I wanted to show that the assertions and assumptions made in the Cook paper were inconsistent with generally accepted posits of LENR not to criticize those assertions and assumptions against know nuclear reactions. To little is known about how nuclear reaction in LENR occur to find fault with their description in a comparison with those accepted by nuclear physics.
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 you > r 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]* > <[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* <[email protected]> > > *To:* *vortex-l* <[email protected]> > > *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]* > <[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. > >
