IMHO, it would be productive in your reaction analysis to consider how important nuclear spin is in the LENR reaction.
Then, you might ask yourself why spin is so important, then you might draw a connection between spin and magnetic effects and influences. On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: > This list is on the right tract but very incomplete. Transmutation has two > consequences. With the hydrogen nuclei is added and the resulting nuclei > remains in tact, aka Iwamura. Or the final nucleus fissions, aka Miley et > al. The consequence produce a collection of elements that must conserve n > and p. I'm gradually identifying the rules that govern this process. These > rules, when applied allow the observations to be explained. The collection > below was not calculated using the correct rules. > > Ed Storms > > On Feb 3, 2014, at 10:11 AM, Axil Axil wrote: > > this post changed my mind about fission as a source of light nuclear ash. > > You might get fission to lighter elements, if you initially add enough > energy in > the form of excess mass to more than make up for the energy deficit. > Yes that means Hydrogen fusion with the Ni. However there is only one 62Ni > fission reaction that is exothermic if only one proton is added, and that > is the > reaction:- > > 1H+62Ni => 59Co + 4He + 0.346 MeV > > However, if 2 protons are added simultaneously, there are many more > possible > exothermic reactions, e.g. :- > > 1H+1H+62Ni => 63Zn + n + 1.974 MeV > 1H+1H+62Ni => 64Zn + 13.835 MeV > 1H+1H+62Ni => 63Cu + 1H + 6.122 MeV > 1H+1H+62Ni => 60Ni + 4He + 9.879 MeV > 1H+1H+62Ni => 4He + 4He + 56Fe + 3.495 MeV <==== this one produces iron. > 1H+1H+62Ni => 52Cr + 12C + 3.249 MeV > 1H+1H+62Ni => 48Ti + 16O + 1.057 MeV > 1H+1H+62Ni => 34S + 30Si + 2.197 MeV > > The last 4 produce lighter elements. > > There are also similar reactions for the other Ni isotopes, and also for > the > daughter products of the initial reactions, e.g. :- > > > 1H+1H+64Zn => 66Ge + 10.202 MeV > 1H+1H+64Zn => 65Ga + 1H + 3.942 MeV > 1H+1H+64Zn => 62Zn + 4He + 7.321 MeV > 1H+1H+64Zn => 4He + 4He + 58Ni + 3.860 MeV > 1H+1H+64Zn => 54Fe + 12C + 4.827 MeV > 1H+1H+64Zn => 50Cr + 16O + 3.571 MeV > 1H+1H+64Zn => 42Ca + 24Mg + 1.055 MeV > 1H+1H+64Zn => 36Ar + 30Si + 3.239 MeV > 1H+1H+64Zn => 37Ar + 29Si + 1.417 MeV > 1H+1H+64Zn => 38Ar + 28Si + 4.782 MeV > 1H+1H+64Zn => 35Cl + 31P + 2.029 MeV > 1H+1H+64Zn => 33S + 33S + 1.746 MeV > 1H+1H+64Zn => 34S + 32S + 4.522 MeV > > Note the many light elements/isotopes. > > Generally speaking by the time one gets to the mid-range elements, fission > becomes much less likely when only a single nucleon is added (one can see > this > by checking neutron absorption cross sections). However concurrent > addition of > *two* protons could be a whole different kettle of fish. > > Why do I even consider two proton additions? Because a severely shrunken > Hydrino > molecule is electrically neutral and even more massive than a neutron, so I > think it may be possible for it to pass through the electron shells of > other > atoms and approach the nucleus, just as neutrons do. > > And they bring two protons to the party *at the same time*. > > Note that just because a reaction is exothermic, that doesn't necessarily > mean > that it will happen frequently/easily or even at all for that matter. > > Furthermore, the more energy/mass that is initially added, the more likely > fission becomes. Since it is also possible for two Hydrino molecules to be > magnetically bound together, reactions involving the addition of 4 protons > may > also be possible, e.g. :- > > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 65Ge + n + 10.750 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 66Ge + 24.037 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 63Ga + 3H + 4.007 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 64Ga + 2H + 8.108 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 65Ga + 1H + 17.778 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 61Zn + 5He + 7.372 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 62Zn + 4He + 21.156 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 63Zn + 3He + 9.692 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 59Cu + 7Li + 3.859 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 60Cu + 6Li + 6.667 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 61Cu + 5Li + 12.713 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 56Ni + 10Be + 3.707 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 57Ni + 9Be + 7.144 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 4He + 4He + 58Ni + 17.696 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 59Ni + 7Be + 7.795 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 60Ni + 6Be + 8.507 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 55Co + 11B + 7.769 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 56Co + 10B + 6.398 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 57Co + 9B + 9.338 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 52Fe + 14C + 7.721 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 53Fe + 13C + 10.230 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 54Fe + 12C + 18.662 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 55Fe + 11C + 9.239 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 56Fe + 10C + 7.316 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 51Mn + 15N + 10.550 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 52Mn + 14N + 10.252 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 53Mn + 13N + 11.752 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 54Mn + 12N + 0.627 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 48Cr + 18O + 6.010 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 49Cr + 17O + 8.549 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 50Cr + 16O + 17.406 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 51Cr + 15O + 11.003 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 52Cr + 14O + 9.819 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 47V + 19F + 5.899 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 48V + 18F + 6.011 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 49V + 17F + 8.415 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 50V + 16F + 0.951 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 44Ti + 22Ne + 7.983 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 45Ti + 21Ne + 7.147 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 46Ti + 20Ne + 13.575 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 47Ti + 19Ne + 5.591 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 48Ti + 18Ne + 5.580 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 41Sc + 25Na + 0.410 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 42Sc + 24Na + 2.949 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 43Sc + 23Na + 8.128 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 44Sc + 22Na + 5.408 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 45Sc + 21Na + 5.662 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 39Ca + 27Mg + 4.271 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 40Ca + 26Mg + 13.471 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 41Ca + 25Mg + 10.740 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 42Ca + 24Mg + 14.890 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 43Ca + 23Mg + 6.292 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 44Ca + 22Mg + 4.275 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 37K + 29Al + 5.425 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 38K + 28Al + 8.061 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 39K + 27Al + 13.413 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 40K + 26Al + 8.155 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 41K + 25Al + 6.885 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 34Ar + 32Si + 4.868 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 35Ar + 31Si + 8.406 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 36Ar + 30Si + 17.074 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 37Ar + 29Si + 15.252 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 38Ar + 28Si + 18.617 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 39Ar + 27Si + 8.036 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 40Ar + 26Si + 4.594 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 32Cl + 34P + 0.297 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 33Cl + 33P + 9.751 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 34Cl + 32P + 11.155 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 35Cl + 31P + 15.864 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 36Cl + 30P + 12.132 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 37Cl + 29P + 11.124 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 33S + 33S + 15.582 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 34S + 32S + 18.357 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 35S + 31S + 10.301 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 36S + 30S + 7.137 MeV > > As you can see, this may produce masses of light elements. > > > On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> First off, the production of only stable isotopes via fusion, points to >> no transfer of any angular momentum or kinetic energy by the cold fusion >> reaction. This points to photofusion. >> >> The report that only even numbers of protons and neutrons in the nucleus >> before fusion resulting in a zero nuclear spin points to photofusion. >> >> The clue that transmutation is not due to fission which cannot happen >> because of negative energy coming out of the fission reaction or multiple >> separate serial fusion events because multiple lighter elements are >> produced by fusion; so the cause must be a result of one massive fusion >> reaction of many diprotons into the nickel atom. This points to a total >> removal of nuclear repulsion for all these nucleons which all combine >> into two or more lighter resultant nuclei. Also the production of all >> those highly concentrated cooper pairs of protons point to suspension of >> nuclear repulsion. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 11:16 AM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 2/3/14, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > Let us discuss this reference:... >>> >>> No, let us discuss an experiment of YOUR design, the results of which >>> would differentiate YOUR theory from competing theories. >>> >>> >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 1:53 AM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> >> Theory is not made of repetition and citation but of reflection and >>> >> experimental testing. >>> >> >>> >> One of the nice things about coming up with a novel theory is it >>> allows >>> >> you to come up with novel experiments and if appropriately tempered by >>> >> economic those experiments may be quite practical. >>> >> >>> >> What is your experimental test? >>> >> >>> >> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:49 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> I speak with the authority of repetition. I have gone over this stuff >>> >>> fifty times and no one has countered me except Ed Storms to my great >>> >>> joy. >>> >>> >>> >>> Theory is not made of sunshine and roses. Like steel, it is tempered >>> by >>> >>> repeated blows and forged in fire, between the hammer and the anvil. >>> >>> >>> >>> In each post I provide one or more supporting references. All the >>> >>> opinions I provide are based on established science as defined by the >>> >>> references I list. >>> >>> >>> >> http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0306126v2.pdf >>> >>> >>> >>> As above In this thread, I provide a reference on how EMF frequencies >>> >>> can >>> >>> be both down shifted and up shifted in an optical cavity. This is >>> called >>> >>> Fano resonance. I have described Fano resonance hundreds of times as >>> >>> simple >>> >>> as I can. Who else has provided a reference in this thread? No one! >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:29 AM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Axil, you speak with the authority of one who knows -- perhaps even >>> >>>> more >>> >>>> so than ChemE. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Does your authoritative knowledge shed light on an economical >>> >>>> demonstration of that knowledge? >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:24 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>>> Radioisotopes are not produced in LENR when the nucleus is >>> suppressed >>> >>>>> (coulomb barrio screened) by magnetic fields, because these >>> photons do >>> >>>>> not >>> >>>>> excite the nuclus like neutrons do. They carry no angular momentum >>> or >>> >>>>> kinetic energy to excite the nucleus. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:39 PM, Eric Walker >>> >>>>> <eric.wal...@gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>>> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Jed Rothwell >>> >>>>>> <jedrothw...@gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> These discussions about "suppressing" gamma rays and neutrons have >>> >>>>>>> been around since the beginning of cold fusion. >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> It is true that some people in this thread have been arguing about >>> >>>>>> the >>> >>>>>> suppression of MeV-range gammas. Like you say, this sounds pretty >>> >>>>>> far-out. >>> >>>>>> Better not to have powerful gammas in the first place. What is >>> more >>> >>>>>> interesting in the recent discussion is whether p+Ni fusion is >>> ruled >>> >>>>>> out by >>> >>>>>> the evidence, and that has been what has absorbed a lot of our >>> >>>>>> attention. >>> >>>>>> If low-level penetrating radiation is not allowed (e.g., photons >>> in >>> >>>>>> the >>> >>>>>> keV range, some of which might be considered "gammas"), then p+Ni >>> is >>> >>>>>> contraindicated, because everything we know about p+Ni says that >>> it >>> >>>>>> will >>> >>>>>> result in short-lived radioisotopes and associated emissions >>> after it >>> >>>>>> takes >>> >>>>>> place, for a period of hours or days. If low-level radiation is >>> >>>>>> allowed, >>> >>>>>> then p+Ni is not necessarily ruled out. That is the heart of >>> much of >>> >>>>>> the >>> >>>>>> recent thread. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Jones wants to say that there is no penetrating radiation >>> whatsoever >>> >>>>>> in NiH. He no doubt has his reversible proton fusion in mind. Ed >>> >>>>>> wants to >>> >>>>>> say that what low-level radiation there is above a very low >>> threshold >>> >>>>>> is >>> >>>>>> due to side channels (if I have understood him). He has his >>> hydroton >>> >>>>>> in >>> >>>>>> mind. I've argued that the evidence bears otherwise on both >>> counts, >>> >>>>>> and >>> >>>>>> that low-level penetrating radiation is both seen and is perhaps >>> >>>>>> inherent >>> >>>>>> to NiH cold fusion and not due to a side channel. Although this >>> >>>>>> discussion >>> >>>>>> might look like the usual discussion about MeV gammas, really it >>> has >>> >>>>>> been a >>> >>>>>> discussion about short-lived radioisotopes that follow upon >>> whatever >>> >>>>>> it is >>> >>>>>> that cold fusion consists of. So we've been having a discussion >>> that >>> >>>>>> is >>> >>>>>> different than the usual "gamma" discussion. Rossi's terminology >>> >>>>>> confuses >>> >>>>>> things, because he appears to refer to all photons in his system >>> as >>> >>>>>> gammas. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Eric >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> > >>> >>> >> > >
