RE: [Vo]:mainstream physics paper bout the Hot Cat, co-author Andrea RossiJones--
I agree with what you say regarding the Li, P reaction and the source of low energy gammas (about .5 mev). The gammas were only called gammas back in the 60's because they were associated with nuclear reactions. They are soft gammas IMHO and may have been what Rossi and Focardi thought were from the Beta+, Beta- reaction. I concluded that Cook surely knows about that reaction and the Li,P reaction you note. I conceded he did not consider the old style Li,P reaction was the same one the current paper identifies. I would bet that all the old tests of the Li,P reaction were done with energetic protons with the necessity of conserving energy and momentum. How else would they have been accomplished--with slow protons? The coulomb barrier was there and would not allow a proton to get near a Li nucleus--this would have been the main stream thought. Solid state Li,P reaction papers without energetic protons is what I would look for. I have found none. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: Jones Beene To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 12:24 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:mainstream physics paper bout the Hot Cat, co-author Andrea Rossi Here is where Norman Cook and Rossi demonstrate a basic lack of understanding of nuclear physics. To be precise – as mentioned before, two alpha particles released from Be decay are indeed gamma free. That detail is not in question – as far as it goes, but it does not cover the complete fusion reaction, only part of it. Unfortunately many write-ups do not detail the complete reaction, and Wiki is an offender in this case. Ironically, however - the proton + lithium-7 reaction has historically been used as a source of gamma radiation, going back half a century ! But if you obtained your PhD degree by mail order, as did AR - then you may not have known that. What is being missed here, and in Norman Cook’s explanation - is the prompt gamma which occurs (statistically) at the time the proton interacts with the lithium nucleus to form beryllium and then later two alphas. The Li nucleus becomes excited, but it cannot simply convert directly to beryllium without an energetic emission to compensate for the kinetic energy which caused the fusion. There are known signatures for these gammas and statistically they occur when protons fuse with lithium at low energy. Proton + Li-7 → Be-8 + γ (gamma) → alpha + alpha (no gamma) Note: This gamma does NOT derive from the beryllium decay itself - but from the fusion of the proton with the lithium nucleus. This is not always depicted in the reaction graphics, and if you depend on Wiki as your sole authority on physics, then you may miss it. From: Axil Axil Figure 5 depicts the alpha creation process. See how the alpha particles are moving away in opposite directions? Figure 5: The lowest-lying excited-state of 7 Li4 (A) has a lattice structure to which an additional proton will produce a two-tetrahedron structure, giving 8 Be4 (B). The double alpha lattice structure (C) can then break into independent two alpha particles (D), which are released with 17 MeV of angular momentum, but without gamma radiation. On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Bob Cook <[email protected]> wrote: Axil-- You said Cook said this: "Cook says that high energy alpha particles exit the NAE at high energy and deliver their energy to the far field at an some indeterminate distance from the NAE that produced the energy." I did not see this statement. Where was Cook's statement made? What I saw in the new paper was that the energy of the alphas from the Be-8 decay was in the form of 17 Mev of angular momentum (spin energy)--not kinetic energy. (The slowing-down of 17 MeV alphas would cause noticeable x-rays and other high energy EM radiation.) The alphas apparently stays put and transfers its excess energy via spin coupling, one spin quanta or so at a time. Bob Cook ----- Original Message ----- From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 8:57 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:mainstream physics paper bout the Hot Cat, co-author Andrea Rossi Like so many LENR theories, the Cook theory of the LENR reaction is not fundamental. Like almost all other LENR theories, it deals with the emergent results of the fundamental LENR reaction without explaining the cause of the observed experimental results. If a theory cannot explain EVERY aspect of the experimental results in every dimension, it is not valid. In particular, the way energy of these high powered alpha particles are converted to heat is not addressed, even though that part of the LENR theory is central to how the energy of the nuclear reaction is converted to soft x-rays and extreme ultraviolet light. I have concluded from the experimental results derived from many LENR systems that the gamma suppression and the basic LENR nuclear reaction is tightly coupled together so that if a LENR based nuclear event occurs, no gamma is ever seen in a environment that has gotten hot enough (500C). Gamma suppression is an essential part of the LENR reaction. So Gamma suppression is an essential part of what is going on inside the Nuclear Active Environment. If energy is carried away from the NAE, it cannot be converted to its final moderated form (soft x-rays and extreme ultraviolet light.) by the LENR reaction. Cook says that high energy alpha particles exit the NAE at high energy and deliver their energy to the far field at an some indeterminate distance from the NAE that produced the energy. If this were true, there is always a slight chance that the alpha particle could exit the gas envelop and deposit its kinetic energy in the Alumina shell where a gamma ray would result. This gamma ray is never seen. So if an alpha particle is produced it must have little or no kinetic energy that is transferred to the far field. All the energy of the nuclear reaction is carried away from the NAE by the LENR reaction itself. The gamma emission is an intrinsic part of the LENR reaction energy transfer mechanism. On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 11:21 AM, a.ashfield <[email protected]> wrote: Jones Beene writes. "this paper is cannot be taken seriously. A waste of time." I wish you wouldn't just damn the paper out of hand but give some reasons of just why it is wrong. I don't have the knowledge of nuclear reactions that some others do here, but most of the theories seem far from solid to me and this one is no worse. It should at least be considered.
