If a bunch of low energy photons is equivalent to the energy of 1 high energy gamma photon, why can't a particular nuclear reaction sometimes produce a mountain of infrared photons instead one gamma photon? According to conservation of energy this is possible, so why is it considered impossible?
harry On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 1:06 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint <zeropo...@charter.net>wrote: > ** ** > > Dave stated:**** > > “… and that the energy from the reactions is shared among the atoms > surrounding it. I have been looking for evidence that fusion can take > place in the compact environment of a cold fusion NAE in a manner that is > very different from that occurring within a plasma.”**** > > ** ** > > When one looks at subatomic particles as dipolar oscillations, and within > the NAE, all those oscillations being aligned and IN-PHASE, they will serve > as energy sinks for a specific wavelength of energy. Thus, the amount of > energy that would have been emitted in a gamma is distributed as smaller > packets amongst the large number of IN-phase oscillators. **** > > ** ** > > This all reminds me of a PhysOrg article I mentioned a few years ago where > the scientists had isolated two atoms, side by side, and cooled to near 0K… > they could watch as one of the atoms remained completely still, while the > other would wiggle, because it had a quantum of heat energy and thus, [my > conclusion] the internal oscillators were out-of-balance, which causes the > entire atom to ‘shake’. What was interesting is that they could do > something (don’t remember what) that would cause that quantum of heat to > xfer from the shaking atom to the still one and, you guessed it, the one > that was still was now shaking and the former holder of the quantum of heat > was now still.**** > > ** ** > > Back to Dave’s statement…**** > > Does the gamma get emitted, but then immediately absorbed by the > ‘Collective’ oscillations, or is it a direct xfer of quanta of energy as > explained above? In either case, whatever the exact conditions that are > required, it would seem that those conditions result in BOTH new low-energy > nuclear processes AND an energy sink which (almost entirely) favors > coupling into lattice vibrations instead of emission of energetic particles. > **** > > ** ** > > -mark**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 03, 2013 8:07 AM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!**** > > ** ** > > >In the end, it should be crystal clear to anyone who understands nuclear**** > > engineering - that there is no possible way to adequately explain the lack**** > > of gammas in LENR - other than that they never happened at all.**** > > I agree with you Jones. The only way to explain this process is to assume > that the gammas are not emitted at any time and that the energy from the > reactions is shared among the atoms surrounding it. I have been looking > for evidence that fusion can take place in the compact environment of a > cold fusion NAE in a manner that is very different from that occurring > within a plasma. The system difference is evident and I have not seem > papers describing known fusion events recorded within a metal matrix where > gammas are emitted at the expected levels. **** > > ** ** > > I proposed an experiment where a palladium cube loaded with deuterium is > subjected to a flux of muons as a way to induce conditions that are known > to result in fusion. If this does not result in the release of a number of > gammas, then evidence is obtained that fusion within a metal matrix is > different than that occurring within a gas. Of course, muon induced fusion > might behave differently than normal LENR activity. The more clues that we > obtain about the behavior of LENR, the faster we can understand the > mechanism.**** > > ** ** > > Dave**** > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Wed, Apr 3, 2013 10:33 am > Subject: RE: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!**** > > Mark,**** > > ** ** > > Some of us only see a duck as a "downer" (cough, cough)**** > > ** ** > > Anyway, and from one fringe-of-the-fringe LENR perspective, this has > "strong**** > > force interaction" written all over it, whether it is obvious to W-L**** > > proponents or not.**** > > ** ** > > RPF(reversible proton fusion) would certainly interact with its surrounds**** > > via spin (magnons) and would shuttle from one state (Helium-2) to another**** > > (two protons) with only quark interactions to show for the experience. The**** > > net energy deposited (or removed) is small per event, but happens at the**** > > rate of blackbody phonon vibration (mid terahertz).**** > > ** ** > > Thus even micro(eV) energy change per event can get amplified rapidly, if**** > > and when asymmetry is engineered into the reaction.**** > > ** ** > > ... hmmm... I'm now thinking of calling "quark color-change" as seen in > RPF**** > > as the "quark-quack" reaction ... nothing there but spin, so to speak...**** > > thus giving detractors the satisfaction of calling the theory as**** > > quack-derived ... yet all the while, the other LENR theories are falling**** > > like ducks ... simply due to the obvious: not being able to adequately**** > > explain lack of gammas. **** > > ** ** > > In the end, it should be crystal clear to anyone who understands nuclear**** > > engineering - that there is no possible way to adequately explain the lack**** > > of gammas in LENR - other than that they never happened at all.**** > > ** ** > > Jones**** > > ** ** > > From: MarkI-ZeroPoint **** > > **** > > The evidence is piling up that subatomic 'particles' are**** > > dipole-like structures, and likely a type of dipole oscillation...**** > > Looks, sounds, feels and quacks just like one...**** > > ;-)**** > > HTSITYS,**** > > -Mark**** > > [darn pics made msg too large so had to delete the piccys]**** > > ---------------------------**** > > ** ** > > Researchers suggest one can affect an atom's spin by**** > > adjusting the way it is measured**** > > http://phys.org/news/2013-03-affect-atom-adjusting.html**** > > ** ** > > [GO to website to see picture]**** > > **** > >
