Re: [Vo]:A question about Heavy and light Isotopes and LENR.

[Stephen Cooke]

Hi Bob

I think you are right about factors out side the nucleus being of great 
importance.

I was wondering if the data from these transmutations and isotopic shifts could 
tell us something independent of any theory about the nucleus. For example if 
the observed data requires particular states to form and if this could tell us 
something about the environment or processes external to the nucleus itself.

I guess much of this has already been considered by many.l though. So probably 
I should read a bit more too ;)

Sent from my iPhone

On 16 Sep 2016, at 17:12, Bob Higgins 
> wrote:

Actually what you describe has already happened.  Norman Cook himself is 
weighing in on a theory of LENR.  However, I don't think it is that simple.  
Dr. Cook is well versed at what happens inside the nucleus, but the LENR 
phenomenon is bigger than that - it needs a condensed matter physicist also 
versed in nuclear physics.  Now the field narrows.  Even then, there is 
probably the need for introduction of new physical phenomena that are not 
recognized or understood today - perhaps the ignored negative solutions to 
Dirac's equation that were swept under the rug by Feynman.

Looking simply at the nuclear physics end alone is like saying that LENR is 
related to hot fusion, wherein only the two fusing nuclei are the domain of the 
problem because they are isolated when they react.

That is why LENR is reported in the Journal of "Condensed Matter Nuclear 
Science" - a science that embodies nuclear science and also condensed matter 
(solids).

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 4:25 AM, Stephen Cooke 
> wrote:


Actually it would be interesting to give this data to an expert on nuclear 
physics who has no bias one way or other about LENR and see what he comes up 
with as an explanation.

Re: [Vo]:A question about Heavy and light Isotopes and LENR.

[Stephen Cooke]

Thanks very much Eric for the pointers to the other papers and for the link to 
your interesting paper too.

I have a lot to catch up with it seems.

I was wondering if the transmutations and isotopic evolutions could turn out to 
require certain states such as excitation or parity spin states or some more 
subtle conditions that might help inform about a higher level external process 
or environment . Rather than first looking at external processes and seeing how 
they affect the nucleus.

But I have a lot to read to catch up with most of you here who have been doing 
this for years and probably have already considered this approach.

Sent from my iPhone

On 16 Sep 2016, at 15:11, Eric Walker 
> wrote:

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 5:25 AM, Stephen Cooke 
> wrote:

This [using Norman Cook's theory as a guide] would be a bottom up approach from 
first principles which might the match well with one or more of the more usual 
top down theories ideas.

This sounds like a top-down approach, starting from some assumptions about 
what's going on and then interpreting the data.  What I was thinking of was a 
bottom-up approach, where one keeps theory out of the picture as much and just 
catalogues what's been found.  Ed Storm's "Science of Low Energy Nuclear 
Reaction" gives a good high-level overview, but it doesn't go into sufficient 
detail.  After reading that book, it's probably good to start looking at actual 
experimental papers.  There are several authors that have repeatedly reported 
them over the years, including but not limited to these ones:

  *   Iwamura
  *   Mizuno
  *   Saavatimova
  *   Karabut

Reading their papers is a good start.  Although transmutations are all over the 
map, there are a handful of possible patterns that could be followed up on 
more.  Here is a speculative attempt I made not at systematizing the data but 
at guessing at what's going on: http://vixra.org/pdf/1512.0278v2.pdf.  Because 
it was speculative, one shouldn't draw any conclusions from it.  Also, there's 
a section on Rossi that is unfortunately probably incorrect and should be 
ignored.

What I would have loved when I was writing that paper was a reliable 
systematization of the transmutation research, which goes into great detail on 
what's been reported without introducing theoretical considerations.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:A question about Heavy and light Isotopes and LENR.

[Stephen Cooke]

Your largely of course about Norman Cook having his own views about how to 
present the Nucleus, but I found the initial part of his book where he 
describes the relationship between various states and nucleus stability which 
is data based and independent of his ideas quite interesting.

By bottom up I mean looking at and understanding the raw data from the isotope 
and transmutations in the nucleus in this data and comparing it to other known 
raw data to see if it can inform about higher level processes that could be 
nuclear, atomic, chemical or any number of higher level processes.


On 16 Sep 2016, at 15:11, Eric Walker 
> wrote:

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 5:25 AM, Stephen Cooke 
> wrote:

This [using Norman Cook's theory as a guide] would be a bottom up approach from 
first principles which might the match well with one or more of the more usual 
top down theories ideas.

This sounds like a top-down approach, starting from some assumptions about 
what's going on and then interpreting the data.  What I was thinking of was a 
bottom-up approach, where one keeps theory out of the picture as much and just 
catalogues what's been found.  Ed Storm's "Science of Low Energy Nuclear 
Reaction" gives a good high-level overview, but it doesn't go into sufficient 
detail.  After reading that book, it's probably good to start looking at actual 
experimental papers.  There are several authors that have repeatedly reported 
them over the years, including but not limited to these ones:

  *   Iwamura
  *   Mizuno
  *   Saavatimova
  *   Karabut

Reading their papers is a good start.  Although transmutations are all over the 
map, there are a handful of possible patterns that could be followed up on 
more.  Here is a speculative attempt I made not at systematizing the data but 
at guessing at what's going on: http://vixra.org/pdf/1512.0278v2.pdf.  Because 
it was speculative, one shouldn't draw any conclusions from it.  Also, there's 
a section on Rossi that is unfortunately probably incorrect and should be 
ignored.

What I would have loved when I was writing that paper was a reliable 
systematization of the transmutation research, which goes into great detail on 
what's been reported without introducing theoretical considerations.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:A question about Heavy and light Isotopes and LENR.

[Bob Higgins]

Actually what you describe has already happened.  Norman Cook himself is
weighing in on a theory of LENR.  However, I don't think it is that
simple.  Dr. Cook is well versed at what happens inside the nucleus, but
the LENR phenomenon is bigger than that - it needs a condensed matter
physicist also versed in nuclear physics.  Now the field narrows.  Even
then, there is probably the need for introduction of new physical phenomena
that are not recognized or understood today - perhaps the ignored negative
solutions to Dirac's equation that were swept under the rug by Feynman.

Looking simply at the nuclear physics end alone is like saying that LENR is
related to hot fusion, wherein only the two fusing nuclei are the domain of
the problem because they are isolated when they react.

That is why LENR is reported in the Journal of "Condensed Matter Nuclear
Science" - a science that embodies nuclear science and also condensed
matter (solids).

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 4:25 AM, Stephen Cooke 
wrote:

>
>
> Actually it would be interesting to give this data to an expert on nuclear
> physics who has no bias one way or other about LENR and see what he comes
> up with as an explanation.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:A question about Heavy and light Isotopes and LENR.

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 5:25 AM, Stephen Cooke 
wrote:

This [using Norman Cook's theory as a guide] would be a bottom up approach
> from first principles which might the match well with one or more of the
> more usual top down theories ideas.
>

This sounds like a top-down approach, starting from some assumptions about
what's going on and then interpreting the data.  What I was thinking of was
a bottom-up approach, where one keeps theory out of the picture as much and
just catalogues what's been found.  Ed Storm's "Science of Low Energy
Nuclear Reaction" gives a good high-level overview, but it doesn't go into
sufficient detail.  After reading that book, it's probably good to start
looking at actual experimental papers.  There are several authors that have
repeatedly reported them over the years, including but not limited to these
ones:

   - Iwamura
   - Mizuno
   - Saavatimova
   - Karabut

Reading their papers is a good start.  Although transmutations are all over
the map, there are a handful of possible patterns that could be followed up
on more.  Here is a speculative attempt I made not at systematizing the
data but at guessing at what's going on:
http://vixra.org/pdf/1512.0278v2.pdf.  Because it was speculative, one
shouldn't draw any conclusions from it.  Also, there's a section on Rossi
that is unfortunately probably incorrect and should be ignored.

What I would have loved when I was writing that paper was a reliable
systematization of the transmutation research, which goes into great detail
on what's been reported without introducing theoretical considerations.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:A question about Heavy and light Isotopes and LENR.

[Stephen Cooke]

Eric I agree with what you said here completely.

I think it could be well worth some one with an un biased mind looking through 
these transmutations and isotope evolutions to see what information it throws 
up.

I guess for most of us find it very difficult to do though as I think we all 
have our own pet theories or ideas though or opinions on others that can only 
influence us.

I guess people like Iwamura are doing avoid job at identifying them though.

After Jones Beene recommendation I have been reading through parts of Ed Storms 
book again it's amazing what's in there when you look back at it. I read it 
initially a year or so ago as an introduction to LENR when I was new to the 
subject but it's really of benefit once you have learnt a bit more about it. He 
made a huge work with that book I think.

I agree with you though now after re-reading these sections there are 
transmutations all over the place. But perhaps combining Ed Storms book with 
some information in Norman Cooks book about Nuclear Structure which has some 
interesting factual information an correlation of states with structure and a 
good advanced book on quantum mechanics and Quantum tunneling some one could 
make some sense of the transmutations and isotope evolutions from first 
principles that could the go on to inform both theory at atomic level and 
theory regarding the kinds of environments required to generate those 
conditions. This would be a bottom up approach from first principles which 
might the match well with one or more of the more usual top down theories ideas.

Actually it would be interesting to give this data to an expert on nuclear 
physics who has no bias one way or other about LENR and see what he comes up 
with as an explanation.


On 16 Sep 2016, at 02:33, Eric Walker 
> wrote:

>From what I've seen, there's transmutations all over the map.  This is an area 
>that is in need of systematization in the hands of someone careful who does 
>not have a pet theory to advance, or who can do a rigorous job despite having 
>a pet theory.  This is the kind of topic for which it would be easy to draw 
>facile generalizations that on closer inspection are a bit light on the 
>evidence, something I think is regularly done.  And you'd want someone to 
>avoid simply adopting the researchers' own conclusions and just look at the 
>data they publish.

One conclusion that should in my opinion be avoided as an example of such a 
facile generalization: the transmutations are insufficient to account for 
excess heat.  While it is true that some LENR researchers have convinced 
themselves of this, one need only realize that if carbon or silicon or some 
other common "impurity" is actually a transmutation byproduct, then there could 
potentially be a lot of excess heat that could be ascribed to the transmutation 
process, especially if one includes fission byproducts in the evidence for 
transmutations.

Eric


On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Stephen Cooke 
> wrote:
I have a couple of questions that maybe some here can answer.

In the LENR context:

Are transmutations of elements and isotope evolutions for elements lighter and 
including Ni ever observed for heavier isotopes (I.e neutron rich isotopes)? Or 
only for those isotopes with fewer neutrons than ideally required for maximum 
stability.



Are the transmutations of elements for elements heavier heavier than Ni ever 
observed for lighter isotopes (I.e. Low Neutron isotopes)? Or only those 
isotopes with more neutrons than ideally required for maximum stability.

Re: [Vo]:A question about Heavy and light Isotopes and LENR.

[Eric Walker]

>From what I've seen, there's transmutations all over the map.  This is an
area that is in need of systematization in the hands of someone careful who
does not have a pet theory to advance, or who can do a rigorous job despite
having a pet theory.  This is the kind of topic for which it would be easy
to draw facile generalizations that on closer inspection are a bit light on
the evidence, something I think is regularly done.  And you'd want someone
to avoid simply adopting the researchers' own conclusions and just look at
the data they publish.

One conclusion that should in my opinion be avoided as an example of such a
facile generalization: the transmutations are insufficient to account for
excess heat.  While it is true that some LENR researchers have convinced
themselves of this, one need only realize that if carbon or silicon or some
other common "impurity" is actually a transmutation byproduct, then there
could potentially be a lot of excess heat that could be ascribed to the
transmutation process, especially if one includes fission byproducts in the
evidence for transmutations.

Eric


On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Stephen Cooke 
wrote:

> I have a couple of questions that maybe some here can answer.
>
> In the LENR context:
>
> Are transmutations of elements and isotope evolutions for elements lighter
> and including Ni ever observed for heavier isotopes (I.e neutron rich
> isotopes)? Or only for those isotopes with fewer neutrons than ideally
> required for maximum stability.
>
>
>
> Are the transmutations of elements for elements heavier heavier than Ni
> ever observed for lighter isotopes (I.e. Low Neutron isotopes)? Or only
> those isotopes with more neutrons than ideally required for maximum
> stability.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:A question about Heavy and light Isotopes and LENR.

[Stephen Cooke]

Thanks Jones Beene. I read Storms book about a year or so ago when I was still 
new to LENR. 

I should definitely take a look again now I have learnt a bit about the history 
and the developments from elsewhere too. Probably I could learn a lot more from 
reading it again now.

Thanks for pointing me there

Stephen

Sent from my iPhone

> On 14 Sep 2016, at 18:08, Jones Beene  wrote:
> 
> Yes, no, yes. This would be according to Storms' book, which devotes about
> 12 pages to transmutation. His coverage may not be completely correct but is
> there anything better?
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Stephen Cooke 
> 
> I have a couple of questions that maybe some here can answer.
> 
> In the LENR context:
> 
> Are transmutations of elements and isotope evolutions for elements lighter
> and including Ni ever observed for heavier isotopes (I.e neutron rich
> isotopes)? Or only for those isotopes with fewer neutrons than ideally
> required for maximum stability.
> 
> 
> 
> Are the transmutations of elements for elements heavier heavier than Ni ever
> observed for lighter isotopes (I.e. Low Neutron isotopes)? Or only those
> isotopes with more neutrons than ideally required for maximum stability.
> 

RE: [Vo]:A question about Heavy and light Isotopes and LENR.

[Jones Beene]

Yes, no, yes. This would be according to Storms' book, which devotes about
12 pages to transmutation. His coverage may not be completely correct but is
there anything better?

-Original Message-
From: Stephen Cooke 

I have a couple of questions that maybe some here can answer.

In the LENR context:

Are transmutations of elements and isotope evolutions for elements lighter
and including Ni ever observed for heavier isotopes (I.e neutron rich
isotopes)? Or only for those isotopes with fewer neutrons than ideally
required for maximum stability.



Are the transmutations of elements for elements heavier heavier than Ni ever
observed for lighter isotopes (I.e. Low Neutron isotopes)? Or only those
isotopes with more neutrons than ideally required for maximum stability.

[Vo]:A question about Heavy and light Isotopes and LENR.

[Stephen Cooke]

I have a couple of questions that maybe some here can answer.

In the LENR context:

Are transmutations of elements and isotope evolutions for elements lighter and 
including Ni ever observed for heavier isotopes (I.e neutron rich isotopes)? Or 
only for those isotopes with fewer neutrons than ideally required for maximum 
stability.



Are the transmutations of elements for elements heavier heavier than Ni ever 
observed for lighter isotopes (I.e. Low Neutron isotopes)? Or only those 
isotopes with more neutrons than ideally required for maximum stability.