One more point, in a nuclear reaction spin is conserved between the input and output products, except if the reaction is electromagnetic in nature.
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >
