Jed Rothwell wrote:
I uploaded three papers by Irina Savvatimova et al. Another one is
coming, after she sends me some changes.
This one:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MuromtsevVneutrinodi.pdf
... on the Iwamura effect **[if it could be trusted as accurate]**
is every bit the bombshell (bad choice of idiom) as the SPAWARS
experiments. The other papers are also interesting but here we have
changes brought on by simple D2 diffusion.
The most interesting thing to me is that once again - we have C figuring
in very prominently - carbon. Or should I say 'virtual carbon' via a
particle which mainstream physics denies as being stable: the dineutron
(two bound neutrons) and then to compound the situation- the neutrino at
high probability.
I wish that the interconnection between the neutrino and the carbon
nucleus via the dineutron were spelled out a little more clearly for the
timid amongst us -- as this, at first glance, is both bizarre beyond all
previous understanding - yet at the same time having this huge jolt of
Archimedean "aha, so that is it!".
Actually one can scarcely spell it out any clearer (mathematically) than
equations 1-6 but the implications are such that this writer balks at
putting that into words.
BACKSTORY:
The paper titled ‘Low energy nuclear transmutation in condensed matter
induced by D2 gas permeation through Pd complexes’ by Iwamura et al.,
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries was considered by many to have been the most
important paper of ICCF10 Boston. Many replications and variations followed.
Unfortunately, the details of these replications vary significantly
between labs... as Iwamura found that the effective "Z multiplier" (so
to speak) was 2 (alpha) not 6 (carbon). Somebody correct me if this is
incorrect. The reasoning of Savvatimova is more appealing in many ways
but - the $64 question: are the two results contradictory to a single
more general explanantion? Can the neutrino really be involved at
relatively high probability? Which kind of neutrino? Is so-called
neutrino 'flavor-change' involved?
IN a perfect world, any of these results (fully replicated) would easily
win the Nobel prize for physics, not to mention the original work of
P&F. Problem is, as of now they do not mesh. IMHO it appears that
Savvatimova has the more cogent theory but in many ways it seems to
contradict Iwamuara as much as support him. Is that conclusion too much
a 'rush to judgement'?
Needless to say, we do not live in a perfect world nor even one of
minimum fairness.
With the caveat: **[if this paper could be trusted as accurate]** As
everyone is aware, the Russians are very advanced in nuclear physics,
but also, as a practical matter, the science establishment over there is
in somewhat of economic shambles, so many poor papers have emerged from
Russia of dubious reliability. Apologies if that assessment in any way
taints what could be a most remarkable finding.
Jones
Got you plane ticket for Moscow yet, Steve? I hear that June is pretty
nice. At least the snow is starting to melt ;-)
