In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 2 Dec 2008 12:10:32 -0800 (PST): Hi,
A few comments. First this is a tantalizing post, but the concepts are still a bit vague. If I understand correctly, you are implying that there may be another method of transferring angular momentum which obviates the need for (anti)neutrino creation. Per happenstance. Note that the difference between C12 and C13 is a real neutron, so somewhere along the line, a real neutron needs to be created, one way or another. Somewhat following Jones reasoning, there is another nuclear reaction that lies partway between his suggestion and mine. Enhanced electron capture. Electron capture is usually only a minor player on the beta decay scene, because of the distance from the nucleus to the innermost electrons, however a well shrunken Hydrino has an electron that is much closer to the nucleus, and this could vastly enhance the likelihood of electron capture compared to that of positron emission, particularly since electron capture yields more energy. It has another side effect. Since a neutrino is created during the electron capture reaction, which would occur concurrently with the nuclear reaction, the neutrino, may carry away most of the energy, resulting in the observed behaviour. If I understand Jones' suggestion correctly he is positing a reaction along the lines of the "superwave" theory, where a proton first captures an electron to become neutron borrowing energy from the epo field, which is later returned by the ensuing nuclear reaction. This would mean that first 0.782 MeV needs to be borrowed to create the neutron, then later returned. The reaction C12 + n -> C13 yields 4.95 MeV so the net reaction would yield 4.16 MeV, which is what I based the calculation on in my previous post. IOW this scenario still leaves you with a huge amount of energy that is nowhere to be found. There another possibility that keeps nagging at me. Mills claims the production of e.g. KHyI. It occurs to me that perhaps there is something like CHy, with a strong bond between the Hy and the C, which would have a mass of 13, and would pass for C13. That would also explain the dearth of fusion energy. >A first-take on this important experiment - from the fringe: > >> "Solids found in the cell after the reaction were analyzed. Before the >> experiment, the carbon in the cell was 99% 12C, but after heat was produced >> in the example, more than 50% of the carbon in the phenanthrene sample was >> 13C" ... the addition of Hydrogen and consequent decay of N13 -> C13 would >> have produced 190 kW of power for an entire run of 80 ks. > >> Clearly either the energy mostly escaped in an undetectable form, or C13 was >> not the (only) product. > >I would like to add that the hydrino-based explanation offered by Robin - of >the adsorption of a proton from a "virtual neutron" or highly shrunken hydrino >(resulting in unstable nitrogen followed by beta decay) is not the only >possibility. There are other possibilities and several could be happening at >the same time to maintain the slight positive energy balance which is seen, >instead of the larger balance of full beta decay. > >The best thing about this Mizuno experiment from a theoretical perspective is >the active material has strong inherent fluorescence - and that opens up the >possibility of FRET augmentation. More on that later. > >Two possibilities- if we accept the notion of a highly redundant ground state >are: a proton transfer via a kind of Coulomb sling-shot effect - or the entire >virtual neutron transfer, should a virtual (electron anti-neutrino) become >available. I am hypothesizing that this particle becomes available from the >epo field when fluorescence occurs at the correct level - and in situations >where the target nucleus is NOT neutron heavy. Carbon-12 is not neutron heavy. >A possible FRET connection to the virtual (electron anti-neutrino) will be a >part of this hypothesis. > >Let's look at the second possibility- realizing that the cross-section of >carbon for real neutrons is hopelessly low - and therefore that the >explanation of real neutrons is not sustainable. > >If the carbon-13 isotope found by Mizuno is accurate and replicable (i.e. as >to the large percentage of 13C and yet no significant amount of 13N) then it >is very doubtful that nitrogen was involved, and the missing energy did not >escape- since it never existed. There was no beta decay (or not very much). >But still some energy was borrowed "in advance" of the very low energy nuclear >reaction of a virtual neutron. Let me focus on that alone. > >By saying "in advance" one is merging QM with CQM and also with ZPE extraction >in a hybrid way. Since there is no linear time constraint in QM, the energy >required to put the reactant into a deeply reduced Bohr orbital and to become >a virtual neutron (very low energy variety, since there is no anti-neutrino) >is "borrowed", and then later "repaid". In contrast to Mills, I do not see >hydrino formation as exothermic and believe that there will always be a >nuclear transmutation found to balance the books. This POV is of course, >anathema to CQM. > >The bottom line is that a virtual neutron reacts with carbon at enhance >cross-section and without a nitrogen intermediary, and without beta decay. >This is not your traditional nuclear transmutation, so why would you want to >shoe-horn it into traditional beta decay? Geeze, my take on this extraordinary >finding (assuming it can be replicated) is that if you are going out on a >limb, go all the way out there as you have already lost all the mainstream >support from the git-go. > >From my POV this reaction must involve a virtual neutron (VN) and that will >necessitate a mechanism that increases the cross section in carbon. >Furthermore, the VN, which is formed via the constraints of the molecular >dynamics at the lowest range of the Forster radius, where the effective >pressure is in the million psi range - is employing the Casimir force at its >maximum pressure (yet this remains an endothermic reaction, in opposition to >Mills)... following which the VN which is formed thusly interacts to transfer >a 'nascent neutron' (lacking the neutrino) to the carbon nucleus without >decay, since 13C is stable. This of course assumes that the cross-section of >12C for the VN is enhanced, relative to a real neutron, and there is a >hypothetical reasons why this could be true, related to FRET. > >The two biggest problems of low cross-section and absence of additional lepton >would be the elegant "feature" of this hypothesis - the detail that glues it >all together, so to speak ... plus it is falsifiable. > >Note that 12C has a QM nuclear spin of zero, whereas 13C has a nuclear spin of >1/2. Anti-neutrinos are leptons and thus have a spin of 1/2. Conservation of >spin would be preserved if a virtual anti-neutrino were to also be involved at >the same instant as the VN transfer: in fact in this suggestion, this will >operated to catalyze the transfer, yet - where would it come from? > >Well, it so happens that the rest mass of this lepton (3.4 eV is the best >estimate) may be related to the ubiquitous Dirac epo field, quadrillions of >epos per square nm, which advocates of ZPE are always trying to invoke somehow >when these strange events occur. > >The decay energy of positronium (real or virtual) is 6.8 eV and there is >evidence that it is a paired decay. This Dirac epo field, then, which is often >identified as a component of ZPE (in a broad definition) is the source of the >anti-neutrino that allows a VN to transfer and to gain the 1/2 QM spin which >is needed. However - the key point is that it will only happen during UV >fluorescence when the pair component lepton is also emitted (radiated). > >At least that is the way it looks so far, before the second cup of coffee >which I will need to continue to argue the boson-to-lepton situation. > >BTW why phenanthrene? > >Well that could end up being part of the elegance of this evolving hypothesis, >since anti-neutrinos all have right-handed helicity (i.e., only one of >possible spin state chiralities has ever been seen) while neutrinos are >left-handed. It turns out, at least from the some information I have been able >to obtain, that emitted photons in nuclear decays and fluorescence are also >left handed. This could possibly be an important symmetry balancing. > >Phenanthrene has a stable configuration of helicity and emits strong >fluorescence. The Forster radius is involved strong fluorescence. IOW there >are these tantalizing little clues that are coming together to explaint this >scenario, and it includes, as a cornerstone: UV fluorescence as a catalystic >predecssor of the enhanced 12C cross-section for the virtual neutron. That >would be the route of falsifiability for this hypothesis. > >However, the first order of business, before going forward in any meaningful >way, would need to be replication of the finding of the extraordinary level of >the transmutation product: 13C. That would be followed by a showing of UV >fluorescence at 3.4 eV... and then by a showing of left handed chirality. >All-in-all, a daunting challenge to merely set the ground work for an emerging >theory. > >Apologies in advance for the garbled rambling as this is a first draft which >hopefully will improve when time permits. > >Jones > > >Background: Förster resonance energy transfer (abbreviated FRET), or resonance >energy transfer (RET), describes an energy transfer mechanism between two >particles - usually atoms or molecules. A donor in an excited state can >transfer energy by a nonradiative, long-range dipole-dipole coupling mechanism >to an acceptor in close proximity (typically <10nm). > >The distance of 2-10nm is known as the Förster radius. I call it a "magic" >distance because it has Casimir, ZPE, and Van der Waals forces written all >over it. > >This energy transfer mechanism is a nonradiative transfer at its intial stage, >and is analogous to a near-field radio because the radius of interaction is >much smaller than the wavelength. In this sense the excited molecule emits a >virtual photon (or in this case 6.8 eV, which is accepted by the receiving 12C >atom as a pair of 3.4 eV virtual wave packets that then form diverent pairs. >It is termed a "radiationless" transfer because the virtual photon only exists >if it is accepted by the receiver, and therefore no radiation can be observed >until the reciever then sheds one or both. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
