If the energy levels between isomers are small enough there may be a more soft radiation. It may exist a sett of un known isomers of He4, He3, T and maybe D and Li6.
If hydrogen nucleus come together (p+D, D+D, p+T, D+T, T+T) through a mechanisms like those proposed by Hagelstein or by Storms it may first form this new type of isomer of high energy. For this isomers there must exist a huge number of lower energy stage and a relative small difference in energy between them. If the energy is given as photons or internal conversion the radiation may be as soft x-rays or lower energy. D+D>He4*1>He4*2>He4*3>...>He4*n>He4 ground state + lots of photons. Torulf On Wed, 14 May 2014 09:04:35 -0700, "Jones Beene" <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > Hi Bob, > > I agree that spin coupling is possible, even likely. However, what is > missing from the discussion is the issue of "exclusivity." How does spin > coupling suddenly become the only route to shed energy, especially when it > never was more than a minor route in standard physics? > > In short, just like with the Hagelstein hypothesis, we are not dealing just > with merely an alternative route to shed high energy - but instead - to an > exclusive alternative. > > Since nature prefers the simplest way - which is via radiation, any mention > of exclusivity presents an almost insurmountable problem, especially if > there is no model in standard nuclear physics. > > 10 watts of heat is trivial, but decidedly not trivial if that heat starts > out as 10 watts of x-rays - which would be the case if there was nuclear > gain which materialized as hot electrons and bremsstrahlung. > > It would seem that even if one part in a thousand escapes the hypothetical > spin coupling channel, then the consequences are so severe as to void the > entire hypothesis. The risk is highly skewed. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bob Cook > > Jones-- > > As I have suggested in the past, spin coupling of nucleons with electrons or > > other nucleons may not involve the gammas and x-rays you fear must occur in > > nuclear transitions. High isomeric spin states can involve high energies > above a ground energy state of a nucleus. Transitions to lower energy > states should not involve gammas or x-rays only distribution/conservation of > > angular momentum. > > Bob > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jones Beene" > > Fran, > > The good-news bad-news problem with down-conversion of x-rays, as well as > the other hypotheses for the absence of high energy gamma radiation, > including that of Hagelstein, is that yes, they could possibly operate some > of the time, or even most of the time. The mechanism may sound logical, on > paper and at first glance. But nature "prefers" radiation, as a general > rule. > > The bad-news problem with any such naïve suggestion, is that the would need > to operate all of time without exception. We are talking about deadly > radiation requiring thick plates of lead to shield normally, and we know > that nature already favors the preferred pathway - radiation. Think about a > dental x-ray and the elaborate precautions taken there. That radiation is > puny by comparison, both in its low power (15 keV) and in miniscule > intensity (duration) which is a few nanoseconds. LENR, such as the recent > Mizuno experiment, at many watts for many days, would be trillions of times > more intense, and no shielding except from the reactor. A lapse of a > millisecond and we have radiation burns and cancer, or worse. > > In short - instead of the single miracle of the nuclear reaction itself, you > would also need the larger miracle of a brand new way to hide the high > energy radiation, plus the further miracle that the new mechanism operates > without fail. The theorist would seem to be better off to propose an > underlying reaction which can be shielded by the reactor (few keV range or > less). > > In fact, it is arguable that any hypothetical radiation shielding mechanism, > if it existed, would be as valuable or more valuable than LENR itself, since > it would permit the use of subcritical fission with desktop accelerators - > say in automobiles. > > From: Roarty, Francis X > > Could a relativistic component as suggested by Naudts > possibly disguise/dilate/down convert Bremsstahlung? > > _____________________________________________ > From: Jones Beene > > This is somewhat similar to the "lochon" explanation: > "Lochon Catalyzed D-D Fusion in Deuterated Palladium in the Solid State" by > Sinha and Meulenberg > > Lochons are hypothesized to be electron pairs which can form > on a deuteron to give D- (which is a bosonic ion) in Palladium Deuteride. > Supposedly, lochons which are close - similar to a DDL, so that they then > catalyze D-D fusion, resulting in a type of internal conversion leading to > the formation of He plus production of lots of energy which is carried by > the alpha and the ejected electron-pair. > > Problem is - the alpha is slow and the electrons are very > fast - so that with this and other forms of IC, the ejected electron(s) is > extremely energetic and the bremsstrahlung from it would be just as obvious > as gamma rays, if not more so. > > From: MarkI-ZeroPoint > > A Fellow Friend of Fringe Facts sent me to gander at this: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_isomer > > And here is what caught my attention that might apply to > LENR/CF: > ----------------------- > Internal conversion > > Metastable isomers may also decay by internal conversion - > ***a process in which the energy of nuclear de-excitation > is NOT emitted as a gamma ray***, > but instead used to accelerate one of the inner electrons of > the atom, so that it leaves at high speed and energy. This result occurs > because inner atomic electrons penetrate the nucleus, where they are subject > to the intense electric fields which result when the protons of the nucleus > re-arrange in a different way. In nuclei which are far from stability in > energy, still other decay modes are known. > ----------------------- > > An added bonus was this statement which supports my model > for electrons as dipole-like oscillations which either skirt, and/or pass > thru the nucleus... > "...because inner atomic electrons penetrate the nucleus" > > I guess it's going to take a 2x4 to the head to get the > science mainstream's attention... or, to interrupt their mesmerized state > brought on by indoctrination to the current paradigm. > > -mark iverson
