http://www2.ju.edu.jo/sites/Academic/humamg/Lists/Published%20Research/Attachments/43/T-matrix_and_effective_scattering_in_spin-polarized_atomic_deuterium.pdf
Since the spin of deuterium is non zero, I claim that Deuterium cannot support LENR unless it is in its cooper pair like dimer form. This form is cooper pair like with counter opposing spins which result in a combined molecular spin of zero. It is in this form where deuterium shows superfluidic behavior. On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > *From:* Bob Cook > > > > Is there any reason why the D nuclei could not form excited states of high > but opposite spin states which collapse quickly to the zero spin He with > distribution of small spin quanta to other entities in the lattice > including spin angular momentum associated with orbital electrons found in > the lattice.? > > > > Hi Bob, > > > > In principle this could probably happen, or at least let’s assume that it > could happen (realizing however, that in all of physics, it is not known to > happen and there is no model to proceed on, for guidance). > > > > OK. Even if we accept it can happen, in principle, and I’m willing to > concede that it can, my problem is that at best it would be an alternative > to a known mechanism to release nuclear energy. As an alternative to a > known mechanism, it is most unlikely to happen all the time to the complete > exclusion of the known mechanism. > > > > There is no gamma radiation in the Cravens experiment. > > > > Even if 99.9999999% were excluded by the new and previously unknown > mechanism, we should see some relic of the 24 MeV signature. Since none is > seen, it is safe to conclude that the new mechanism is imaginary and not a > physical reality. Thus nuclear fusion probably is not the source of excess > energy in the Cravens experiment. > > > > At least that is the logical pathway which forms the basis of my belief > that we need to look elsewhere than fusion for the source of the gain. > > > > Jones >
