A first-take on this important experiment - from the fringe: > "Solids found in the cell after the reaction were analyzed. Before the > experiment, the carbon in the cell was 99% 12C, but after heat was produced > in the example, more than 50% of the carbon in the phenanthrene sample was > 13C" ... the addition of Hydrogen and consequent decay of N13 -> C13 would > have produced 190 kW of power for an entire run of 80 ks. > Clearly either the energy mostly escaped in an undetectable form, or C13 was > not the (only) product.
I would like to add that the hydrino-based explanation offered by Robin - of the adsorption of a proton from a "virtual neutron" or highly shrunken hydrino (resulting in unstable nitrogen followed by beta decay) is not the only possibility. There are other possibilities and several could be happening at the same time to maintain the slight positive energy balance which is seen, instead of the larger balance of full beta decay. The best thing about this Mizuno experiment from a theoretical perspective is the active material has strong inherent fluorescence - and that opens up the possibility of FRET augmentation. More on that later. Two possibilities- if we accept the notion of a highly redundant ground state are: a proton transfer via a kind of Coulomb sling-shot effect - or the entire virtual neutron transfer, should a virtual (electron anti-neutrino) become available. I am hypothesizing that this particle becomes available from the epo field when fluorescence occurs at the correct level - and in situations where the target nucleus is NOT neutron heavy. Carbon-12 is not neutron heavy. A possible FRET connection to the virtual (electron anti-neutrino) will be a part of this hypothesis. Let's look at the second possibility- realizing that the cross-section of carbon for real neutrons is hopelessly low - and therefore that the explanation of real neutrons is not sustainable. If the carbon-13 isotope found by Mizuno is accurate and replicable (i.e. as to the large percentage of 13C and yet no significant amount of 13N) then it is very doubtful that nitrogen was involved, and the missing energy did not escape- since it never existed. There was no beta decay (or not very much). But still some energy was borrowed "in advance" of the very low energy nuclear reaction of a virtual neutron. Let me focus on that alone. By saying "in advance" one is merging QM with CQM and also with ZPE extraction in a hybrid way. Since there is no linear time constraint in QM, the energy required to put the reactant into a deeply reduced Bohr orbital and to become a virtual neutron (very low energy variety, since there is no anti-neutrino) is "borrowed", and then later "repaid". In contrast to Mills, I do not see hydrino formation as exothermic and believe that there will always be a nuclear transmutation found to balance the books. This POV is of course, anathema to CQM. The bottom line is that a virtual neutron reacts with carbon at enhance cross-section and without a nitrogen intermediary, and without beta decay. This is not your traditional nuclear transmutation, so why would you want to shoe-horn it into traditional beta decay? Geeze, my take on this extraordinary finding (assuming it can be replicated) is that if you are going out on a limb, go all the way out there as you have already lost all the mainstream support from the git-go. From my POV this reaction must involve a virtual neutron (VN) and that will necessitate a mechanism that increases the cross section in carbon. Furthermore, the VN, which is formed via the constraints of the molecular dynamics at the lowest range of the Forster radius, where the effective pressure is in the million psi range - is employing the Casimir force at its maximum pressure (yet this remains an endothermic reaction, in opposition to Mills)... following which the VN which is formed thusly interacts to transfer a 'nascent neutron' (lacking the neutrino) to the carbon nucleus without decay, since 13C is stable. This of course assumes that the cross-section of 12C for the VN is enhanced, relative to a real neutron, and there is a hypothetical reasons why this could be true, related to FRET. The two biggest problems of low cross-section and absence of additional lepton would be the elegant "feature" of this hypothesis - the detail that glues it all together, so to speak ... plus it is falsifiable. Note that 12C has a QM nuclear spin of zero, whereas 13C has a nuclear spin of 1/2. Anti-neutrinos are leptons and thus have a spin of 1/2. Conservation of spin would be preserved if a virtual anti-neutrino were to also be involved at the same instant as the VN transfer: in fact in this suggestion, this will operated to catalyze the transfer, yet - where would it come from? Well, it so happens that the rest mass of this lepton (3.4 eV is the best estimate) may be related to the ubiquitous Dirac epo field, quadrillions of epos per square nm, which advocates of ZPE are always trying to invoke somehow when these strange events occur. The decay energy of positronium (real or virtual) is 6.8 eV and there is evidence that it is a paired decay. This Dirac epo field, then, which is often identified as a component of ZPE (in a broad definition) is the source of the anti-neutrino that allows a VN to transfer and to gain the 1/2 QM spin which is needed. However - the key point is that it will only happen during UV fluorescence when the pair component lepton is also emitted (radiated). At least that is the way it looks so far, before the second cup of coffee which I will need to continue to argue the boson-to-lepton situation. BTW why phenanthrene? Well that could end up being part of the elegance of this evolving hypothesis, since anti-neutrinos all have right-handed helicity (i.e., only one of possible spin state chiralities has ever been seen) while neutrinos are left-handed. It turns out, at least from the some information I have been able to obtain, that emitted photons in nuclear decays and fluorescence are also left handed. This could possibly be an important symmetry balancing. Phenanthrene has a stable configuration of helicity and emits strong fluorescence. The Forster radius is involved strong fluorescence. IOW there are these tantalizing little clues that are coming together to explaint this scenario, and it includes, as a cornerstone: UV fluorescence as a catalystic predecssor of the enhanced 12C cross-section for the virtual neutron. That would be the route of falsifiability for this hypothesis. However, the first order of business, before going forward in any meaningful way, would need to be replication of the finding of the extraordinary level of the transmutation product: 13C. That would be followed by a showing of UV fluorescence at 3.4 eV... and then by a showing of left handed chirality. All-in-all, a daunting challenge to merely set the ground work for an emerging theory. Apologies in advance for the garbled rambling as this is a first draft which hopefully will improve when time permits. Jones Background: Förster resonance energy transfer (abbreviated FRET), or resonance energy transfer (RET), describes an energy transfer mechanism between two particles - usually atoms or molecules. A donor in an excited state can transfer energy by a nonradiative, long-range dipole-dipole coupling mechanism to an acceptor in close proximity (typically <10nm). The distance of 2-10nm is known as the Förster radius. I call it a "magic" distance because it has Casimir, ZPE, and Van der Waals forces written all over it. This energy transfer mechanism is a nonradiative transfer at its intial stage, and is analogous to a near-field radio because the radius of interaction is much smaller than the wavelength. In this sense the excited molecule emits a virtual photon (or in this case 6.8 eV, which is accepted by the receiving 12C atom as a pair of 3.4 eV virtual wave packets that then form diverent pairs. It is termed a "radiationless" transfer because the virtual photon only exists if it is accepted by the receiver, and therefore no radiation can be observed until the reciever then sheds one or both.
