Re: [Vo]:Hypothesis to explain Lugano, MFMP 'Bang!' and Parkhomov observations (MFMP)

[Bob Cook]

Eric--

I was also questioning the idea of thermalizing gammas such as the .511 MEV 
from the beta+, beta- decay.  It might be possible for the beta+ to be 
polarized in a  magnetic field and interact with polarized electrons such that 
the back-to-back gammas were only emitted in a line.  The gammas may then have 
a much greater interaction cross section with the lattice electrons, also 
aligned, and a better shielding effect would result.  

I have not heard of such an effect, but it may be like an inverse laser 
phenomena.  Normally gammas only randomly interact with electrons to loose 
energy; however, if the conservation of angular momentum is possible in a 
coherent aligned system, a gamma may be able to give up its entire energy and 
angular momentum in one interaction or at least in a much more efficient manner 
and without the normal scattering. 

Nevertheless, its seems likely that some gammas would not be aligned and would 
not be emitted such as to encounter a resonant coherent system.  I would use 
co-incident counters to look for the back-to-back gammas at .511 MEV.  It would 
be very interesting if such counters indicated a favored direction of 
back-to-back emission, for example, along the direction of the magnetic field 
or perpendicular to the field.  They may also reflect variations associated 
with temperature, if lattice thermal vibrations screwed up alignment, and the 
magnitude of the magnetic field.   

Bob Cook
  - Original Message - 
  From: Eric Walker 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 10:26 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hypothesis to explain Lugano, MFMP 'Bang!' and Parkhomov 
observations (MFMP)


  I wrote:


  β+ + β- → 2ɣ + Q (511 keV)


  I think that should be:


  β+ + β- → 2ɣ + Q (1.02 MeV)


  (I.e., two photons of 511 keV each.)


  Eric

Re: [Vo]:Hypothesis to explain Lugano, MFMP 'Bang!' and Parkhomov observations (MFMP)

[Eric Walker]

I wrote:

β+ + β- → 2ɣ + Q (511 keV)
>
>
I think that should be:

β+ + β- → 2ɣ + Q (1.02 MeV)
>
>
(I.e., two photons of 511 keV each.)

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Hypothesis to explain Lugano, MFMP 'Bang!' and Parkhomov observations (MFMP)

[Eric Walker]

Hi,

Just arrived from Bob Greenyer (MFMP):
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Ntgj0_CUo2U9Ic0lgoHEFgezpXZq6vIcbkD1LP2zLuk/
>

As Bob Cook notes, any β+ decay will result in annihilation photons:

β+ + β- → 2ɣ + Q (511 keV)


Once the positron is produced, it will quickly find an electron nearby, and
the matter-antimatter reaction will result in two energetic photons flying
off in opposite directions.  These photons are energetic enough that they
are unlikely to be stopped even by thick metal shielding.  If we're talking
about watts of XP, e.g., ~ 1e12 reactions per second, and one or more
participating reactions produce even a small number of beta+ decays, these
photons will be everywhere.

I have an active imagination and can imagine all kinds of things that might
be thermalizing gammas in certain contexts.  But it's hard to see where a
theory that predicts significant beta+ decay (e.g., Piantelli's) can go in
face of the experimental evidence.  I guess we should all keep an open mind.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Hypothesis to explain Lugano, MFMP 'Bang!' and Parkhomov observations (MFMP)

[Bob Cook]

Mats and Bob--


This is an interesting spread sheet.  My down load stopped at column AA, rows 
169 and 176, for some reason and I could not read all the notes. 

It would be desirable in the spread sheet to include the intrinsic angular 
momentum (spin) associated with the particles and nuclei involved in the 
proposed reactions to allow accounting of this parameter.  If spin is not 
conserved, this should be noted. If it is assumed photons are emitted with 
their spin, this should be noted.

Where there are beta+ particles produced, there will also be 0.511 MEV gammas.  
Notes as to whether or not energetic gammas were observed should be added to 
confirm or deny the beta+ production.  Also any tracks associated with 
energetic charged particles, if observed in the micro images of the ash, should 
be reported.  

The comment that that He will be less mobile than H may not be correct if the H 
is H-2 molecular H. 

I like the addition of the consideration of NMR considerations.  Note that any 
particle including other isotopes besides C-13 and H-1 have nuclear magnetic 
moments and their respective resonances.  All the resonant conditions and 
frequencies should be identified.  If possible, a calculation of the local B 
magnetic field in the Ni matrix resulting from the input magnetic field of the 
electrical heating system should be calculated and considered in relation to 
the NMR question.  The resonant energy states should increase in magnitude as 
the B field increase and their separation (in energy) should also change. The 
products that are observed may appear from the original coherent system because 
energy transitions to the orbital electrons match the energy transitions 
associated with the loss of mass (transmutations observed) and include the 
conservation of spin and angular momentum within the coherent system. It may be 
possible to excite the NMR energy states to energies states higher and lower 
than the first two parallel and anti-parallel states. This would allow for more 
possible transitions and larger mass changes.  

The notation of "p" usually means a positron or beta+.  I am not sure it is 
clear what the "p" notation means in the spread sheet notes as in the 
Pianitelli patent.  


Bob

- Original Message - 
  From: Lewan Mats 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 3:48 AM
  Subject: [Vo]:Hypothesis to explain Lugano, MFMP 'Bang!' and Parkhomov 
observations (MFMP)


  Just arrived from Bob Greenyer (MFMP):

  
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Ntgj0_CUo2U9Ic0lgoHEFgezpXZq6vIcbkD1LP2zLuk/
 

   

  Mats

  www.animpossibleinvention.com 

   

   

[Vo]:Hypothesis to explain Lugano, MFMP 'Bang!' and Parkhomov observations (MFMP)

[Lewan Mats]

Just arrived from Bob Greenyer (MFMP):
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Ntgj0_CUo2U9Ic0lgoHEFgezpXZq6vIcbkD1LP2zLuk/

Mats
www.animpossibleinvention.com