Yes it is clear that Meyer got the theory wrong - and possibly most of the 
data. Other features of the experiment are interesting in a historical context. 
I can find no claimed replication online.

The significance of his experiment today is mostly in relationship to the more 
recent work of Hagelstein and Wallace.

The possibility that iron could be unstable in any nuclear sense (i.e. 
“hopping”) raises the possibility of a “back door” to gain with both iron and 
nickel, which is so contrary to expectation that it doesn’t settle well with 
what we know or think we know about the nucleus.

>Going back to the general principle of stimulating the element iron with waves 
>of another type and/or frequency, in order to cause actual isotope 
>transmutation - there is another entry: the Meyer-Mace device which received a 
>flurry of attention 20 years ago, was patented and then all but disappeared..

Fe56 can't be converted to Fe54 unless you can find another isotope that is even
hungrier for neutrons than Fe56. (Difficult considering that Fe56 is near the
top of the binding energy curve). So I think their theory is probably nonsense,
but they may have had something practical nevertheless.

Robin van Spaandonk

Reply via email to