Eric I agree with what you said here completely.

I think it could be well worth some one with an un biased mind looking through 
these transmutations and isotope evolutions to see what information it throws 

I guess for most of us find it very difficult to do though as I think we all 
have our own pet theories or ideas though or opinions on others that can only 
influence us.

I guess people like Iwamura are doing avoid job at identifying them though.

After Jones Beene recommendation I have been reading through parts of Ed Storms 
book again it's amazing what's in there when you look back at it. I read it 
initially a year or so ago as an introduction to LENR when I was new to the 
subject but it's really of benefit once you have learnt a bit more about it. He 
made a huge work with that book I think.

I agree with you though now after re-reading these sections there are 
transmutations all over the place. But perhaps combining Ed Storms book with 
some information in Norman Cooks book about Nuclear Structure which has some 
interesting factual information an correlation of states with structure and a 
good advanced book on quantum mechanics and Quantum tunneling some one could 
make some sense of the transmutations and isotope evolutions from first 
principles that could the go on to inform both theory at atomic level and 
theory regarding the kinds of environments required to generate those 
conditions. This would be a bottom up approach from first principles which 
might the match well with one or more of the more usual top down theories ideas.

Actually it would be interesting to give this data to an expert on nuclear 
physics who has no bias one way or other about LENR and see what he comes up 
with as an explanation.

On 16 Sep 2016, at 02:33, Eric Walker 
<<>> wrote:

>From what I've seen, there's transmutations all over the map.  This is an area 
>that is in need of systematization in the hands of someone careful who does 
>not have a pet theory to advance, or who can do a rigorous job despite having 
>a pet theory.  This is the kind of topic for which it would be easy to draw 
>facile generalizations that on closer inspection are a bit light on the 
>evidence, something I think is regularly done.  And you'd want someone to 
>avoid simply adopting the researchers' own conclusions and just look at the 
>data they publish.

One conclusion that should in my opinion be avoided as an example of such a 
facile generalization: the transmutations are insufficient to account for 
excess heat.  While it is true that some LENR researchers have convinced 
themselves of this, one need only realize that if carbon or silicon or some 
other common "impurity" is actually a transmutation byproduct, then there could 
potentially be a lot of excess heat that could be ascribed to the transmutation 
process, especially if one includes fission byproducts in the evidence for 


On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Stephen Cooke 
<<>> wrote:
I have a couple of questions that maybe some here can answer.

In the LENR context:

Are transmutations of elements and isotope evolutions for elements lighter and 
including Ni ever observed for heavier isotopes (I.e neutron rich isotopes)? Or 
only for those isotopes with fewer neutrons than ideally required for maximum 

Are the transmutations of elements for elements heavier heavier than Ni ever 
observed for lighter isotopes (I.e. Low Neutron isotopes)? Or only those 
isotopes with more neutrons than ideally required for maximum stability.

Reply via email to