Re: [Vo]:Phonon–Nuclear Coupling

[mixent]

In reply to  JonesBeene's message of Mon, 30 Oct 2017 15:17:46 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>
>Nigel
>
>With water, there is the phenomenon of “proton hopping” even without 
>cavitation. 
>
>The Hagelstein paper you cite proposes a neutron analog of electron hopping in 
>semiconductors. This means that there are two natural phenomena on which to 
>model neutron hopping.
>
>Protons hop from one water molecule to another naturally and consequently the 
>principle of proton mobility in water has been known for 200 years ... now 
>called the Grotthuss mechanism – but all attempts to split water more 
>efficiently by using it have failed. It is a very fast mechanism and 
>apparently recombination is too rapid to make it useful.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grotthuss_mechanism

I don't think this actually requires proton tunneling. Collisions between
molecules would suffice. 
>
>But the Grotthuss mechanism could be understood to provide a closer analogy to 
>neutron hopping, since the mass difference is small between the two, with the 
>huge advantage of the neutron having no difficulty with the Coulomb barrier.

Neutrons don't have a problem with the Coulomb barrier, but they are much more
firmly bound to their nucleus than a proton is bound in a water molecule.

>
>Radiation in the range of 1-5 keV is surely evidence of some type of LENR but 
>not cold fusion. It is too bad that the two are conflated.

It may not be evidence of some type of LENR. The shock wave would accelerate the
atoms/electrons of the plate, possible sufficient to create the effect directly.
BTW 1-5 keV is also what one might expect from a Hydrino reaction. UV could
excite the electrons ;)
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

RE: [Vo]:Phonon–Nuclear Coupling

[JonesBeene]

Nigel

With water, there is the phenomenon of “proton hopping” even without 
cavitation. 

The Hagelstein paper you cite proposes a neutron analog of electron hopping in 
semiconductors. This means that there are two natural phenomena on which to 
model neutron hopping.

Protons hop from one water molecule to another naturally and consequently the 
principle of proton mobility in water has been known for 200 years ... now 
called the Grotthuss mechanism – but all attempts to split water more 
efficiently by using it have failed. It is a very fast mechanism and apparently 
recombination is too rapid to make it useful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grotthuss_mechanism

But the Grotthuss mechanism could be understood to provide a closer analogy to 
neutron hopping, since the mass difference is small between the two, with the 
huge advantage of the neutron having no difficulty with the Coulomb barrier.

Radiation in the range of 1-5 keV is surely evidence of some type of LENR but 
not cold fusion. It is too bad that the two are conflated.

From: Nigel Dyer
One of the systems mentioned in Hagelstein's 2015 paper 
(http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/108/04/0601.pdf) is the Vysotskii 
system where what appears to be a coherent collapse of cavitaion bubbles causes 
a shock wave to travel through a metal plate and generate a very sharp pulse of 
1-5keV X-rays from the metal surface on the other side. I have just come back 
from a conference where Vysotskii presented this.  
I felt that it was very clever and appeared to show some very interesting 
coherent energy conversion phenomena, but there did not appear to be any 
evidence of LENR
Nigel
JonesBeene wrote:
Hi Robin
 
The neutron “hopping” modality is indeed one way that gain could happen.
 
In fact you are probably referring to Hagelstein’s 1993 paper where he 
introduces this concept wrt palladium.
 
I do not think he was envisioning iron as the active metal at that time.
 
Perhaps he will be reminded of this possibility.
 
I like it but it also demands that the 2.4 MeV gamma is attenuated via the 
down-conversion aspect – so there are two miracles involved.
 
… or do you get both miracles for the price of one when you have up and down 
conversion together  ???
 

Re: [Vo]:Phonon–Nuclear Coupling

[Nigel Dyer]

One of the systems mentioned in Hagelstein's 2015 paper 
(http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/108/04/0601.pdf) is the 
Vysotskii system where what appears to be a coherent collapse of 
cavitaion bubbles causes a shock wave to travel through a metal plate 
and generate a very sharp pulse of 1-5keV X-rays from the metal surface 
on the other side. I have just come back from a conference where 
Vysotskii presented this.


I felt that it was very clever and appeared to show some very 
interesting coherent energy conversion phenomena, but there did not 
appear to be any evidence of LENR


Nigel

On 27/10/2017 23:09, JonesBeene wrote:


Hi Robin

The neutron “hopping” modality is indeed one way that gain could happen.

In fact you are probably referring to Hagelstein’s 1993 paper where he 
introduces this concept wrt palladium.


I do not think he was envisioning iron as the active metal at that time.

Perhaps he will be reminded of this possibility.

I like it but it also demands that the 2.4 MeV gamma is attenuated via 
the down-conversion aspect – so there are two miracles involved.


… or do you get both miracles for the price of one when you have up 
and down conversion together  ???

Re: [Vo]:Phonon–Nuclear Coupling

[mixent]

In reply to  JonesBeene's message of Sun, 29 Oct 2017 08:19:31 -0700:
Hi Jones,
[snip]
Another possibility is that fast daughter nuclei rip through the lattice
creating lots of free electron - ion pairs. As the electrons return to the ions
in a strong magnetic field, they will emit cyclotron radiation (or would in free
space). If this can be captured resonantly, one could end up with a system where
nuclear energy is converted mostly into electrical energy, with only a minority
left over as heat.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

RE: [Vo]:Phonon–Nuclear Coupling

[JonesBeene]

The Mossbauer effect has been mentioned in many past LERN experiments where 
gain is seen -- but in a nebulous way. In fact nickel as well as iron has a 
Mossbauer isotope (61 Ni)

Despite the association of heat with gamma radiation of any kind, when a 
thermal anomaly is seen with iron it is often cooling (magnetocaloric effect) 
rather than excess heating. The idea of a nucleus being “recoil free” 
essentially means it does not heat up so as to thermalize applied gamma 
radiation. In fact, cooling could be more likely than heating due to an as yet 
undescribed mechanism. 

Magnetic cooling in iron, due to a lossless resonance at 14.4 keV  is a concept 
which fits into surprising phenomena known as the “Manelas effect”. For a 
nucleus to emit a gamma-ray and a second nucleus to absorb it with no thermal 
gain and then reemit it - implies a thermal loss since there is a time constant 
in which nothing else can take place (during that delay). The delay in iron is 
very long on that scale <50 ns. With nickel the and the Mossbauer gamma, the 
delay is much shorter and the radiation is much stronger likely (67.4 keV), so 
a magnetocaloric effect is far less by two orders of magnitude.

That may be a naïve way to describe the situation but it could be one reason 
LENR with nickel is difficult to accomplish on a reliable basis and does not 
happen with iron at all  since it could be the case that sometimes Nickel 
can self-cool with the magnetocaloric effect which cancels out thermal gain 
from the gamma. Iron is more likely to self-cool all the time unless the 
geometry forces the gamma to be retained longer. Thus an iron rod could heat 
but an iron sheet would cool due to gammas being emitted readily from the 
higher surface area and field lines. 

In all cases, the thermal anomaly would begin with a gamma, which could be 
initiated by some other mechanism such as neutron hopping - and since tunneling 
is involved, far less net energy is involved than the isotopic mass difference 
would suggest.

Jones



Yes it is clear that Meyer got the theory wrong - and possibly most of the 
data. Other features of the experiment are interesting in a historical context. 
I can find no claimed replication online.

The significance of his experiment today is mostly in relationship to the more 
recent work of Hagelstein and Wallace.

The possibility that iron could be unstable in any nuclear sense (i.e. 
“hopping”) raises the possibility of a “back door” to gain with both iron and 
nickel, which is so contrary to expectation that it doesn’t settle well with 
what we know or think we know about the nucleus.


>Going back to the general principle of stimulating the element iron with waves 
>of another type and/or frequency, in order to cause actual isotope 
>transmutation - there is another entry: the Meyer-Mace device which received a 
>flurry of attention 20 years ago, was patented and then all but disappeared..
>
>http://jnaudin.online.fr/html/mmcgen.htm

Fe56 can't be converted to Fe54 unless you can find another isotope that is even
hungrier for neutrons than Fe56. (Difficult considering that Fe56 is near the
top of the binding energy curve). So I think their theory is probably nonsense,
but they may have had something practical nevertheless.

RE: [Vo]:Phonon–Nuclear Coupling

[JonesBeene]

Robin,

Yes it is clear that Meyer got the theory wrong - and possibly most of the 
data. Other features of the experiment are interesting in a historical context. 
I can find no claimed replication online.

The significance of his experiment today is mostly in relationship to the more 
recent work of Hagelstein and Wallace.

The possibility that iron could be unstable in any nuclear sense (i.e. 
“hopping”) raises the possibility of a “back door” to gain with both iron and 
nickel, which is so contrary to expectation that it doesn’t settle well with 
what we know or think we know about the nucleus.



>Going back to the general principle of stimulating the element iron with waves 
>of another type and/or frequency, in order to cause actual isotope 
>transmutation - there is another entry: the Meyer-Mace device which received a 
>flurry of attention 20 years ago, was patented and then all but disappeared..
>
>http://jnaudin.online.fr/html/mmcgen.htm

Fe56 can't be converted to Fe54 unless you can find another isotope that is even
hungrier for neutrons than Fe56. (Difficult considering that Fe56 is near the
top of the binding energy curve). So I think their theory is probably nonsense,
but they may have had something practical nevertheless.
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Phonon–Nuclear Coupling

[Brian Ahern]

Bob, thanks for the heads up. I will look at the references.



From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com <bobcook39...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 11:01 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Phonon–Nuclear Coupling


Here are some more ideas from Meyer.



https://www.scribd.com/document/142531064/Michel-Meyer-NMR-Generator



Note the list of referenced NMR documents with some by Floyd Sweet. They may 
help Ahern understand the operation of his magnetic block device.



 It appears to be a good source of information on potential LENR mechanisms and 
an  extensive bibliography on NMR.



Bob Cook





Sent from 
Mail<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgo.microsoft.com%2Ffwlink%2F%3FLinkId%3D550986=02%7C01%7CAhern_Brian%40msn.com%7C2e724501295f42f6f18e08d51e796115%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636448429029695946=rPWVCJyyj%2BRza6tkGQVcJuhHJxQKUkOv0L7xG7YvvR8%3D=0>
 for Windows 10




From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com <bobcook39...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 8:45:33 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Phonon–Nuclear Coupling


What happened to Meyer-Mace?  Does anyone know?



Another link from 2008-09 regarding the Meyer-Mace device withadditional 
comments is here:



http://overunity.com/4333/meyer-mace-isotopic-nmr-generator/<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Foverunity.com%2F4333%2Fmeyer-mace-isotopic-nmr-generator%2F=02%7C01%7CAhern_Brian%40msn.com%7C2e724501295f42f6f18e08d51e796115%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636448429029695946=SvtaERhmgaU8xqiqk%2FNw9NsinlJyxhu2natUr8YJ36g%3D=0>



Bob Cook




From: JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net>
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 7:06:06 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Phonon–Nuclear Coupling






Going back to the general principle of stimulating the element iron with waves 
of another type and/or frequency, in order to cause actual isotope 
transmutation - there is another entry: the Meyer-Mace device which received a 
flurry of attention 20 years ago, was patented and then all but disappeared.



http://jnaudin.online.fr/html/mmcgen.htm<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fjnaudin.online.fr%2Fhtml%2Fmmcgen.htm=02%7C01%7CAhern_Brian%40msn.com%7C2e724501295f42f6f18e08d51e796115%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636448429029695946=Qrx0%2FPxkVIA4I%2Bjm7KLyGr8WnW3UQ7%2Fiwja8Dmlyh9k%3D=0>



In this device an iron rod was said to produce x-rays of ~20 keV from NRM 
stimulation. In contrast, the Hagelstein paper talks about x-rays of 14.4 keV 
being derived from ultrasonic stimulation.



In addition, John Wallace who is an expert in ferrous materials has performed a 
similar experiment using iron which is apparently gainful. [no citation 
available at the moment but I have read the paper]



Bottom line, given the credentials of Wallace and Hagelstein - this cannot 
easily be categorized as fringe physics, even though the thought of bringing 
about nuclear changes with low energy input makes it seem suspect in the eyes 
of the mainstream.

Re: [Vo]:Phonon–Nuclear Coupling

[mixent]

In reply to  JonesBeene's message of Sat, 28 Oct 2017 07:06:06 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>
>
>Going back to the general principle of stimulating the element iron with waves 
>of another type and/or frequency, in order to cause actual isotope 
>transmutation - there is another entry: the Meyer-Mace device which received a 
>flurry of attention 20 years ago, was patented and then all but disappeared..
>
>http://jnaudin.online.fr/html/mmcgen.htm

Fe56 can't be converted to Fe54 unless you can find another isotope that is even
hungrier for neutrons than Fe56. (Difficult considering that Fe56 is near the
top of the binding energy curve). So I think their theory is probably nonsense,
but they may have had something practical nevertheless.
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

RE: [Vo]:Phonon–Nuclear Coupling

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Here are some more ideas from Meyer.

https://www.scribd.com/document/142531064/Michel-Meyer-NMR-Generator

Note the list of referenced NMR documents with some by Floyd Sweet. They may 
help Ahern understand the operation of his magnetic block device.

 It appears to be a good source of information on potential LENR mechanisms and 
an  extensive bibliography on NMR.

Bob Cook


Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10


From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com <bobcook39...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 8:45:33 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Phonon–Nuclear Coupling

What happened to Meyer-Mace?  Does anyone know?

Another link from 2008-09 regarding the Meyer-Mace device withadditional 
comments is here:

http://overunity.com/4333/meyer-mace-isotopic-nmr-generator/

Bob Cook


From: JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net>
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 7:06:06 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Phonon–Nuclear Coupling



Going back to the general principle of stimulating the element iron with waves 
of another type and/or frequency, in order to cause actual isotope 
transmutation - there is another entry: the Meyer-Mace device which received a 
flurry of attention 20 years ago, was patented and then all but disappeared.

http://jnaudin.online.fr/html/mmcgen.htm

In this device an iron rod was said to produce x-rays of ~20 keV from NRM 
stimulation. In contrast, the Hagelstein paper talks about x-rays of 14.4 keV 
being derived from ultrasonic stimulation.

In addition, John Wallace who is an expert in ferrous materials has performed a 
similar experiment using iron which is apparently gainful. [no citation 
available at the moment but I have read the paper]

Bottom line, given the credentials of Wallace and Hagelstein - this cannot 
easily be categorized as fringe physics, even though the thought of bringing 
about nuclear changes with low energy input makes it seem suspect in the eyes 
of the mainstream.

RE: [Vo]:Phonon–Nuclear Coupling-- additional Meyer ideas from 1976

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

See the English translation from French at half way through the item.

http://www.hyiq.org/Reference/Profile?Name=Michel%20Meyer

MFMP folks may have an interest for a duplication of the Meyer device.  Note 
that Meyer suggests that resonant energy stimulation of the electronic 
structure may be accomplished by fractional input signals with respect to the 
primary electronic resonance of the copper induction coils.

Tuned high frequency stimulated EM emission  devices may also work to achieve 
resonant energy input.

I would suspect that a close look at the iron or copper isotopic concentration 
would make sense out of the excess energy reported for the Meyer device with 
the  presence of nucleons with  lower binding energy.

This appears to be a LENR with coupling to the copper lattice electrons and 
creation of an electric field that induces a classical current—an intrinsic 
LENR dynamo.

Bob Cook




Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10


From: JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net>
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 7:06:06 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Phonon–Nuclear Coupling



Going back to the general principle of stimulating the element iron with waves 
of another type and/or frequency, in order to cause actual isotope 
transmutation - there is another entry: the Meyer-Mace device which received a 
flurry of attention 20 years ago, was patented and then all but disappeared.

http://jnaudin.online.fr/html/mmcgen.htm

In this device an iron rod was said to produce x-rays of ~20 keV from NRM 
stimulation. In contrast, the Hagelstein paper talks about x-rays of 14.4 keV 
being derived from ultrasonic stimulation.

In addition, John Wallace who is an expert in ferrous materials has performed a 
similar experiment using iron which is apparently gainful. [no citation 
available at the moment but I have read the paper]

Bottom line, given the credentials of Wallace and Hagelstein - this cannot 
easily be categorized as fringe physics, even though the thought of bringing 
about nuclear changes with low energy input makes it seem suspect in the eyes 
of the mainstream.

RE: [Vo]:Phonon–Nuclear Coupling

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

What happened to Meyer-Mace?  Does anyone know?

Another link from 2008-09 regarding the Meyer-Mace device withadditional 
comments is here:

http://overunity.com/4333/meyer-mace-isotopic-nmr-generator/

Bob Cook


From: JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net>
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 7:06:06 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Phonon–Nuclear Coupling



Going back to the general principle of stimulating the element iron with waves 
of another type and/or frequency, in order to cause actual isotope 
transmutation - there is another entry: the Meyer-Mace device which received a 
flurry of attention 20 years ago, was patented and then all but disappeared.

http://jnaudin.online.fr/html/mmcgen.htm

In this device an iron rod was said to produce x-rays of ~20 keV from NRM 
stimulation. In contrast, the Hagelstein paper talks about x-rays of 14.4 keV 
being derived from ultrasonic stimulation.

In addition, John Wallace who is an expert in ferrous materials has performed a 
similar experiment using iron which is apparently gainful. [no citation 
available at the moment but I have read the paper]

Bottom line, given the credentials of Wallace and Hagelstein - this cannot 
easily be categorized as fringe physics, even though the thought of bringing 
about nuclear changes with low energy input makes it seem suspect in the eyes 
of the mainstream.

RE: [Vo]:Phonon–Nuclear Coupling

[JonesBeene]

Going back to the general principle of stimulating the element iron with waves 
of another type and/or frequency, in order to cause actual isotope 
transmutation - there is another entry: the Meyer-Mace device which received a 
flurry of attention 20 years ago, was patented and then all but disappeared..

http://jnaudin.online.fr/html/mmcgen.htm

In this device an iron rod was said to produce x-rays of ~20 keV from NRM 
stimulation. In contrast, the Hagelstein paper talks about x-rays of 14.4 keV 
being derived from ultrasonic stimulation.

In addition, John Wallace who is an expert in ferrous materials has performed a 
similar experiment using iron which is apparently gainful. [no citation 
available at the moment but I have read the paper]

Bottom line, given the credentials of Wallace and Hagelstein - this cannot 
easily be categorized as fringe physics, even though the thought of bringing 
about nuclear changes with low energy input makes it seem suspect in the eyes 
of the mainstream.

Re: [Vo]:Phonon–Nuclear Coupling

[mixent]

In reply to  JonesBeene's message of Fri, 27 Oct 2017 15:09:37 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>Hi Robin
>
>The neutron “hopping” modality is indeed one way that gain could happen.
>
>In fact you are probably referring to Hagelstein’s 1993 paper where he 
>introduces this concept wrt palladium.
>
>I do not think he was envisioning iron as the active metal at that time.
>
>Perhaps he will be reminded of this possibility.
>
>I like it but it also demands that the 2.4 MeV gamma is attenuated via the 
>down-conversion aspect – so there are two miracles involved.
[snip]
I'm not sure there would be a gamma. The energy may appear as kinetic energy of
the two new nuclei, where they "push off" against one another, moving in
opposite directions. Because they are massive, there would also be virtually no
bremsstrahlung. 
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

RE: [Vo]:Phonon–Nuclear Coupling

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Hagelstein has been working om a coupling between phonic lattice spin energy 
states (thermal energy) and nuclear energy states, including (I believe) 
nuclear spin energy states.  
sonoluminescence testing  has 
been accomplished in the past at PNL by G.  Posakony with the collaborators at 
ONL.  Neutrons and other radiation has been observed as I recall and I believe 
draft papers exist.

The mechanism for the coupling has not been identified to my knowledge,  but it 
seems like the Haelelstein modelling may be pertinent.

The math associated with spin coupling is not well understood, since the Planck 
constant and spin quanta do not have a good conceptual foundation at small 
distances IMHO.   How uncertainty principle applies to spin energy and  
quantized angular momentum is another glitch.

The PNL/ONL work may help understand the mechanism.

It may be that the compression produced in the sonoluminescence experiment,  
involving cavitation bubble collapse in a fluid, produces a coherent system 
with  increasing  phonic temperatures and resonant energy states  which allows 
the coherent system to expel EM x-rays and reach a lower total energy including 
lower  phonic energy.  The similarity to LENR is the existence of a coherent 
system with induced resonant conditions coupling lattice electron spin with 
nuclear spin and probable transition to lower total energy.

Bob Cook








From: JonesBeene
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 1:06 PM
To: Vortex List
Subject: [Vo]:Phonon–Nuclear Coupling

Think about this: a process for converting sound into x-rays but not involving 
hydrogen or sonoluminescence….

The conference papers from ICCM/20-Sendai includes an important but overlooked 
paper
“Developing Phonon–Nuclear Coupling Experiments with Vibrating Plates and 
Radiation Detectors”
Florian Metzler, Peter Hagelstein and Siyuan Lu

This was available on the LENR-CANR site but for some reason a proper URL 
citation cannot be found. Also, apparently it has been
updated with further work recently.

Abstract
Excess heat has been reported in cold fusion experiments since 1989; however, 
there is at present no accepted explanation for what
mechanisms are involved. Over the past decades a general theory has been 
developed which seems applicable to excess heat and
other anomalies systematically; but in this case we do not yet have unambiguous 
experimental support for the phonon–nuclear
coupling and enhanced up-conversion and down-conversion mechanism. This has 
motivated experimental studies with which we
hope to develop relevant experimental results from which clear tests of theory 
can be made. A facility has been developed with
which we are able to induce vibrations in metal plates from about 10 kHz up to 
about 10 MHz and then measure the relative
displacement. With a high-power piezo transducer we have driven a steel plate 
at 2.23 MHz to produce a vibrational power of 100W
We are able to detect X-rays… END.

In short they put in sound waves which produce x-rays by upconversion. This 
seems to be related to the Mossbauer effect.

No indication is provided of the power ratio in vs out but anytime upconversion 
is claimed, there is a potential avenue for gain unless
there is a corresponding downconversion to balance the books.

One variation which I would like to see is to irradiate iron (57Fe) with both 
ultrasound and RF at the first sideband absorption line at 34 MHz

The is a surprising history in alternative energy of anomalous energy coming 
from iron.

With MIT/Hagelstein on the case, answers may be forthcoming.

RE: [Vo]:Phonon–Nuclear Coupling

[JonesBeene]

Hi Robin

The neutron “hopping” modality is indeed one way that gain could happen.

In fact you are probably referring to Hagelstein’s 1993 paper where he 
introduces this concept wrt palladium.

I do not think he was envisioning iron as the active metal at that time.

Perhaps he will be reminded of this possibility.

I like it but it also demands that the 2.4 MeV gamma is attenuated via the 
down-conversion aspect – so there are two miracles involved.

… or do you get both miracles for the price of one when you have up and down 
conversion together  ???


In reply to  JonesBeene's message:
Hi,

57Fe+57Fe => 58Fe + 56Fe + 2.399 MeV

>Think about this: a process for converting sound into x-rays but not involving 
>hydrogen or sonoluminescence….
>
>The conference papers from ICCM/20-Sendai includes an important but overlooked 
>paper
>“Developing Phonon–Nuclear Coupling Experiments with Vibrating Plates and 
>Radiation Detectors”
>Florian Metzler, Peter Hagelstein and Siyuan Lu

Re: [Vo]:Phonon–Nuclear Coupling

[mixent]

In reply to  JonesBeene's message of Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:06:29 -0700:
Hi,

57Fe+57Fe => 58Fe + 56Fe + 2.399 MeV

>Think about this: a process for converting sound into x-rays but not involving 
>hydrogen or sonoluminescence….
>
>The conference papers from ICCM/20-Sendai includes an important but overlooked 
>paper
>“Developing Phonon–Nuclear Coupling Experiments with Vibrating Plates and 
>Radiation Detectors”
>Florian Metzler, Peter Hagelstein and Siyuan Lu
>
>This was available on the LENR-CANR site but for some reason a proper URL 
>citation cannot be found. Also, apparently it has been
>updated with further work recently. 
>
>Abstract
>Excess heat has been reported in cold fusion experiments since 1989; however, 
>there is at present no accepted explanation for what
>mechanisms are involved. Over the past decades a general theory has been 
>developed which seems applicable to excess heat and
>other anomalies systematically; but in this case we do not yet have 
>unambiguous experimental support for the phonon–nuclear
>coupling and enhanced up-conversion and down-conversion mechanism. This has 
>motivated experimental studies with which we
>hope to develop relevant experimental results from which clear tests of theory 
>can be made. A facility has been developed with
>which we are able to induce vibrations in metal plates from about 10 kHz up to 
>about 10 MHz and then measure the relative
>displacement. With a high-power piezo transducer we have driven a steel plate 
>at 2.23 MHz to produce a vibrational power of 100W
>We are able to detect X-rays… END.
>
>In short they put in sound waves which produce x-rays by upconversion. This 
>seems to be related to the Mossbauer effect.
>
>No indication is provided of the power ratio in vs out but anytime 
>upconversion is claimed, there is a potential avenue for gain unless
>there is a corresponding downconversion to balance the books. 
>
>One variation which I would like to see is to irradiate iron (57Fe) with both 
>ultrasound and RF at the first sideband absorption line at 34 MHz
>
>The is a surprising history in alternative energy of anomalous energy coming 
>from iron. 
>
>With MIT/Hagelstein on the case, answers may be forthcoming.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html