields which result when the protons of the nucleus re-arrange in a different way. In nuclei which are far from stability in energy, still other decay modes are known. --- An added bonus was this statement which supports my model for electrons as dipole-like oscillations which either skirt, and/or pass thru the nucleus... ...because inner atomic electrons penetrate the nucleus I guess it's going to take a 2x4 to the head to get the science mainstream's attention... or, to interrupt their mesmerized state brought on by indoctrination to the current paradigm. -mark iverson
RE: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer
Hi Bob, I agree that spin coupling is possible, even likely. However, what is missing from the discussion is the issue of exclusivity. How does spin coupling suddenly become the only route to shed energy, especially when it never was more than a minor route in standard physics? In short, just like with the Hagelstein hypothesis, we are not dealing just with merely an alternative route to shed high energy - but instead - to an exclusive alternative. Since nature prefers the simplest way - which is via radiation, any mention of exclusivity presents an almost insurmountable problem, especially if there is no model in standard nuclear physics. 10 watts of heat is trivial, but decidedly not trivial if that heat starts out as 10 watts of x-rays - which would be the case if there was nuclear gain which materialized as hot electrons and bremsstrahlung. It would seem that even if one part in a thousand escapes the hypothetical spin coupling channel, then the consequences are so severe as to void the entire hypothesis. The risk is highly skewed. -Original Message- From: Bob Cook Jones-- As I have suggested in the past, spin coupling of nucleons with electrons or other nucleons may not involve the gammas and x-rays you fear must occur in nuclear transitions. High isomeric spin states can involve high energies above a ground energy state of a nucleus. Transitions to lower energy states should not involve gammas or x-rays only distribution/conservation of angular momentum. Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene Fran, The good-news bad-news problem with down-conversion of x-rays, as well as the other hypotheses for the absence of high energy gamma radiation, including that of Hagelstein, is that yes, they could possibly operate some of the time, or even most of the time. The mechanism may sound logical, on paper and at first glance. But nature prefers radiation, as a general rule. The bad-news problem with any such naïve suggestion, is that the would need to operate all of time without exception. We are talking about deadly radiation requiring thick plates of lead to shield normally, and we know that nature already favors the preferred pathway - radiation. Think about a dental x-ray and the elaborate precautions taken there. That radiation is puny by comparison, both in its low power (15 keV) and in miniscule intensity (duration) which is a few nanoseconds. LENR, such as the recent Mizuno experiment, at many watts for many days, would be trillions of times more intense, and no shielding except from the reactor. A lapse of a millisecond and we have radiation burns and cancer, or worse. In short - instead of the single miracle of the nuclear reaction itself, you would also need the larger miracle of a brand new way to hide the high energy radiation, plus the further miracle that the new mechanism operates without fail. The theorist would seem to be better off to propose an underlying reaction which can be shielded by the reactor (few keV range or less). In fact, it is arguable that any hypothetical radiation shielding mechanism, if it existed, would be as valuable or more valuable than LENR itself, since it would permit the use of subcritical fission with desktop accelerators - say in automobiles. From: Roarty, Francis X Could a relativistic component as suggested by Naudts possibly disguise/dilate/down convert Bremsstahlung? _ From: Jones Beene This is somewhat similar to the lochon explanation: Lochon Catalyzed D-D Fusion in Deuterated Palladium in the Solid State by Sinha and Meulenberg Lochons are hypothesized to be electron pairs which can form on a deuteron to give D- (which is a bosonic ion) in Palladium Deuteride. Supposedly, lochons which are close - similar to a DDL, so that they then catalyze D-D fusion, resulting in a type of internal conversion leading to the formation of He plus production of lots of energy which is carried by the alpha and the ejected electron-pair. Problem is - the alpha is slow and the electrons are very fast - so that with this and other forms of IC, the ejected electron(s) is extremely energetic and the bremsstrahlung from it would be just as obvious as gamma rays, if not more so. From: MarkI-ZeroPoint A Fellow Friend of Fringe Facts sent me to gander at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_isomer And here is what caught my attention that might apply to LENR/CF: --- Internal conversion Metastable isomers may also decay by internal conversion - ***a process in which the energy of nuclear de-excitation is NOT emitted as a gamma ray***, but instead used to accelerate one of the inner electrons of the atom, so that it leaves at high speed and energy. This result occurs because inner atomic electrons penetrate the nucleus, where they are subject to the intense electric fields which result when the protons of the nucleus re-arrange in a different way. In nuclei
RE: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer
If the energy levels between isomers are small enough there may be a more soft radiation. It may exist a sett of un known isomers of He4, He3, T and maybe D and Li6. If hydrogen nucleus come together (p+D, D+D, p+T, D+T, T+T) through a mechanisms like those proposed by Hagelstein or by Storms it may first form this new type of isomer of high energy. For this isomers there must exist a huge number of lower energy stage and a relative small difference in energy between them. If the energy is given as photons or internal conversion the radiation may be as soft x-rays or lower energy. D+DHe4*1He4*2He4*3...He4*nHe4 ground state + lots of photons. Torulf On Wed, 14 May 2014 09:04:35 -0700, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Hi Bob, I agree that spin coupling is possible, even likely. However, what is missing from the discussion is the issue of exclusivity. How does spin coupling suddenly become the only route to shed energy, especially when it never was more than a minor route in standard physics? In short, just like with the Hagelstein hypothesis, we are not dealing just with merely an alternative route to shed high energy - but instead - to an exclusive alternative. Since nature prefers the simplest way - which is via radiation, any mention of exclusivity presents an almost insurmountable problem, especially if there is no model in standard nuclear physics. 10 watts of heat is trivial, but decidedly not trivial if that heat starts out as 10 watts of x-rays - which would be the case if there was nuclear gain which materialized as hot electrons and bremsstrahlung. It would seem that even if one part in a thousand escapes the hypothetical spin coupling channel, then the consequences are so severe as to void the entire hypothesis. The risk is highly skewed. -Original Message- From: Bob Cook Jones-- As I have suggested in the past, spin coupling of nucleons with electrons or other nucleons may not involve the gammas and x-rays you fear must occur in nuclear transitions. High isomeric spin states can involve high energies above a ground energy state of a nucleus. Transitions to lower energy states should not involve gammas or x-rays only distribution/conservation of angular momentum. Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene Fran, The good-news bad-news problem with down-conversion of x-rays, as well as the other hypotheses for the absence of high energy gamma radiation, including that of Hagelstein, is that yes, they could possibly operate some of the time, or even most of the time. The mechanism may sound logical, on paper and at first glance. But nature prefers radiation, as a general rule. The bad-news problem with any such naïve suggestion, is that the would need to operate all of time without exception. We are talking about deadly radiation requiring thick plates of lead to shield normally, and we know that nature already favors the preferred pathway - radiation. Think about a dental x-ray and the elaborate precautions taken there. That radiation is puny by comparison, both in its low power (15 keV) and in miniscule intensity (duration) which is a few nanoseconds. LENR, such as the recent Mizuno experiment, at many watts for many days, would be trillions of times more intense, and no shielding except from the reactor. A lapse of a millisecond and we have radiation burns and cancer, or worse. In short - instead of the single miracle of the nuclear reaction itself, you would also need the larger miracle of a brand new way to hide the high energy radiation, plus the further miracle that the new mechanism operates without fail. The theorist would seem to be better off to propose an underlying reaction which can be shielded by the reactor (few keV range or less). In fact, it is arguable that any hypothetical radiation shielding mechanism, if it existed, would be as valuable or more valuable than LENR itself, since it would permit the use of subcritical fission with desktop accelerators - say in automobiles. From: Roarty, Francis X Could a relativistic component as suggested by Naudts possibly disguise/dilate/down convert Bremsstahlung? _ From: Jones Beene This is somewhat similar to the lochon explanation: Lochon Catalyzed D-D Fusion in Deuterated Palladium in the Solid State by Sinha and Meulenberg Lochons are hypothesized to be electron pairs which can form on a deuteron to give D- (which is a bosonic ion) in Palladium Deuteride. Supposedly, lochons which are close - similar to a DDL, so that they then catalyze D-D fusion, resulting in a type of internal conversion leading to the formation of He plus production of lots of energy which is carried by the alpha and the ejected electron-pair. Problem is - the alpha is slow and the electrons are very fast - so that with this and other forms of IC, the ejected
RE: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer
-Original Message- From: torulf.gr...@bredband.net If the energy levels between isomers are small enough there may be a more soft radiation. It may exist a set of unknown isomers of He4, He3 ...For this isomers there must exist a huge number of lower energy stage and a relative small difference in energy between them. Well - that's the rub isn't it? The actual numbers do not work out very well. The fusion reaction of deuterium to helium provides about 24 MeV gain, and yet anything over about 10 KeV would have been measured by now; therefore to support a helium fusion hypothesis - we would need at least 2,400 isomers or intermediate stages of helium, all fairly evenly spaced. Plus, the lifetime of each isomer state, at least in those elements with known isomers, is long. If helium has thousands of isomers, it would typically take centuries to decay. Thus to prop up the required details for fusion of D to He at low energy, which is one miracle, one needs another miracle which is finding isomers in helium, which has no known isomers, then another miracle to suggest that there are actually ~3000 isomers in relatively equal steps, and finally another miracle that all the isomers decay very rapidly. Not to mention the fifth miracle, which is that decay via nuclear isomers is the exclusive method of energy release, happening all the time ... with no other channels.
RE: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer
Storms theory may get into this? On Wed, 14 May 2014 13:45:26 -0700, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: -Original Message- From: torulf.gr...@bredband.net If the energy levels between isomers are small enough there may be a more soft radiation. It may exist a set of unknown isomers of He4, He3 ...For this isomers there must exist a huge number of lower energy stage and a relative small difference in energy between them. Well - that's the rub isn't it? The actual numbers do not work out very well. The fusion reaction of deuterium to helium provides about 24 MeV gain, and yet anything over about 10 KeV would have been measured by now; therefore to support a helium fusion hypothesis - we would need at least 2,400 isomers or intermediate stages of helium, all fairly evenly spaced. Plus, the lifetime of each isomer state, at least in those elements with known isomers, is long. If helium has thousands of isomers, it would typically take centuries to decay. Thus to prop up the required details for fusion of D to He at low energy, which is one miracle, one needs another miracle which is finding isomers in helium, which has no known isomers, then another miracle to suggest that there are actually ~3000 isomers in relatively equal steps, and finally another miracle that all the isomers decay very rapidly. Not to mention the fifth miracle, which is that decay via nuclear isomers is the exclusive method of energy release, happening all the time ... with no other channels.
Re: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 14 May 2014 06:35:38 -0700: Hi, [snip] Problem is - the alpha is slow and the electrons are very fast - so that with this and other forms of IC, the ejected electron(s) is extremely energetic and the bremsstrahlung from it would be just as obvious as gamma rays, if not more so. Not more so. Only about 1% of fast electrons actually produce bremsstrahlung. BTW if Hydrino molecules are the primary agent, then the fusion energy may well largely be carried by a fast proton, which being about 1800 times more massive than an electron produces essentially no bremsstrahlung, but would produce some secondary gamma radiation through collisions with other nuclei. (About 1 time in 1? - anyone got a reasonable value for this number?) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 14 May 2014 09:04:35 -0700: Hi, [snip] In short, just like with the Hagelstein hypothesis, we are not dealing just with merely an alternative route to shed high energy - but instead - to an exclusive alternative. As I see it, the only way any alternative can be exclusive is if the cause and effect are coupled. E.g. a situation arises where the reaction can only happen if the spin coupling channel is available. IOW the availability of the channel is what makes the reaction possible in the first place. (QM does appear to work this way, i.e. the probability of a reaction occurring is linked to the possible result of the reaction.) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 14 May 2014 09:04:35 -0700: Hi, [snip] Since nature prefers the simplest way - which is via radiation, any mention of exclusivity presents an almost insurmountable problem, especially if there is no model in standard nuclear physics. Actually nature has no preference. Each channel occurs with its own probability. The channel that will happen most often is the channel with the highest probability (i.e. the shortest half life). Since particle emission has a much higher probability than gamma emission, it happens far more frequently, when it is possible. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer
In reply to MarkI-ZeroPoint's message of Tue, 13 May 2014 22:25:37 -0700: Hi, [snip] If you go back through the archives, you will see that I have mentioned a modified form of IC frequently in connection with Hydrino fusion. However, as Jones pointed out, it does have the problem of producing easily detected bremsstrahlung, which is not in evidence. And here is what caught my attention that might apply to LENR/CF: --- Internal conversion Metastable isomers may also decay by internal conversion - ***a process in which the energy of nuclear de-excitation is NOT emitted as a gamma ray***, but instead used to accelerate one of the inner electrons of the atom, so that it leaves at high speed and energy. This result occurs because inner atomic electrons penetrate the nucleus, where they are subject to the intense electric fields which result when the protons of the nucleus re-arrange in a different way. In nuclei which are far from stability in energy, still other decay modes are known. --- An added bonus was this statement which supports my model for electrons as dipole-like oscillations which either skirt, and/or pass thru the nucleus. .because inner atomic electrons penetrate the nucleus I guess it's going to take a 2x4 to the head to get the science mainstream's attention. or, to interrupt their mesmerized state brought on by indoctrination to the current paradigm. -mark iverson Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer
Much depends upon how the reaction energy is stored within the nucleus. Does anyone recall seeing good evidence that it is stored as spin energy of the nucleons? Large nuclei such as nickel likely have much of the energy hidden within the distribution of the protons and neutrons that can take on different forms. Helium or deuteron are too simple to have these sinks as far as I know. I am not aware of the possible distributions and magnitudes of spin energy storage but that dovetails nicely with our thoughts about interaction with large magnetic fields. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, May 14, 2014 6:01 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer In reply to MarkI-ZeroPoint's message of Tue, 13 May 2014 22:25:37 -0700: Hi, [snip] If you go back through the archives, you will see that I have mentioned a modified form of IC frequently in connection with Hydrino fusion. However, as Jones pointed out, it does have the problem of producing easily detected bremsstrahlung, which is not in evidence. And here is what caught my attention that might apply to LENR/CF: --- Internal conversion Metastable isomers may also decay by internal conversion - ***a process in which the energy of nuclear de-excitation is NOT emitted as a gamma ray***, but instead used to accelerate one of the inner electrons of the atom, so that it leaves at high speed and energy. This result occurs because inner atomic electrons penetrate the nucleus, where they are subject to the intense electric fields which result when the protons of the nucleus re-arrange in a different way. In nuclei which are far from stability in energy, still other decay modes are known. --- An added bonus was this statement which supports my model for electrons as dipole-like oscillations which either skirt, and/or pass thru the nucleus. .because inner atomic electrons penetrate the nucleus I guess it's going to take a 2x4 to the head to get the science mainstream's attention. or, to interrupt their mesmerized state brought on by indoctrination to the current paradigm. -mark iverson Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer
-Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com In short, just like with the Hagelstein hypothesis, we are not dealing with merely an alternative route to shed high energy - but instead - to an exclusive alternative As I see it, the only way any alternative can be exclusive is if the cause and effect are coupled. E.g. a situation arises where the reaction can only happen if the spin coupling channel is available IOW the availability of the channel is what makes the reaction possible in the first place. (QM does appear to work this way, i.e. the probability of a reaction occurring is linked to the possible result of the reaction.) That's a good point, Robin - if indeed a certain kind of QM nuclear tunneling works exclusively for a particular reaction pathway. I cannot think of a relevant example of this; and since QM is generally related to probabilities instead of absolutes, any example would be helpful. The closest thing that comes to mind is bandgap tunneling of electrons in semiconductors, but there is only one successful result there. Well, there is also a possible analogy of the QM depletion zone, which might arise in a combined type of Millsean-LENR situation, such that the makeup nuclear reaction only occurs in a severely energy depleted zone (due to relatively large zones of orbital redundancy being brought back up to equilibrium by time-reversed fusion reaction.) Jones
Re: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer
Jones-- Most excitation of Nuclei to determine isomeric states has been via neutron activation or proton excitation using reactors for neutrons or accelerators for protons. Not much has been via electromagnetic excitation. The reason has been that it is difficult to design and build equipment to provide high energy resonant photons. In the last 15 years the capabilitities has improved. The only area studied extensively is in the activation of nuclear magnetic moments and their measurement. The entire nuclear magnetic resonance technology uses the knowledge of various energy states associated with differing magnetic moments for a host of different nuclei. The issue in my mind is whether the nuclear QCD theory allows transitions between spin states to distribute fractional energy packets equal to the differential mass energy between two D's and one He. If such a reaction can happen it very well may happen, if the assemblage of receptor particles coupled to the system where the the two D's come together is properly aligned to accept the transfer of energy packets. The increase in entropy which Nature like to accomplish is allowed it goes without saying it will occur. Keep in mind that we do not get radiation coming off, LENR and thus the energy transfer must be one that does not involve linear momentum and the resulting kinetic energy of particles. Spin energy and associated angular momentum does not entail high kinetic energy particles or photons. In this vein the alternate route to spin is the exclusive route that has been studied and used heretofore--the simple way via radiation. However, spin energy in many ways may be simpler than radiation. It is surely much nicer to work with. The exclusive alternative of radiation fractionation may not be exclusive. Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 9:04 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer Hi Bob, I agree that spin coupling is possible, even likely. However, what is missing from the discussion is the issue of exclusivity. How does spin coupling suddenly become the only route to shed energy, especially when it never was more than a minor route in standard physics? In short, just like with the Hagelstein hypothesis, we are not dealing just with merely an alternative route to shed high energy - but instead - to an exclusive alternative. Since nature prefers the simplest way - which is via radiation, any mention of exclusivity presents an almost insurmountable problem, especially if there is no model in standard nuclear physics. 10 watts of heat is trivial, but decidedly not trivial if that heat starts out as 10 watts of x-rays - which would be the case if there was nuclear gain which materialized as hot electrons and bremsstrahlung. It would seem that even if one part in a thousand escapes the hypothetical spin coupling channel, then the consequences are so severe as to void the entire hypothesis. The risk is highly skewed. -Original Message- From: Bob Cook Jones-- As I have suggested in the past, spin coupling of nucleons with electrons or other nucleons may not involve the gammas and x-rays you fear must occur in nuclear transitions. High isomeric spin states can involve high energies above a ground energy state of a nucleus. Transitions to lower energy states should not involve gammas or x-rays only distribution/conservation of angular momentum. Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene Fran, The good-news bad-news problem with down-conversion of x-rays, as well as the other hypotheses for the absence of high energy gamma radiation, including that of Hagelstein, is that yes, they could possibly operate some of the time, or even most of the time. The mechanism may sound logical, on paper and at first glance. But nature prefers radiation, as a general rule. The bad-news problem with any such naïve suggestion, is that the would need to operate all of time without exception. We are talking about deadly radiation requiring thick plates of lead to shield normally, and we know that nature already favors the preferred pathway - radiation. Think about a dental x-ray and the elaborate precautions taken there. That radiation is puny by comparison, both in its low power (15 keV) and in miniscule intensity (duration) which is a few nanoseconds. LENR, such as the recent Mizuno experiment, at many watts for many days, would be trillions of times more intense, and no shielding except from the reactor. A lapse of a millisecond and we have radiation burns and cancer, or worse. In short - instead of the single miracle of the nuclear reaction itself, you would also need the larger miracle of a brand new way to hide the high energy radiation, plus the further miracle that the new mechanism operates without fail. The theorist would seem to be better off to propose an underlying reaction which can
RE: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer
-Original Message- From: Bob Cook Most excitation of Nuclei to determine isomeric states has been via neutron activation or proton excitation using reactors for neutrons or accelerators for protons. Not much has been via electromagnetic excitation. Yes, that is a good point, but not necessarily excitation via photons. Here is a good old paper, since because of its age - the slant is different. Spin-flipping is becoming of renewed interest in LENR. http://hal.inria.fr/docs/00/23/08/69/PDF/ajp-jphyscol199051C606.pdf In short, spin coupling and excitation is probably an important mechanism for some or most of the net gain in D+D, but not necessarily following D+D fusion, which may happen rarely and in the sense of a makeup reaction, due to energy depletion zones. You simply do not need fusion if much energy is available through deuteron induced charge-exchange reactions, including spin-isospin excitations. These kinds of reactions are more likely with deuterium in severely reduced electron orbitals - thus a synergy between electrostatic effects, spin coupling and spin flipping in reduced orbital species. It bears repeating that a neutron is NOT the combination of a proton and an electron. A neutron is composed of one up and two down quarks, and a proton is composed of two up quarks and one down quarks. Quarks carry fractional electrical charge. Charge exchanges can be made in unusual ways without electron emission. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
[Vo]:Nuclear isomer
Vorts, A Fellow Friend of Fringe Facts sent me to gander at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_isomer And here is what caught my attention that might apply to LENR/CF: --- Internal conversion Metastable isomers may also decay by internal conversion - ***a process in which the energy of nuclear de-excitation is NOT emitted as a gamma ray***, but instead used to accelerate one of the inner electrons of the atom, so that it leaves at high speed and energy. This result occurs because inner atomic electrons penetrate the nucleus, where they are subject to the intense electric fields which result when the protons of the nucleus re-arrange in a different way. In nuclei which are far from stability in energy, still other decay modes are known. --- An added bonus was this statement which supports my model for electrons as dipole-like oscillations which either skirt, and/or pass thru the nucleus. .because inner atomic electrons penetrate the nucleus I guess it's going to take a 2x4 to the head to get the science mainstream's attention. or, to interrupt their mesmerized state brought on by indoctrination to the current paradigm. -mark iverson
RE: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer
To follow up, another interesting tidbit in that Wikipage is this: --- High spin suppression of decay The most common mechanism for suppression of gamma decay of excited nuclei, and thus the existence of a metastable isomer for the nucleus, is lack of a decay route for the excited state that will change nuclear angular momentum (along any given direction) by the most common amount of 1 quantum unit (h-bar) of spin angular momentum. Such a change is necessary to emit a gamma photon, which has a spin of 1 unit in this system. --- All together now. Where, oh where, did the gamma rays go... Oh where, oh where can they be! -mark iverson From: MarkI-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 10:26 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer Vorts, A Fellow Friend of Fringe Facts sent me to gander at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_isomer And here is what caught my attention that might apply to LENR/CF: --- Internal conversion Metastable isomers may also decay by internal conversion - ***a process in which the energy of nuclear de-excitation is NOT emitted as a gamma ray***, but instead used to accelerate one of the inner electrons of the atom, so that it leaves at high speed and energy. This result occurs because inner atomic electrons penetrate the nucleus, where they are subject to the intense electric fields which result when the protons of the nucleus re-arrange in a different way. In nuclei which are far from stability in energy, still other decay modes are known. --- An added bonus was this statement which supports my model for electrons as dipole-like oscillations which either skirt, and/or pass thru the nucleus. .because inner atomic electrons penetrate the nucleus I guess it's going to take a 2x4 to the head to get the science mainstream's attention. or, to interrupt their mesmerized state brought on by indoctrination to the current paradigm. -mark iverson
