The Mossbauer effect has been mentioned in many past LERN experiments where 
gain is seen -- but in a nebulous way. In fact nickel as well as iron has a 
Mossbauer isotope (61 Ni)

Despite the association of heat with gamma radiation of any kind, when a 
thermal anomaly is seen with iron it is often cooling (magnetocaloric effect) 
rather than excess heating. The idea of a nucleus being “recoil free” 
essentially means it does not heat up so as to thermalize applied gamma 
radiation. In fact, cooling could be more likely than heating due to an as yet 
undescribed mechanism. 

Magnetic cooling in iron, due to a lossless resonance at 14.4 keV  is a concept 
which fits into surprising phenomena known as the “Manelas effect”. For a 
nucleus to emit a gamma-ray and a second nucleus to absorb it with no thermal 
gain and then reemit it - implies a thermal loss since there is a time constant 
in which nothing else can take place (during that delay). The delay in iron is 
very long on that scale <50 ns. With nickel the and the Mossbauer gamma, the 
delay is much shorter and the radiation is much stronger likely (67.4 keV), so 
a magnetocaloric effect is far less by two orders of magnitude.

That may be a naïve way to describe the situation but it could be one reason 
LENR with nickel is difficult to accomplish on a reliable basis and does not 
happen with iron at all .... since it could be the case that sometimes Nickel 
can self-cool with the magnetocaloric effect which cancels out thermal gain 
from the gamma. Iron is more likely to self-cool all the time unless the 
geometry forces the gamma to be retained longer. Thus an iron rod could heat 
but an iron sheet would cool due to gammas being emitted readily from the 
higher surface area and field lines. 

In all cases, the thermal anomaly would begin with a gamma, which could be 
initiated by some other mechanism such as neutron hopping - and since tunneling 
is involved, far less net energy is involved than the isotopic mass difference 
would suggest.

Jones



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..
>
>http://jnaudin.online.fr/html/mmcgen.htm

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.




Reply via email to