Thank you, Bob. If you have any textbooks you particularly like (e.g., touching on nuclear spin states and nuclear transitions), feel free to recommend them.
For anyone who is interested, I have found the following helpful in getting a broad overview: - Turner, "Atoms, Radiation, and Radiation Protection," http://www.amazon.com/Atoms-Radiation-Protection-James-Turner/dp/3527406069 - Magill and Galy, "Radioactivity, Radionuclides, Radiation," http://www.amazon.com/Radioactivity-Radionuclides-Radiation-Joseph-Magill/dp/product-description/3540211160 The book by Turner is fantastic and goes into a range of topics, including a detailed discussion about how various detectors work. I found the book in several MIT course syllabi. Turner was at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and the book appears to be an important one. The book by Magill and Galy is a nice refresher, but they do not go into much detail and make some assumptions about the reader's knowledge of the field, and I wouldn't have been able to follow the discussion without having first read Turner's book. Next up is a textbook by Kenneth Krane called "Introductory Nuclear Physics," which has also shown up in several MIT course syllabi. Eric On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Eric-- > > I have several items that may pertain to your effort to understand > internal conversion of nuclei. > > > 1. Various isotopes have dipole and quadrapole moments existing in the > stable nucleus as well as the excited nucleus. Isomers and radioactive > nuclei may have these moments. The moments may be electric dipole or > quadrapole as well as magnetic dipole and quadrapole moments. > > > 2. Modern electronics can produce both magnetic and electric > dipole and quadrapole input oscillating fields that can be in resonance > with the respective resonance of any given isotope whether it is in its > ground state, an isomeric condition or a radioactive state with a long half > life. > > 3. Spin states of the various nuclei and their excited states control the > allowed transitions of the nucleus from state to state. > > 4. Spin with orbital electrons in a lattice and the electrons’ intrinsic > spin as well as other particles within the lattice may also be involved in > the reaction and provide the conditions that make the transitions in energy > possible. This idea is consistent with a paper recently published in the > “Proceedings of the 14th Meeting of Japan CF Research Society, JCF14 > December 7 - 8, 2013 Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan” ( ISSN > 2187-2260) > > 5. The last paper of these proceedings describes a theory that entails > the extended quantum mechanical system connecting lattice nuclei as well as > D or H within the lattice of transition metals. Other papers in the > proceedings discuss experimental data, mostly accomplished by various > researchers presenting at the JCF14 meeting. The idea involves bands of > neutrons that extend between the metal nuclei of the lattice. It suggests > that the reaction is mediated by the H or D in the lattice. > > 6. Back on June 22 Axil Axil wrote, “ It would be great if we could find > one mechanism that provides the total set of transmutation produces seen in > LENR. ... The Philips reaction is not a "one reaction fit all" solution.” > The paper cited above fits Axil’s wish. > > Jed identified these JCF proceedings as available at: > > *http://www.jcfrs.org/file/jcf14-proceedings.pdf* > <http://www.jcfrs.org/file/jcf14-proceedings.pdf> > > Bob > > > > > > > > > Sent from Windows Mail > > *From:* Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Sunday, July 6, 2014 2:56 PM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > > Are there any textbooks you can recommend that touch on some of these > areas in some detail? > > Eric > > > On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 3:41 PM, <mix...@bigpond.com> wrote: > > In reply to Eric Walker's message of Sat, 5 Jul 2014 23:28:13 -0700: >> Hi Eric, >> [snip] >> >Here's where my understanding starts to get fuzzy. The above description >> >talked about isomeric transitions, which involve the decay of a >> metastable >> >isomer to the ground state of the isotope. Metastable isomers are >> >long-lived excited states of nuclei, ones that have significant >> half-lives. >> > Similar, shorter-lived nuclei are not considered metastable and are >> >instead referred to as compound nuclei. For example, in dd fusion, the >> >short-lived compound nucleus [dd]* is not an isomer of 4He because it >> >decays quite rapidly in one of three ways -- to p+t, n+3He and 4He+?. >> (The >> >4He+? branch is orders of magnitude less likely than the p+t and n+3He >> >branches, whose likelihoods are roughly split 50-50.) I understand from >> >reading around that the emission of a gamma photon during the >> deexcitation >> >of a metastable isomer can be on the order of 10E-9 seconds, and that the >> >time required for the emission is something that depends upon the spin of >> >the excited nucleus. Excited nuclei with certain spins will take >> >significantly longer to emit a gamma photon than nuclei with other spins. >> >> By first order approximation, metastable nuclei can't decay. In order to >> do so, >> I think they need some form of external interaction. That's why they have >> comparatively long lifetimes. >> >> > Am I correct in thinking that the same principles apply to a compound >> >nucleus such as [dd]*? I.e., in the gamma photon branch, the [dd]* >> >de-excitation is on the order of 10E-9 seconds, or perhaps longer? >> Also, I >> >haven't found a reference that gives the approximate times needed for the >> >other branches (p+t and n+3He), in which the compound nucleus splits up >> >into fragments. >> >> You can get an idea of this from the HUP where delta E x delta t >= >> h_bar/2. >> If delta E is the energy of the reaction (about 4 MeV), then you get a >> time of >> at least 8E-23 sec. >> (I think this is the way it is normally calculated.) >> In any event it is obvious that a process that only takes order 1E-22 >> seconds is >> far more likely to occur than one which takes 1E-9 seconds (I think this >> is >> actually more like 1E-17 BTW, but I'm not sure whether these times can be >> measured or this is just calculated.) >> >> > >> >Returning to internal conversion, one explanation for it focuses on the >> >fact that inner shell electrons have a high probability of passing >> through >> >the nucleus. >> >> Yes but they are only present for a very short time. >> >> >The idea is that during the time that the electron is within >> >the nucleus there is a nontrivial probability that it will interact with >> >the excited state, which, if this happens, will result in the energy of >> the >> >excited state being passed on to the electron. The implication is that >> the >> >less likely an electron is to be found within the nucleus, the less >> likely >> >that the electron will be ejected as a result of internal conversion. So >> >the probability of IC is highest with K-shell electrons and decreases the >> >further you go out. One question I have about this explanation is that >> IC >> >is mediated via the electromagnetic interaction; my understanding of this >> >is that there is a virtual photon that passes from the nucleus to the >> >electron. I do not see why the electron would particularly need to be >> >passing through the nucleus for such a virtual photon to reach it, for >> the >> >electromagnetic interaction is long-range. Anywhere a virtual photon can >> >reach, it seems, there would be a nontrivial probability for an internal >> >conversion decay to occur. >> >> A photon is only virtual if the separation distance is less than the >> wavelength >> of the photon (actually I suspect that this should be wavelength/2*Pi). >> >> >> >Another challenge I have with this explanation >> >is that I think the de Broglie wavelength of an orbital electron is going >> >to be far larger than the nucleus or any than particular nucleon; my >> >understanding is that this is a problem because the de Broglie >> wavelengths >> >have to be roughly comparable for an interaction of some kind to be >> >probable. >> >> ...but it isn't very probable, that's why it can barely compete with >> "slow" >> gamma emission. However I don't know what part of the probability is due >> to >> duration of the interaction, and what part due to Be Broglie wavelength >> mismatch. Perhaps you also need to take into consideration the be Broglie >> wavelength of the nucleons. Also consider that by the time an orbital >> electron >> passes through the nucleus it has gained considerable kinetic energy from >> the >> electric field, so it's De Broglie wavelength is much shorter. (Still too >> long, >> but not by many orders of magnitude. :) >> >> > >> >One question I have has to do with the energy of the virtual photon. >> > Internal conversion is less likely, other things being equal, if the >> >energy of the transition is large (e.g., on the order of MeVs). >> >> Perhaps because high energy reactions often decay via other faster paths? >> The HUP logic applied here above would indicate that gamma decay times >> decrease >> with increasing energy, while IC times would be unaffected, because the >> chance >> of an electron being in the nucleus is not affected by the excited state >> thereof, so gamma decay has a better chance of winning the race at higher >> energies. >> >> >Not having >> >read this detail, I would have thought that the energy of the decay would >> >factor into the distance at which the electron would need to be in order >> >for an interaction to be likely. At low energies (in the keV), the >> >electron would need to be nearby, and at higher energies (MeV), the >> >electron would need to be further away. What details of the underlying >> >mechanics am I missing in thinking this? >> > >> >Eric >> Regards, >> >> Robin van Spaandonk >> >> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html >> >> >
