On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote:
Coincidentally, a similar procedure used by Lehigh to test the Thermacore > powder in the early nineties after a successful run. Lehigh was able to see > the signature emission line predicted by Mills at 55 eV instead of the > cop-out “continuum” which Mills now tries to cover with. A continuum with a > cutoff cannot be a signature. It is basically noise. Or in Mills case, it > is noise with spin <g>… I was thinking about the "continuum spectrum" purportedly predicted by Mills's theory. In this connection I want to propose that the basic reaction behind Mills's work is the induced beta decay/electron capture of 40K, 58Ni, 59Ni and similar isotopes. In a beta decay, the beta electron that is emitted follows a continuum spectrum with a maximum value of the Q value of the decay. As the electron is stopped, there will be a continuous spectrum of bremsstrahlung as well as excitation of electrons in surrounding atoms resulting in photons with characteristic (sharp) energy. In the case of 40K, the upper bound on the energy of the beta electron is 1.3 MeV. Most beta electrons will have far less energy than this, the remainder of which will go to the neutrino, and the energy that they do have will not be lost all at once; instead it will be gradually shed off in small increments as the electron is stopped. This description of beta decay is to be contrasted with electron capture, which might also be occurring in some of these isotopes. In that case, a neutrino is emitted with a distinct energy equal to the Q value of the decay, escaping the apparatus. But there is a cascade of photoemission and Auger electrons that follows as the electron orbitals adjust to the new nucleus that will convey a small but significant amount of energy to the environment. Beta plus decay, which normally competes with electron capture, can be ruled out experimentally, for we do not see significant annihilation photons (or their equivalent, if one does not like the premise of matter-antimatter annihilation). I do not see its absence as an overwhelming obstacle for this account of things, for there might be a simple explanation for electron capture successfully competing with beta plus decay. In order for 58Ni to be involved, there would have to be double-electron capture, which I don't think I've ever heard of before. It's possible that 58Ni is not involved. In both beta +/- decay and electron capture there is a subsequent gamma photon/internal conversion electron as the excited daughter nucleus transitions to the ground state. The gamma photon is perhaps ruled out by experiment, but note that it will typically be a small fraction of the overall decay Q value, which in the case of 40K is 1.3 MeV, so perhaps ~ 200 keV (in the hard x-ray range; penetrating, but not as much as gammas). If such photons are absolutely ruled out by experiment, there might be a simple explanation for why internal conversion competes successfully against gamma photon emission. Eric
