Correction and addition. We seem to going from Ni58 all the way to Ni62,
much of the time without the orderly progression 58->59->60->61->62.

As for “hopping”… guess who is on the case:

https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:27064120

On the possibility of neutron hopping in crystals
<https://inis.iaea.org/search/searchsinglerecord.aspx?recordsFor=SingleRecor
d&RN=27064120> 
by Hagelstein, P. (Massachusetts Inst. of Technology, In
multiconfigurational Hartree-Fock calculations of isolated nuclei, mixing
between bound and continuum orbitals can occur due to correlation effects,
leading to minor corrections in calculated energy levels and nuclear matrix
elements. The analogous computation for a collection of nuclei in a lattice
differs qualitatively. 

John – time to call Peter for a YouTube interview ?

                _____________________________________________
                From: Jones Beene 

                                From: Foks0904 
                
                                This is probably not going to be the instant
bombshell, or extremely well-prepared announcement from truly independent
scientists that we had hoped for.
                                
                                Agreed. I don't think any of us should be
pinning all our hopes on this overturning establishment beliefs, but I think
it's a rather large/important piece of the puzzle, no?
                                
                                
                Yes, this could actually be huge, in a couple of months – a
diamond in the rough.

                By that, I mean after the usual skeptics have had their say
– which they will, then we should see very quick confirmation of the neutron
hopping phenomenon.

                The energy is too low for true stripping
(Oppenheimer-Phillips) – and “hopping” is basically what it is, as naïve as
it sounds. Lithium-7 has one too many neutrons, based on its place in the
periodic table and Ni-58 is neutron-light. That part is pretty simple logic
- which needs little advanced theory to understand.

                The part that is hard to swallow is that the Table in
question seems to indicate or imply that this can happen in a multi-body
reactions, such that we do not seen the orderly progression,
58->59->60->61->62 … There is some progression but it looks to me that this
could be largely a multibody phenomenon.

                Jones





                

<<attachment: winmail.dat>>

Reply via email to