Re: [Vo]:Doing the Bosenova

In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Fri, 5 Feb 2010 15:00:10 -0900: Hi, Neutron exchange reactions have been mentioned before, but perhaps proton exchange is also possible. In which case you might have been right the first time, since that reaction only requires the exchange (more accurately

Re: [Vo]:Doing the Bosenova

On Feb 5, 2010, at 11:13 AM, Jones Beene wrote: -Original Message- From: Horace Heffner JB: As we mentioned in previous postings, any nuclear reaction with Rb is extremely unlikely, if we assume it is related in any way to a thermonuclear reaction. HH: I think this is true. OTO

Re: [Vo]:Doing the Bosenova

I wrote: "The reaction that would be triggered first, from paired rubidium nuclei, would be: 85Rb37 + 85Rb37 --> 86Sr38 + 84Kr36 + 2.620 MeV" That was one of my typical clerical errors. The reaction triggered first as condensed electrons inflated would be: 85Rb37 + 85Rb37 --> 88Sr38 + 82

Re: [Vo]:Doing the Bosenova

On 02/05/2010 03:44 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > Reading what I could find on Bosenovas, I find myself pretty worried. > I'd say that finding out what happens in this phenomenon is pretty > important, but one of the seriously worrisome possibilities is that a > black hole was formed and escap

Re: [Vo]:Doing the Bosenova

Reading what I could find on Bosenovas, I find myself pretty worried. I'd say that finding out what happens in this phenomenon is pretty important, but one of the seriously worrisome possibilities is that a black hole was formed and escaped, as it would probably do, I'd imagine a very small bla

Re: [Vo]:Doing the Bosenova

Rb 85 atom is 37 protons, 48 neutrons and 37 electrons (all fermions, with spins 1/2 or -1/2), that's an even number of fermions (122) so it's a boson atom (integer spin), even though it's nucleus is a fermion. However I believe I read (can't remember where) that in BECs of atoms, the bosons are o

RE: [Vo]:Doing the Bosenova

-Original Message- From: Horace Heffner >> JB: As we mentioned in previous postings, any nuclear reaction with Rb is extremely unlikely, if we assume it is related in any way to a thermonuclear reaction. > HH: I think this is true. OTOH, the fact that a gas, Kr, would be produced from a

Re: [Vo]:Doing the Bosenova

On Feb 5, 2010, at 6:57 AM, Jones Beene wrote: As we mentioned in previous postings, any nuclear reaction with Rb is extremely unlikely, if we assume it is related in any way to a thermonuclear reaction. I think this is true. OTOH, the fact that a gas, Kr, would be produced from a Rb Bo

RE: [Vo]:Doing the Bosenova

ma or beta decay) with increased probability. If there is transmutation at all, then it occurs as a secondary step following nuclear isomerism. Jones -Original Message- From: Horace Heffner Subject: Re: [Vo]:Doing the Bosenova On Feb 4, 2010, at 7:30 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: > Not

Re: [Vo]:Doing the Bosenova

On Feb 4, 2010, at 7:30 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: Note that in the neighborhood of Rb there is a slight kink in the curve. This may allow reactions like 2 Rb -> A + B + energy, where A is lighter than Rb and B is heavier than Rb. Perhaps Horace can run his program and see if there are

Re: [Vo]:Doing the Bosenova

On Feb 4, 2010, at 7:30 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: Note that in the neighborhood of Rb there is a slight kink in the curve. This may allow reactions like 2 Rb -> A + B + energy, where A is lighter than Rb and B is heavier than Rb. Perhaps Horace can run his program and see if there are

Re: [Vo]:Doing the Bosenova

In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Mon, 01 Feb 2010 13:25:46 -0500: Hi, [snip] Note also that Rb87 (~27%) is a beta emitter with a very long half life. Perhaps shrinking the BEC causes an acceleration of the beta decay? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Proj

Re: [Vo]:Doing the Bosenova

In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Tue, 02 Feb 2010 09:05:14 -0500: Hi, [snip] >> Could be. Any experimental data? Specific to Rubidium-85? >> > >Nope. That was just a snap judgement based on the binding energy curve, >which has iron at the extremum. In general, elements heavier than

Re: [Vo]:Doing the Bosenova

On 02/01/2010 08:41 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > At 02:25 PM 2/1/2010, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > >> On 02/01/2010 01:25 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: >> >> > Unless it's fusion. With a small condensate, and in the BEC state, any >> > fusion could generate enough energy to disrupt the con

Re: [Vo]:Doing the Bosenova

At 02:25 PM 2/1/2010, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 02/01/2010 01:25 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > Unless it's fusion. With a small condensate, and in the BEC state, any > fusion could generate enough energy to disrupt the condensate, > immediately. Energetic particles could be created that

Re: [Vo]:Doing the Bosenova

On 02/01/2010 04:25 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > -Original Message- > From: Stephen A. Lawrence > >> That juxtaposition of "fusion", "generate energy", and "rubidium 85" > doesn't sound right. > > That's quite true - including the little problem of rubidium not being a > boson. > > OTOH

RE: [Vo]:Doing the Bosenova

-Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence > That juxtaposition of "fusion", "generate energy", and "rubidium 85" doesn't sound right. That's quite true - including the little problem of rubidium not being a boson. OTOH - many things that don't sound right today are merely awaiting a

Re: [Vo]:Doing the Bosenova

On 02/01/2010 02:48 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > -Original Message- > From: Stephen A. Lawrence > >> Isn't that endothermic? We way past iron here. > > > I tried to make it very clear that this article, which is quoted in the > original posting does not go there - not in any remote way.

RE: [Vo]:Doing the Bosenova

-Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence > Isn't that endothermic? We way past iron here. I tried to make it very clear that this article, which is quoted in the original posting does not go there - not in any remote way. The article is simply of interest for both the focus on th

Re: [Vo]:Doing the Bosenova

On Feb 1, 2010, at 7:21 AM, Jones Beene wrote: ZPE is looking more and more like an “energy sink” instead of an “energy source” … … but do not fear vorticians – perhaps it can be both. Particle physicists know well the vacuum acts as both a mass/energy source and sink - even at GeV levels.

RE:[Vo]:Doing the Bosenova

Jones Beene said on Mon, 01 Feb 2010 08:23:13 -0800 [snip] “The main "leap of faith" is that a process which is proved to happen in very cold conditions, can happen less frequently in a temporal or QM situation - since "coldness" can be mimicked by other restraints - including time d

Re: [Vo]:Doing the Bosenova

On 02/01/2010 01:25 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > Unless it's fusion. With a small condensate, and in the BEC state, any > fusion could generate enough energy to disrupt the condensate, > immediately. Energetic particles could be created that would, indeed, > escape the trap, but it might be

RE: [Vo]:Doing the Bosenova

-Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax > ... the only problem is the question of whether or not a condensate will form ... Here are citations from Mitchell Swartz, which are not found on the LENR site, in which he finds evidence of BEC formation: Swartz, M.R., "Survey of the Obs

Re: [Vo]:Doing the Bosenova

At 11:21 AM 2/1/2010, Jones Beene wrote: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/bosenova.htm Hmm …. No, it does not mention fusion as a possibility, but what about the “half the original atoms seem to have vanished” ? Well the good folks at NIST