Lou, If you are in touch with the authors - why not suggest that they test for isotopes ratios of CFL bulbs which have been run in a strong magnetic field, against an identical set, for which they already have data.
The magnetic field can be from permanent magnets, such as the large ferrite speaker magnetics used in woofer, placed above and below the lamps but in a configuration that does not heat the magnets too much in the several thousand hours of run time. I strongly suspect that there will be a different ratio of isotopes when the bulbs are run for many hours in a magnetic field vs. the same lamps in no field. If so, this should lead them to a different conclusion than isotope mobility. Jones -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] Jones, I have a copy of the paper. The reasons for the isotopic distributions are conjectured to be due to mobilities of different isotopes, but the authors conclusions are quite tentative. Having perused it, I am confused by some of their data. For example, Table-1 (on page-B) appears to show too much missing Hg for "Lamp G" after 3600 hours for all isotopes - unless there was an unusual gain in 198Hg (ratios for other isotopes are wrt 198Hg) - if I am reading the results correctly. I think the experiment should be repeated under lab conditions, rather than with CFLs. I like Robin's suggestion to add H or H2O. -- Lou Pagnucco Jones Beene wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > > An anomalous isotopic profile of mercury is found in CFL light bulbs > that have been running for many hours - probably due to differential > absorption into the bulb glass. > > > This is most interesting - and there may be other interpretations of the > data, particularly if one subscribes to the notion of neutron tunneling > between isotopes at a distance. (I do not, but it is worth a mention since > differential absorption is equally problematic). > > There is a graph (in the abstract) which seems to indicate that one > isotope > is the main source of the anomaly, and two others participate. > > http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es303940p?source=cen > > The largest apparent anomaly is Hg-196 which in nature is only 2 parts per > thousand of all mercury. By comparison there is 50 times more of the 199 > isotope. A smaller anomaly is seen in Hg-201. Both the 199 and 201 > isotopes > have nuclear spin and high magnetic susceptibility (for those who > subscribe > to a magnon-based LENR theory). Plus the magnetic moments of 199 and 201 > are > balanced plus and minus. This could be coincidental of course, and since > neutron tunneling at a distance is not well-appreciated and requires a bit > more energy than the CFL receives, it is no surprise that this QM > connection > was not mentioned in the original paper. > > The low isotopic percentage of Hg-196 in nature, and its mass variation > from > the more common isotopes, may mean latent primordial instability - yet > there > is a relative increase in CFL bulbs, not a decrease. Thus we may opine > that > this anomaly is probably not related to anomalous decay, and the results > are > also a poor fit with mass fractionalization. But if we renormalize > everything into a flat fit - then we can possibly explain both the > increase > in 196, the larger decrease in 199 and the relative lower decrease in 201 > via some kind of QM neutron tunneling which takes place over many hundreds > of hours of constant exposure to electrical current. With this > explanation, > all spikes would flatten and eliminate the mass variation seen in the > graph. > > The major little problem with this explanation can be called of "musical > neutrons" but we are talking about very long exposures to electrical > current, and any QM rationalization could suffice - such that Hg-199 would > be seen transfer neutrons to 201, thus transmuting to 196, while at the > same > time 201 gains mass in relative proportion to everything but 196. IOW the > isotopic mass shifts disappear to a flat line when one proposes that the > two > mercury spin isotopes transfer mass in the form of neutrons from the > higher > spin state to lower spin state of the two NMR isotopes. What seems like a > larger increase in 196 is merely due to its low starting percentage > compared > to the other two. Thus the variation will be flattened - to the extent one > accepts QM neutron tunneling. > > It's quite a stretch of course ... >
