Regarding: "but sadly, almost everything else out there, as theory, is demonstrably weaker if it cannot explain the lack of lack of radiation as well."
This lack of radiation is due to the polarization of particle chirality. The strength of the weak force is proportional to the proportion of left handed or right handed spins involved in the reaction. see Only left-handed particles decay https://www.nature.com/articles/524008b This includes neutrons. On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 12:48 PM Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > > It is appreciated in the standard physics of the neutron that a small > fraction (approximately one in 1000) of the decay of free neutrons happens > with an emitted gamma (soft x-ray actually) - which is in addition to a > slower beta electron emission than normal, and also a neutrino. This > channel is usually ignored but its rare occurrence is not in question - it > is fact. > > The gamma (soft x-ray) is low energy - below the detection limits of many > meters and is absorbed by glass or metal. The neutrino is always difficult > to detect. The slower electron is also below the threshold of > bremsstrahlung and offers no easy detection - so in the end - this kind of > rare neutron decay would be all but undetectable - without the most > sophisticated equipment (which is how it was detected in the first place). > > Poser: What happens when a rare decay channel becomes the predominant > channel due to containment in a metal matrix? > > If the unique detail about LENR in general (nearly undetectable radiation) > means it cannot be nuclear fusion at all - but instead there is a shift to > a rare but known type of neutron decay, characterized by a soft gamma > photon and which is actually an expected result of neutron hopping - which > is itself facilitated by absorption in a metal matrix then ... voila - many > difficult questions have a ready answer which is backed by standard physics > (well, backed to a greater extent than real fusion). > > In the end, there is excess heat but no fusion and no helium. Instead of > fusion, the excess energy comes from nuclear decay of temporarily unbound > neutrons in which the small fraction of the decay channel becomes the > predominant pathway. This would be following a free neutron event > (hopping). Curiously, those who espouse "hopping" seldom take the next > logical step - which supplies a more elegant picture of the complete > dynamics. > > n0 > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron> → > p+ > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton> + > e− > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron> + > ν > e <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_neutrino#Electron_antineutrino> > + γ > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon> > (the neutron decays to a proton, electron, neutrino and soft gamma - none > of which is easily detectable). The excess energy is much greater than > chemical and much less than fusion. > As Wiki sez: this gamma ray may be thought of as a sort of "internal > bremsstrahlung" that arises as the emitted beta particle (electron) > interacts with the electrical charge of the proton in an electromagnetic > way. That explanation clouds the distinction of whether the photon is a > gamma ray or x-ray so they are interchangeable here. > > In this process, a decent fraction of the decay energy is carried away as > photon production which is absorbed by the containment structure of the > reactor and is not energetic enough to appear on most meters. But there is > occasional detection. > > The premise above supports one part of the W/L theory to a degree, and > Hagelstein, to a degree, and the assertions of Steve Krivit about the > weakness of helium claims. That trifecta of support unfortunately limits > how much acceptance the hypothesis can find in the remaining small fraction > of a small fraction of those few who already believe in LENR due to excess > heat. > > ... but sadly, almost everything else out there, as theory, is > demonstrably weaker if it cannot explain the lack of lack of radiation as > well. > > > > > > > >
