My current understanding about how LENR works involves the interaction of strong magnetic fields with the isospin properties of fermions.
Isospin is a quantum mechanical property that is not related to orientation in space. Charge spin locking is a quantum mechanical interaction mechanism between, a magnetic field and the isospins in fermions that provide a mechanism for charge screening by magnetic fields. Currently, my best understanding of charge-spin locking is that the isospin vector orients to the direction parallel to the magnetic field lines of the applied magnetic field. In this way, isospin of the fermion is captured and immobilized by the magnetic flux lines. In the presence of a very strong magnetic field, the duel vortex based solitons of magnetic flux lines are formed by interaction with the repulsive coulomb field of the fermion and then positioned relative to the magnetic field lines. This interaction is relative to the effected fermion. When the magnetic field is strong enough, the solitons are created by the fermion in an attempt to minimize columbic repulsion. In the process of this weakly interacting composite fermion formation, much of the original charge of the fermion is shielded by the duel vortex based solitons. This theory is based on the Hall Effect for electrons and more specifically, the fractional quantum Hall Effect applied to the various layered fermion structures in the atomic nucleus. For example, certain atomic nuclei can undergo charge spin locking easier than others. Ni62 and Ni64 are the easiest type of nuclei to charge spin lock. Next, the other even atomic numbered nickel nuclei. The Ni61 nuclei is the hardest nickel nuclei to charge spin lock, but given a very strong magnetic field, Ni61 as well as any other atomic nuclei can be charge spin locked. Do not expect a charge spin nuclei to react to any reorientation in space. There are no relationships between ordinary space dimensions and isospin. Isospin is a quantum mechanical property of the fermion and its direction is relative to its own reference frame. Many of the LENR dots point in this theoretical direction. I particularly like the idea that multi-leveled fermion shielding paths inside the nucleus which include the fermionic layering of nucleus, nucleon, and quark. This fermion layered nuclear structure provides an explanation of the many complex nuclear reactions that are seen in the ash products of LENR. Nuclear fusion of a proton and a nucleus happens on the nuclear level of fermion resolution, whereas fission of a heavy element into multiple lighter elements happens on the nucleon (protons and neutrons) level of fermion resolution. Charge spin locking of quarks will produce strange and unpredictable LENR reactions. When magnetic fields grow truly huge, there is also a LENR mechanism for this increased magnetic field strength to support changes in the types of nuclear reactions similar to those that are seen in supernovas were unusual nuclear reactions like fusion to transuranic isotopes occur. On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Eric Walker <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Sunil Shah <[email protected]> wrote: > > This would produce a number of more (or less) likely chains of reactions, >> that together yield the EXACT mass spectrum of the transmutation products. >> > > I like this idea, too. Keeping track of potential transmutations is > relatively recent -- perhaps the last five or ten years I think? The > results are inconclusive, because there are always questions about > "contamination" (I wonder in this context how much is actually > contamination, however). > > When I was doing an informal review of some of the papers that dealt with > transmutations, I came to these tentative conclusions: > > 1. There are some real difficulties in measuring relative amounts of > transmutations. > 2. The transmutations seen are across the board in terms of isotopes > on the lower end of atomic masses. > 3. Some transmutations are up in atomic mass or number, and others are > down; perhaps mostly up, but this is just an impression. > 4. In some cases it looks like there might be fission of larger > isotopes happening. > 5. There is little in the way of the kind of activation you would see > from adding neutrons, so this doesn't seem to be a significant activity. > 6. My own impression is that transmutations are generally to stable > isotopes and rarely to short-lived ones. > 7. A lot of the potential transmutations look like what you would get > with the successive addition of protons -- X + p, (X + p) + p, etc. > 8. Some of the transmutations look like what you would get with the > successive addition of deuterons -- X + d, (X + d) + d, etc. > 9. There's a general conclusion that the amount of energy that would > be generated by the transmutations that are seen is not of the right order > of magnitude to account for the heat that is measured, suggesting that > transmutations are a side process. > > It took a while for me to go along with (7) and (8). It was only after I > convinced myself that there really is something unusual happening that does > not look like normal fusion that I became open to them. If these two items > are true, then pinning down the specific reactions that are going on might > not be a simple matter of finding a signature or two in the transmutations > and then using them to constrain the possibilities. I think you would have > to come up with some sophisticated Monte Carlo simulations and make some > important assumptions about the rates at which these processes occur, and > even then while you could gain some insight into the overall process, it > would not necessarily disclose it with any assurance. Whatever that > process or processes are, in the context of PdD they appear to lead to the > generation of 4He (although not in every case), and in the context of NiH, > no one but Rossi and Defkalion really seems to know. > > >> (There are some downsides to this approach of course. Heat is measured >> now, transmutation products are measured later. For transmutation we need >> to subtract effects of external ionizing radiation (cosmic, for example), >> and natural isotope spread of the bulk material, and uncertainties due to >> impurities.) >> > > I'm going to guess that the variance in transmutation measurements from > one trial to another is very high. For this reason it seems like a lot of > trials are needed to obtain reliable numbers for any relative ratios of > isotopes before and after. > > Eric > >
