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
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
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.