[Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
One interesting detail, in retrospect, about Yoshino/Mizuno's MIT presentation and the switch to nickel (from palladium) while keeping deuterium as the active gas may have been overlooked to date. Apologies- if this slant on the underlying reaction has appeared before. It is the copper connection. As we know, Focardi and Rossi believed that the E-Cat is/was transmuting nickel into copper by fusing with a proton. When one mentions a copper connection, seldom does Mizuno's amazing new work come to mind. However, all reactions of nickel with a proton result in a radioactive isotope with a half-life which is long enough for it to have been seen. This kind of hot isotope is not reported in any study of the Rossi reactor - but his proponents are hoping that the TIP2 report will find evidence of copper transmutation. The same kind of signature radioactivity is not true with deuterium as the active gas. In fact, the solution is so stunning - that we have to wonder if Rossi may be using deuterium as his "secret" ingredient. Terry will remember that in the very first image to come from Rossi, there was a color-coded tank of deuterium in the Lab. Apparently it was not intended to be noticed. When questioned about this later, Rossi glibly said the purpose of D was to stop the reaction if it got out of hand ! With this new information... well... you can be the judge of whether Rossi's excuse was ever true. Notably deuterium in never seen again... Nickel 58 is the most abundant isotope of element 28, and as recently mentioned is "out-of-place" in the periodic table, being lighter than any stable cobalt isotope, the element to the left. By itself, that factoid would be unique in that it only happens in one other place in the entire periodic table, where elements routinely increase in average amu, in step with z But wait there's more than "relative lightness" (putative receptivity to nucleon addition). Look at Copper-60 , the expected product of a deuteron fusing to Ni-58. Cu60 has a short half-life and decays back to Ni60 in minutes. It could escape detection in any reactor - so long as a reactor was not opened for a few hours, since all one would see is a nickel isotope which is expected to be there. The beta decay is fairly strong however. The biggest problem with this scenario could be conservation of spin. Ni58 is 0 spin, Cu60 is +2, and D is +1. A beta decay ostensibly does not solve that problem. But the chance of this being the gainful reaction in conjunction with nuclear spin-coupling as a predecessor is otherwise worth looking at ways to get around conservation of spin. This elegant possibility of a gainful reaction in which stable nickel converts to stable nickel, giving up energy, is why my prediction for the Mizuno presentation in November is to suggest that they will see a relative decrease in Ni58 and a relative increase in Ni60. The more intriguing idea is that Rossi has been using deuterium all along in his E-Cat, but the only time the secret almost got out was in the original demo ! Jones <>
RE: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
One more thing to add ... wrt the overdue suggestion (Doh, slaps forehead) that Rossi's "secret sauce" is looking like it is deuterium. Thank you, Clean Planet. The reaction would probably work best if it is started with regular hydrogen, and then deuterium is added later. This is because the "exchange" reaction between hydrogen and deuterium itself is so robust. In fact, many of the early critics of LENR thought that the entire phenomenon could be related to deuterium exchange. It is that energetic. As we know, Rossi has this mysterious system - which he calls cat-and-mouse. He has been intentionally vague on how it functions. Yet in reappraisal, this system is fully consistent with having two chambers, the main one containing hydrogen and the nickel reactant - and the smaller one deuterium (or a mix of H and D). The metering response can be simply by voltage to a window, since deuterium will diffuse through many proton conductors in direct proportion to negative charge. Positive charge stops the diffusion, which is easily controllable by a sensor. The purpose of the small chamber (mouse) is to meter D into the main chamber at a controlled rate, to avoid a runaway. If Rossi can be believed, he suffered several runaways with the HotCat which we can imagine did not have this kind of metering device. This seems to fit into everything we know, so long as one ignores Rossi's own denial of using deuterium. But deuterium is the one thing which, if true - he would never admit to. That is, if Ni-D is indeed the essence of E-Cat, in the same way that the change from palladium to nickel could be the essence of the Mizuno reactor. Things just keep getting curiouser and curiouser... _ One interesting detail, in retrospect, about Yoshino/Mizuno's MIT presentation and the switch to nickel (from palladium) while keeping deuterium as the active gas may have been overlooked to date. Apologies- if this slant on the underlying reaction has appeared before. It is the copper connection. As we know, Focardi and Rossi believed that the E-Cat is/was transmuting nickel into copper by fusing with a proton. When one mentions a copper connection, seldom does Mizuno's amazing new work come to mind. However, all reactions of nickel with a proton result in a radioactive isotope with a half-life which is long enough for it to have been seen. This kind of hot isotope is not reported in any study of the Rossi reactor - but his proponents are hoping that the TIP2 report will find evidence of copper transmutation. The same kind of signature radioactivity is not true with deuterium as the active gas. In fact, the solution is so stunning - that we have to wonder if Rossi may be using deuterium as his "secret" ingredient. Terry will remember that in the very first image to come from Rossi, there was a color-coded tank of deuterium in the Lab. Apparently it was not intended to be noticed. When questioned about this later, Rossi glibly said the purpose of D was to stop the reaction if it got out of hand ! With this new information... well... you can be the judge of whether Rossi's excuse was ever true. Notably deuterium in never seen again... Nickel 58 is the most abundant isotope of element 28, and as recently mentioned is "out-of-place" in the periodic table, being lighter than any stable cobalt isotope, the element to the left. By itself, that factoid would be unique in that it only happens in one other place in the entire periodic table, where elements routinely increase in average amu, in step with z But wait there's more than "relative lightness" (putative receptivity to nucleon addition). Look at Copper-60 , the expected product of a deuteron fusing to Ni-58. Cu60 has a short half-life and decays back to Ni60 in minutes. It could escape detection in any reactor - so long as a reactor was not opened for a few hours, since all one would see is a nickel isotope which is expected to be there. The beta decay is fairly strong however. The biggest problem with this scenario could be conservation of spin. Ni58 is 0 spin, Cu60 is +2, and D is +1. A beta decay ostensibly does not solve that problem. But the chance of this being the gainful reaction in conjunction with nuclear spin-coupling as a predecessor is otherwise worth looking at ways to get around conservation of spin. This elegant possibility of a gainful reaction in which stable nickel converts to stable nickel, giving up energy, is why my prediction for the Mizuno presentation in November is to suggest that they will see a relative decrease in Ni58 and a relative increase in Ni60. The more intriguing idea is that Rossi has been using deuterium all along in his E-Cat, but the only time the secret almost got out was in the original demo !
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Jones Beene wrote: However, all reactions of nickel with a proton result in a > radioactive isotope with a half-life which is long enough for it to have > been seen. This kind of hot isotope is not reported in any study of the > Rossi reactor - but his proponents are hoping that the TIP2 report will > find > evidence of copper transmutation. > I don't think anyone here has been advocating for proton capture for a while. Robin might still like the idea in connection with shrunken hydrogen, for in that case the ejected electron can fill in for the gamma and carry the momentum. I've personally run with the idea of proton capture in the past, but have stepped away from it. Perhaps you're referring to proponents in other forums? This elegant possibility of a gainful reaction in which stable nickel > converts to stable nickel, giving up energy, is why my prediction for the > Mizuno presentation in November is to suggest that they will see a relative > decrease in Ni58 and a relative increase in Ni60. > The nickel to nickel idea seems very promising. I doubt there is deuteron capture, because if there is deuteron capture, there is probably proton capture as well, along with all of the nasty gammas. This is what is leading me to deuterium stripping -- e.g., 60Ni(d,p)61Ni. Here the neutron is stripped off of the deuteron and added to the nickel, and the proton flies in the other direction, rather than there being a full capture. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Jones Beene wrote: This elegant possibility of a gainful reaction in which stable nickel > converts to stable nickel, giving up energy, is why my prediction for the > Mizuno presentation in November is to suggest that they will see a relative > decrease in Ni58 and a relative increase in Ni60. > As an alternative prediction, if there is deuteron stripping rather than deuteron capture and then decay, one will see this: 58Ni + d → 59Ni + p 59Ni → 59Co + β+ (< 1 percent of the time) β+ + β- → 2ɣ Q (511 keV each) So there would be an excess of 59Co together with annihilation photons. The annihilation photons would be difficult to fully shield, although their rate is due to the half-life of the 59Ni decay and only indirectly tracks the rate of the reaction itself. Because the β+ decay rate is much smaller than any inferred reaction rate, the annihilation photons will only intermittently escape through the metal casing and make it into the detector, which has a relatively small aperture (compared to a full solid angle) and is less than 100 percent efficient (e.g., 26 percent efficient). With these things in mind, you wouldn't necessarily see annihilation photons above background. But the 59Co should increase significantly above its normal amount. The β+ decay occurs in only a very small number of cases. Most of the time (99 percent) the decay is via electron capture, a point I have missed up to now. So that will attenuate the expected number of annihilation photons in my models by two orders of magnitude. The decay, of course, is still to 59Co. Eric
RE: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
From: Eric Walker * This elegant possibility of a gainful reaction in which stable nickel converts to stable nickel, giving up energy, is why my prediction for the Mizuno presentation in November is to suggest that they will see a relative decrease in Ni58 and a relative increase in Ni60. * The nickel to nickel idea seems very promising. I doubt there is deuteron capture, because if there is deuteron capture, there is probably proton capture as well, along with all of the nasty gammas. This is what is leading me to deuterium stripping -- e.g., 60Ni(d,p)61Ni. Here the neutron is stripped off of the deuteron and added to the nickel, and the proton flies in the other direction, rather than there being a full capture. Eric Deuteron capture seems to be far and away the more likely scenario – at least more than proton capture for three reasons. First the deuteron is a boson, as is the nickel nucleus. This is not invoking a condensate state or even a pseudo BEC, it relates to simple QM probability/ nuclear tunneling probability. Note that stripping is closer to brute force thermodynamics, and unlikely to happen in condensed matter. Secondly, and most importantly - the neutron of the deuteron offers Coulomb shielding. This is related to isospin… I will allow Axil to elaborate on isospin since he first introduced it into the mix. Thirdly – the theory must reflect actual results. The main point of the previous post was to show that in the nuclear physics of Ni <-> Cu, there is apparently only one possibility which fits into the observation of 1)no radioactive debris and 2)no obvious transmutation product. 3)no gamma Jones
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
You've certainly been consistent Jones. Quoting you from 2011: [Vo]:Deuterium kills the reaction? Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net via eskimo.com 1/19/11 to vortex-l One detail worth exploring further was the statement from Rossi that only hydrogen works, and that deuterium kills the reaction ! That is counter-intuitive to say the least. Everyone in hot fusion knows for an absolute fact that deuterium is the more activenucleus, right? And everyone in LENR knows that deuterium and palladium work, whereas H2 is often used as the ‘control’ to show what doesn’t work. Go figure. Well, pondering this for a moment, the only possible property that comes to mind to explain it was posted a few days ago –the “composite boson” in the context of negative temperature. It is sounding better and better as a rationale. To rephrase, the complex argument goes like this. The heat anomaly, whether it is fusion or not depends on “pycno” or dense hydrogen clusters. Based on Lawandy’s paper and others, we see that spillover catalysts operate by splitting molecular hydrogen into atomic hydrogen without ionization. Dense hydrogen forms from atomic hydrogen if there are adjoiningdielectric surfaces or cavities. Atomic hydrogen is a composite boson. If there are internal defects (cavities) for atoms to accumulate, they somehow seem to densify there without ever going molecular. We know that H is a composite boson which is a singularity in nature – as it is composed of the minimum number of fermions (2) that permit both states to oscillate back and forth… and furthermore having this minimum number of quantum states to“align” (statistically) means that it is exponentially easier to condense than deuterium at so-called negative temperature (which are not “cold”) especially since spin can be aligned magnetically... Thanks to google books, we have access to an old issue of New Scientist from 1981. On p. 205-6 there is clear indication that we have known for nearly 30 years that hydrogen condensation can happen at cryogenic temperatures – i.e. that monatomic hydrogen is a composite boson independent of the molecular state - which has very unusual properties as a condensate. http://books.google.com/books?id=IbbMj56ht8sC&pg=PA205&lpg=PA205&dq=composite-boson+monatomic-hydrogen&source=bl&ots=XlZyp6rE-9&sig=AwMnZv-hCQzTfcbnkN2mQZ65VG0&hl=en&ei=JFwaTab7Oon0tgPSpKjJCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false This paper seems to have been largely forgotten, and offers no indication that “negative temperature” could provide an alternative to cryogenic temperature. And certainly no indication that the Casimir cavity can provide a locus for negative temperature. No one should be blamed at this juncture for being completely skeptical that negative temperature in a cavity can do this, even on a temporary time frame; and the only evidence of it today is the implication from half a dozen papers which indicate that so-called pycno-hydrogen exists (under many different names, even IRH or Inverse Rydberg Hydrogen). Rossi’s results are consistent with this modality, and Holmlid and Miley claim to have evidence of tiny bits of hydrogen a million times denser than liquid H2. Are they nuts too? Or is it all fitting together like a jigsaw puzzle?
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > Terry will remember > that in the very first image to come from Rossi, there was a color-coded > tank of deuterium in the Lab. It might be in this vid: http://www.rainews.it/it/video.php?id=23074 The D2 gas might have been the one with the strips at the base of the valve. BTW, didn't someone once claim that the Cu probably came from "migration". ;-)
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
strips => stripes On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: > On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > >> Terry will remember >> that in the very first image to come from Rossi, there was a color-coded >> tank of deuterium in the Lab. > > It might be in this vid: > > http://www.rainews.it/it/video.php?id=23074 > > The D2 gas might have been the one with the strips at the base of the valve. > > BTW, didn't someone once claim that the Cu probably came from "migration". > ;-)
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
Single proton capture will not work because the spin of a single proton is non zero. Double proton capture will work because the spin of 2He is zero. Piantelli shows a 6 MeV proton coming out of a nickel bar. This implies that a proton pair entered the nickel nucleus: one to produce the 6 MeV via fusion of nickel into copper and one proton to exit the nucleus to remove that energy from the nucleus. Also, the large amount of iron reported in Rossi’s ash assay, requires a reaction involving two protons. The abundance of light elements in the DGT ash assay requires fusion of multiple proton pairs with nickel. It is a safe assumption that pairing of protons is occurring. I 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 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 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 A polariton is a photon and an electron locked together in a pair. This
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
Deuterium kills the reaction because its spin is non zero. On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: > You've certainly been consistent Jones. Quoting you from 2011: > > [Vo]:Deuterium kills the reaction? > > Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net via eskimo.com > > 1/19/11 > to vortex-l > > One detail worth exploring further was the statement from Rossi that > only hydrogen works, and that deuterium kills the reaction ! > > That is counter-intuitive to say the least. Everyone in hot fusion > knows for an absolute fact that deuterium is the more activenucleus, > right? And everyone in LENR knows that deuterium and palladium work, > whereas H2 is often used as the ‘control’ to show what doesn’t work. > Go figure. > > Well, pondering this for a moment, the only possible property that > comes to mind to explain it was posted a few days ago –the “composite > boson” in the context of negative temperature. It is sounding better > and better as a rationale. > > To rephrase, the complex argument goes like this. The heat anomaly, > whether it is fusion or not depends on “pycno” or dense hydrogen > clusters. Based on Lawandy’s paper and others, we see that spillover > catalysts operate by splitting molecular hydrogen into atomic hydrogen > without ionization. Dense hydrogen forms from atomic hydrogen if there > are adjoiningdielectric surfaces or cavities. Atomic hydrogen is a > composite boson. If there are internal defects (cavities) for atoms to > accumulate, they somehow seem to densify there without ever going > molecular. > > We know that H is a composite boson which is a singularity in nature – > as it is composed of the minimum number of fermions (2) that permit > both states to oscillate back and forth… and furthermore having this > minimum number of quantum states to“align” (statistically) means that > it is exponentially easier to condense than deuterium at so-called > negative temperature (which are not “cold”) especially since spin can > be aligned magnetically... > > Thanks to google books, we have access to an old issue of New > Scientist from 1981. On p. 205-6 there is clear indication that we > have known for nearly 30 years that hydrogen condensation can happen > at cryogenic temperatures – i.e. that monatomic hydrogen is a > composite boson independent of the molecular state - which has very > unusual properties as a condensate. > > > http://books.google.com/books?id=IbbMj56ht8sC&pg=PA205&lpg=PA205&dq=composite-boson+monatomic-hydrogen&source=bl&ots=XlZyp6rE-9&sig=AwMnZv-hCQzTfcbnkN2mQZ65VG0&hl=en&ei=JFwaTab7Oon0tgPSpKjJCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false > > This paper seems to have been largely forgotten, and offers no > indication that “negative temperature” could provide an alternative to > cryogenic temperature. And certainly no indication that the Casimir > cavity can provide a locus for negative temperature. > > No one should be blamed at this juncture for being completely > skeptical that negative temperature in a cavity can do this, even on a > temporary time frame; and the only evidence of it today is the > implication from half a dozen papers which indicate that so-called > pycno-hydrogen exists (under many different names, even IRH or Inverse > Rydberg Hydrogen). Rossi’s results are consistent with this modality, > and Holmlid and Miley claim to have evidence of tiny bits of hydrogen > a million times denser than liquid H2. > > Are they nuts too? Or is it all fitting together like a jigsaw puzzle? > >
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
This spin alignment of deuterium is why a plasma of hydrogen must be formed to produce hydrogen crystals where deuterium must be reconfigured to a zero spin alignment as the plasma cools. Adding deuterium gas from a tank as Rossi has done will provide non zero spin deuterium. It order for the deuterium to stay non zero spin, Rossi must disable the plasma forming electrical circuit before the Deuterium gas from the tank is added. On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: > You've certainly been consistent Jones. Quoting you from 2011: > > [Vo]:Deuterium kills the reaction? > > Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net via eskimo.com > > 1/19/11 > to vortex-l > > One detail worth exploring further was the statement from Rossi that > only hydrogen works, and that deuterium kills the reaction ! > > That is counter-intuitive to say the least. Everyone in hot fusion > knows for an absolute fact that deuterium is the more activenucleus, > right? And everyone in LENR knows that deuterium and palladium work, > whereas H2 is often used as the ‘control’ to show what doesn’t work. > Go figure. > > Well, pondering this for a moment, the only possible property that > comes to mind to explain it was posted a few days ago –the “composite > boson” in the context of negative temperature. It is sounding better > and better as a rationale. > > To rephrase, the complex argument goes like this. The heat anomaly, > whether it is fusion or not depends on “pycno” or dense hydrogen > clusters. Based on Lawandy’s paper and others, we see that spillover > catalysts operate by splitting molecular hydrogen into atomic hydrogen > without ionization. Dense hydrogen forms from atomic hydrogen if there > are adjoiningdielectric surfaces or cavities. Atomic hydrogen is a > composite boson. If there are internal defects (cavities) for atoms to > accumulate, they somehow seem to densify there without ever going > molecular. > > We know that H is a composite boson which is a singularity in nature – > as it is composed of the minimum number of fermions (2) that permit > both states to oscillate back and forth… and furthermore having this > minimum number of quantum states to“align” (statistically) means that > it is exponentially easier to condense than deuterium at so-called > negative temperature (which are not “cold”) especially since spin can > be aligned magnetically... > > Thanks to google books, we have access to an old issue of New > Scientist from 1981. On p. 205-6 there is clear indication that we > have known for nearly 30 years that hydrogen condensation can happen > at cryogenic temperatures – i.e. that monatomic hydrogen is a > composite boson independent of the molecular state - which has very > unusual properties as a condensate. > > > http://books.google.com/books?id=IbbMj56ht8sC&pg=PA205&lpg=PA205&dq=composite-boson+monatomic-hydrogen&source=bl&ots=XlZyp6rE-9&sig=AwMnZv-hCQzTfcbnkN2mQZ65VG0&hl=en&ei=JFwaTab7Oon0tgPSpKjJCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false > > This paper seems to have been largely forgotten, and offers no > indication that “negative temperature” could provide an alternative to > cryogenic temperature. And certainly no indication that the Casimir > cavity can provide a locus for negative temperature. > > No one should be blamed at this juncture for being completely > skeptical that negative temperature in a cavity can do this, even on a > temporary time frame; and the only evidence of it today is the > implication from half a dozen papers which indicate that so-called > pycno-hydrogen exists (under many different names, even IRH or Inverse > Rydberg Hydrogen). Rossi’s results are consistent with this modality, > and Holmlid and Miley claim to have evidence of tiny bits of hydrogen > a million times denser than liquid H2. > > Are they nuts too? Or is it all fitting together like a jigsaw puzzle? > >
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
One reason the Rossi requires high heat from external electric power input is to produce molecules with zero spin. He now uses the "Mouse" to make these special molecules. The down side of high heat that can form a plasma is that such application of heat can cause reactor-away. The Mouse was configured to produce zero spin hydrogen but because it has a pronounced sub-critical nature, it will not melt down no matter how much external heat is applied. The purpose of the Mouse is to produce Rydberg hydrogen matter with zero spin through a cooling plasma process. These solid crystals of hydrogen will then be feed from the Mouse to the Cat where the main near critical high COP reaction takes place using zero spin hydrogen. On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > This spin alignment of deuterium is why a plasma of hydrogen must be > formed to produce hydrogen crystals where deuterium must be reconfigured to > a zero spin alignment as the plasma cools. > > Adding deuterium gas from a tank as Rossi has done will provide non zero > spin deuterium. It order for the deuterium to stay non zero spin, Rossi > must disable the plasma forming electrical circuit before the Deuterium gas > from the tank is added. > > On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: > >> You've certainly been consistent Jones. Quoting you from 2011: >> >> [Vo]:Deuterium kills the reaction? >> >> Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net via eskimo.com >> >> 1/19/11 >> to vortex-l >> >> One detail worth exploring further was the statement from Rossi that >> only hydrogen works, and that deuterium kills the reaction ! >> >> That is counter-intuitive to say the least. Everyone in hot fusion >> knows for an absolute fact that deuterium is the more activenucleus, >> right? And everyone in LENR knows that deuterium and palladium work, >> whereas H2 is often used as the ‘control’ to show what doesn’t work. >> Go figure. >> >> Well, pondering this for a moment, the only possible property that >> comes to mind to explain it was posted a few days ago –the “composite >> boson” in the context of negative temperature. It is sounding better >> and better as a rationale. >> >> To rephrase, the complex argument goes like this. The heat anomaly, >> whether it is fusion or not depends on “pycno” or dense hydrogen >> clusters. Based on Lawandy’s paper and others, we see that spillover >> catalysts operate by splitting molecular hydrogen into atomic hydrogen >> without ionization. Dense hydrogen forms from atomic hydrogen if there >> are adjoiningdielectric surfaces or cavities. Atomic hydrogen is a >> composite boson. If there are internal defects (cavities) for atoms to >> accumulate, they somehow seem to densify there without ever going >> molecular. >> >> We know that H is a composite boson which is a singularity in nature – >> as it is composed of the minimum number of fermions (2) that permit >> both states to oscillate back and forth… and furthermore having this >> minimum number of quantum states to“align” (statistically) means that >> it is exponentially easier to condense than deuterium at so-called >> negative temperature (which are not “cold”) especially since spin can >> be aligned magnetically... >> >> Thanks to google books, we have access to an old issue of New >> Scientist from 1981. On p. 205-6 there is clear indication that we >> have known for nearly 30 years that hydrogen condensation can happen >> at cryogenic temperatures – i.e. that monatomic hydrogen is a >> composite boson independent of the molecular state - which has very >> unusual properties as a condensate. >> >> >> http://books.google.com/books?id=IbbMj56ht8sC&pg=PA205&lpg=PA205&dq=composite-boson+monatomic-hydrogen&source=bl&ots=XlZyp6rE-9&sig=AwMnZv-hCQzTfcbnkN2mQZ65VG0&hl=en&ei=JFwaTab7Oon0tgPSpKjJCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false >> >> This paper seems to have been largely forgotten, and offers no >> indication that “negative temperature” could provide an alternative to >> cryogenic temperature. And certainly no indication that the Casimir >> cavity can provide a locus for negative temperature. >> >> No one should be blamed at this juncture for being completely >> skeptical that negative temperature in a cavity can do this, even on a >> temporary time frame; and the only evidence of it today is the >> implication from half a dozen papers which indicate that so-called >> pycno-hydrogen exists (under many different names, even IRH or Inverse >> Rydberg Hydrogen). Rossi’s results are consistent with this modality, >> and Holmlid and Miley claim to have evidence of tiny bits of hydrogen >> a million times denser than liquid H2. >> >> Are they nuts too? Or is it all fitting together like a jigsaw puzzle? >> >> >
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Sat, 20 Sep 2014 10:18:40 -0700: Hi, [snip] >The nickel to nickel idea seems very promising. I doubt there is deuteron >capture, because if there is deuteron capture, there is probably proton >capture as well, along with all of the nasty gammas. This is what is >leading me to deuterium stripping -- e.g., 60Ni(d,p)61Ni. Here the neutron >is stripped off of the deuteron and added to the nickel, and the proton >flies in the other direction, rather than there being a full capture. > Actually, I rather like this idea. It's much easier for a neutron to tunnel than for a proton, because the neutron has no Coulomb barrier opposing it. (Both the neutron and the proton however need to find 2.2 MeV to escape the deuterium nucleus, so parting is equally difficult for each.) Note also that a severely shrunken Deuterino will have a much higher chance of participating in such a reaction because it can get close to a target nucleus. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
This hang-up on neutrons and 4He is due to this irresistible indoctrination from old time nuclear physics. Rossi states that he has never seen a neutron. 4He is just as likely to transmute as any other element. 4He has no special status in LENR, IMHO. On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 6:47 PM, wrote: > In reply to Eric Walker's message of Sat, 20 Sep 2014 10:18:40 -0700: > Hi, > [snip] > >The nickel to nickel idea seems very promising. I doubt there is deuteron > >capture, because if there is deuteron capture, there is probably proton > >capture as well, along with all of the nasty gammas. This is what is > >leading me to deuterium stripping -- e.g., 60Ni(d,p)61Ni. Here the > neutron > >is stripped off of the deuteron and added to the nickel, and the proton > >flies in the other direction, rather than there being a full capture. > > > Actually, I rather like this idea. It's much easier for a neutron to > tunnel than > for a proton, because the neutron has no Coulomb barrier opposing it. > (Both the > neutron and the proton however need to find 2.2 MeV to escape the deuterium > nucleus, so parting is equally difficult for each.) > > Note also that a severely shrunken Deuterino will have a much higher > chance of > participating in such a reaction because it can get close to a target > nucleus. > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk > > http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html > >
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 4:30 PM, Axil Axil wrote: This hang-up on neutrons and 4He is due to this irresistible indoctrination > from old time nuclear physics. Rossi states that he has never seen a > neutron. 4He is just as likely to transmute as any other element. 4He has > no special status in LENR, IMHO. > I think you've missed some context. There's no reference to 4He in the thread at this point. We're talking about NiH/D. The reference to neutrons does not relate to free neutrons flying around and activating things. It has to do with bound neutrons being stripped off of deuterons. Rossi says what he says. And he places a boron shield around the E-Cat, apparently. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
If hydrinos and deuterinos are both present, perhaps it is possible for the neutron stripping to work in two directions such that a deuterino can give up a neutron to a heavy nucleus and a heavy nucleus can give up a neutron to hydrino. ( I am thinking of a nuclear version of epicatalysis.) Harry On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 7:35 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 4:30 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > > This hang-up on neutrons and 4He is due to this irresistible >> indoctrination from old time nuclear physics. Rossi states that he has >> never seen a neutron. 4He is just as likely to transmute as any other >> element. 4He has no special status in LENR, IMHO. >> > > I think you've missed some context. There's no reference to 4He in the > thread at this point. We're talking about NiH/D. The reference to > neutrons does not relate to free neutrons flying around and activating > things. It has to do with bound neutrons being stripped off of deuterons. > > Rossi says what he says. And he places a boron shield around the E-Cat, > apparently. > > Eric > >
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
In reply to H Veeder's message of Sat, 20 Sep 2014 20:53:37 -0400: Hi, [snip] >If hydrinos and deuterinos are both present, perhaps it is possible for the >neutron stripping to work in two directions such that a deuterino can give >up a neutron to a heavy nucleus and a heavy nucleus can give up a neutron >to hydrino. ( I am thinking of a nuclear version of epicatalysis.) > >Harry A heavy nucleus won't give up a neutron to a Hydrino, because in doing so it would lose about 5-10 MeV, but only gain 2.2 MeV from the formation of the deuteron. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Secondly, and most importantly - the neutron of the deuteron offers Coulomb > shielding. Can you elaborate on this? I would have expected the neutron to be more or less invisible, as far as the Coulomb field is concerned. Eric
RE: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
From: Eric Walker Secondly, and most importantly - the neutron of the deuteron offers Coulomb shielding. Can you elaborate on this? I would have expected the neutron to be more or less invisible, as far as the Coulomb field is concerned. Eric Of course, the neutron looks to be neutral – from a distance, so it's not generally expected to shield anything massively in the same way that magnetism is shielded by a high mu metal or a dielectric shields against an electrostatic field. But both of those mechanisms may offer a clue. Unless, of course, the neutron has a significant dipole moment or a significant near-field charge, so that is aligns geometrically between the proton and the approaching nickel nucleus – to partially shield in the same way a dielectric would. The strong force is so much stronger than electrical repulsion, that any small effect can make a difference at close range. This may an open matter, as to whether current theory suggests the dipole moment of the neutron may be nonzero (does anyone know for sure?) but the neutron is reported to have a negative near-field, which means that it could provide some degree of shielding effect – certainly the electrostatic field lines are much different than with a bare proton. I do not have a handy reference for the proof of a neutron near-field, so this should be double checked. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Jones Beene wrote: The strong force is so much stronger than electrical repulsion, that any > small effect can make a difference at close range. If the possible Coulomb shielding effect from the neutron works at the same range as the strong force (i.e., is quite short-range), then I think the deuterons needed for the proposed bosonic deuteron capture will require a kinetic energy that is on the same order as that for neutron stripping via the Oppenheimer-Phillips process. Eric
RE: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
Eric, It really gets down to whether the gainful reaction is thermonuclear or quantum mechanical. If you look in the archives, “stripping” was favored by me for many years, and I first introduced it here - but opinions change. Your opinion may not change, but here is what convinced me that there is a better model than stripping. If the gain is QM based – which is to say a type of nuclear tunneling which is different than electron tunneling in semiconductors, then bosons are highly favored to begin with. Horace Heffner use to talk about a QM “slingshot” effect where the positive end (of a cold deuteron) enters the electron cloud of the nickel. This could work with a proton as well but the dynamics change at some point since the proton can go only as deep as the inner electron orbitals, to which it is strongly attracted. Because the deuteron is shaped like a barbell, and has a positive end with long separation to the neutron end, which has a negative near-field, the deuteron can be whipped around in a spinning motion like a slingshot by the inner orbital. Most of the time the positive end of the deuteron is eventually repelled by the heavy nucleus, as the proton is all of the time - but on occasion the neutron-end of the deuteron is aligned perfectly to lead the way into the femtometer geometry of the strong force. The probability of this precise geometry is low, but the transaction rate is high. From: Eric Walker The strong force is so much stronger than electrical repulsion, that any small effect can make a difference at close range. If the possible Coulomb shielding effect from the neutron works at the same range as the strong force (i.e., is quite short-range), then I think the deuterons needed for the proposed bosonic deuteron capture will require a kinetic energy that is on the same order as that for neutron stripping via the Oppenheimer-Phillips process. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Jones Beene wrote: If you look in the archives, “stripping” was favored by me for many years, > and I first introduced it here - but opinions change. The first reference I saw to the OP process was from a thread between you and Abd Lomax, in 2010, in which you appeared to have introduced the possibility. In these posts I give credit to you: https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg92455.html https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg92381.html > If the gain is QM based – which is to say a type of nuclear tunneling > which is different than electron tunneling in semiconductors, then bosons > are highly favored to begin with. Right now I like neutron stripping and the OP process. In the past, in approximate chronological order, I've argued for a kind of nano-Polywell; an ill-conceived dipolariton-based bosonic fusion; Widom-Larsen; p+d fusion in nickel without thought given to the gammas; hidden d+d fusion and Pd-attenuated gammas; deuteron and/or proton capture in nickel; non-equilibrium disruption of the electronic structure of the metal and attending Coulomb screening; d+d fusion through z-pinch in electric arcs together with a new kind of electromagnetic channel that short-circuits the formation of gammas; and now OP and neutron stripping. As I learn more about the relevant physics and see insurmountable problems, I'm willing to switch to a new hypothesis. (I continue to take seriously some of the more recent thought experiments even as I give attention to OP + neutron stripping in the context of nickel.) In this particular case it's not so much about arguing against something that is "QM" based, in which spin is central, in favor of neutron stripping. I'm addressing an objection you raised earlier on in this thread: Note that stripping is closer to brute force thermodynamics, and unlikely > to happen in condensed matter. I'm saying that the same objection applies to the bosonic deuteron capture reaction that you've proposed, because the neutron, as you have clarified, will only screen at short distances. Eric
RE: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
Eric - In the end, there’s nothing new under the sun and the best we can do is try to get it right at least once along the pathway. One good thing about a long-running forum, with a heated give-and-take of ideas - is that if you can grasp everyone’s position, even for a few hours, and evolve your own thinking often enough with improvement over time, then eventually … it should be possible to pick and choose among old posts and find one that makes the writer look like a genius. :-) The problem is in making that brilliant post the most recent one! From: Eric Walker If you look in the archives, “stripping” was favored by me for many years, and I first introduced it here - but opinions change. The first reference I saw to the OP process was from a thread between you and Abd Lomax, in 2010, in which you appeared to have introduced the possibility. In these posts I give credit to you: https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg92455.html https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg92381.html If the gain is QM based – which is to say a type of nuclear tunneling which is different than electron tunneling in semiconductors, then bosons are highly favored to begin with. Right now I like neutron stripping and the OP process. In the past, in approximate chronological order, I've argued for a kind of nano-Polywell; an ill-conceived dipolariton-based bosonic fusion; Widom-Larsen; p+d fusion in nickel without thought given to the gammas; hidden d+d fusion and Pd-attenuated gammas; deuteron and/or proton capture in nickel; non-equilibrium disruption of the electronic structure of the metal and attending Coulomb screening; d+d fusion through z-pinch in electric arcs together with a new kind of electromagnetic channel that short-circuits the formation of gammas; and now OP and neutron stripping. As I learn more about the relevant physics and see insurmountable problems, I'm willing to switch to a new hypothesis. (I continue to take seriously some of the more recent thought experiments even as I give attention to OP + neutron stripping in the context of nickel.) In this particular case it's not so much about arguing against something that is "QM" based, in which spin is central, in favor of neutron stripping. I'm addressing an objection you raised earlier on in this thread: Note that stripping is closer to brute force thermodynamics, and unlikely to happen in condensed matter. I'm saying that the same objection applies to the bosonic deuteron capture reaction that you've proposed, because the neutron, as you have clarified, will only screen at short distances. Eric <>
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 10:59 PM, wrote: > In reply to H Veeder's message of Sat, 20 Sep 2014 20:53:37 -0400: > Hi, > [snip] > >If hydrinos and deuterinos are both present, perhaps it is possible for > the > >neutron stripping to work in two directions such that a deuterino can give > >up a neutron to a heavy nucleus and a heavy nucleus can give up a neutron > >to hydrino. ( I am thinking of a nuclear version of epicatalysis.) > > > >Harry > A heavy nucleus won't give up a neutron to a Hydrino, because in doing so > it > would lose about 5-10 MeV, but only gain 2.2 MeV from the formation of the > deuteron. > > That means it is an endothermic reaction, but that doesn't mean it is impossible. I am not implying that neutron stripping should be discarded if the reverse reaction is possible. I mentioned epicatalysis because theoretical research on the subject was recently published in Physical Review E. Along with some empirical evidence the research suggests that deviations of practical significance from the 2nd law of law thermodynamics are possible with epicatalysis : https://www.facebook.com/ParadigmEnergy/posts/249600938581128 Now the theory of epicatalysis is based on chemical activity, but I don't see why the theory could not be broadened to include nuclear activity or other unconventional high energy activity if a given heat anomaly is too large to explain by just chemical activity. A tacit assumption of CF/LENR research is that an anomalous thermal signal will have practical significance if it results from the conversion of potential energy into kinetic energy in a one way process. The assumption holds whether the source of energy is nuclear or chemical or some other. Consequently, measured temperature anomalies are suspect until they are supported by additional calorimetry which yields a global temperature rise. If this global temperature rise (excess heat signal) is not found, and measurement error is ruled out, then the temperature anomaly will be classified as a local fluctuation with no practical significance. This interpretation of temperature signals is motivated by the demands of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. However, if a process like epicatalysis is creating the temperature anomalies then the methods used to measure an excess heat signal need to be reconsidered. Detecting an excess heat signal ordinarily means looking for a global temperature rise which requires that the source of an anomaly be placed in a thermally closed environment since it is assumed the temperature rise is based on the creation of kinetic energy from inside the system. In contradistinction epicatalysis transfers energy from a lower temperature region to a higher temperature region. If the purpose of the enclosure is to detect a global temperature rise none will be found. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
In reply to H Veeder's message of Sun, 21 Sep 2014 17:35:34 -0400: Hi, Nuclear energies are 6 orders of magnitude larger than chemical energies, which I would expect to reduce the chances to the point where it's not even worth considering. However, that said, it should be noted that the same is not always true for reactions where D is converted into T. e.g. the following reaction is exothermic:- 9Be+2H => 4He + 4He + 3H + 4.684 MeV >On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 10:59 PM, wrote: > >> In reply to H Veeder's message of Sat, 20 Sep 2014 20:53:37 -0400: >> Hi, >> [snip] >> >If hydrinos and deuterinos are both present, perhaps it is possible for >> the >> >neutron stripping to work in two directions such that a deuterino can give >> >up a neutron to a heavy nucleus and a heavy nucleus can give up a neutron >> >to hydrino. ( I am thinking of a nuclear version of epicatalysis.) >> > >> >Harry >> A heavy nucleus won't give up a neutron to a Hydrino, because in doing so >> it >> would lose about 5-10 MeV, but only gain 2.2 MeV from the formation of the >> deuteron. >> >> > >?That means it is an endothermic reaction, but that doesn't mean it is >impossible?. >I am not implying that neutron stripping should be discarded ?if the >reverse reaction is possible. >? >I >? ? >mentioned epicatalysis because >?theoretical research on? > >?the subject > >?was recently ? >published in Physical Review E. Along with some empirical evidence the >research suggests that deviations >?of practical significance ? >from the 2nd law of law thermodynamics are possible >?with epicatalysis >?:? > >https://www.facebook.com/ParadigmEnergy/posts/249600938581128 > >Now the theory of epicatalysis is based on chemical activity, but I don't >see why the theory could not be broadened to include nuclear activity or >other unconventional high energy activity if a given heat anomaly is too >large to explain by just chemical activity. > >A tacit assumption of CF/LENR research is that an anomalous thermal signal >will have practical significance if it results from the conversion of >potential energy into kinetic energy in a one way process. The assumption >holds whether the source of energy is nuclear or chemical or some other. >Consequently, measured temperature anomalies are suspect until they are >supported by additional calorimetry which yields a global temperature rise. >If this global temperature rise (excess heat signal) is not found, and >measurement error is ruled out, then the temperature anomaly will be >classified as a local fluctuation with no practical significance. This >interpretation of temperature signals is motivated by the demands of the >2nd law of thermodynamics. > >However, if a process like epicatalysis is creating the temperature >anomalies then the methods used to measure an excess heat signal need to be >reconsidered. Detecting an excess heat signal ordinarily means looking for >a global temperature rise which requires that the source of an anomaly be >placed in a thermally closed environment since it is assumed the >temperature rise is based on the creation of kinetic energy from inside the >system. In contradistinction epicatalysis transfers energy from a lower >temperature region to a higher temperature region. If the purpose of the >enclosure is to detect a global temperature rise none will be found. > >Harry Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
In reply to mix...@bigpond.com's message of Mon, 22 Sep 2014 08:30:04 +1000: Hi, [snip] >9Be+2H => 4He + 4He + 3H + 4.684 MeV BTW, this reaction also works for H (but only just). 1H+9Be => 4He + 4He + 2H + 0.651 MeV ..and I suspect that 9Be is the only naturally occurring isotope for which it will work. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
I've looked through the isotope charts again - searching for reactions that rapidly decay back to the starting element or to any stable isotope which has already been reported to be there, and have not found any other possibility... ...other than Ni58 (d,Cu59) -> Ni60 which happens by EC or positron emission, with a half-life of 20 minutes or so, and which fits the facts as reported in the most robust experiments (Rossi, DGT, Thermacore, Mills). 1) No or few gamma 2) No or little radioactive ash 3) No tritium, helium or positron annihilation 4) No or little bremsstrahlung 5) Excess energy which is at least 1000 times more than chemical Since nickel absorbs a deuteron and decays back to nickel in minutes, with low energy release, this reaction fits the bill. You may be thinking - what about the positron (beta positive) decay? No problem there, since nuclei which decay by positron emission also decay by electron capture in a known branching ratio which is dependant on the net energy of reaction. According to wiki-the-wonderful, in low-energy decays, electron capture is energetically favored by reactions below 1.022 MeV. The final state will have an electron added or a positron removed - and so the energy released is determinative of what can happen in the branching. As the energy of the decay goes up, so does the branching ratio towards positron emission. However, if the energy difference is low, then positron emission cannot occur, and electron capture is the sole decay mode. This would seem to be "ready-made" for the DDDL or deuteron-deep-Dirac-level species, which uses its tight electron for more than one purpose and probably reduces the net energy of the reaction as well. This still leaves spin conservation as the major problem. The end products of this reaction would be Ni60, and the starting nickel would be Ni58, so that is no problem. Both are spin 0. But the intermediary isotope, with short half-life would be Cu60 which is spin 2+ and the deuterium can only add is 1+ spin, and the EC electron another ½ spin. This over-simplification of spin issues - probably means that the reaction can only happen if a neutrino is captured, or else the inherent spin deficit decreases the half-life even more than its short nature. Probably the neutrino. Best of all - as a general working hypothesis which would make this relevant to LENR but is not expected to be seen anywhere else (which explains why it is not documented in the physics literature, as of now) there is NO other isotope in the periodic table (other than Ni58) - which is both a proton conductor and demonstrably neutron-deficient ! (the proof of that being that Ni-58 is lower amu than the preceding lower Z element (cobalt-59). That's right it is a perfect storm scenario. If this evolving explanation is correct, it will be seen nowhere else in the periodic table, since it demands conditions which do not exist anywhere else. This means, "anthropomorphically speaking" - that Ni58 desperately "wants" two more neutrons, and to get them, it essentially "steals" from its surroundings, whenever a deuteron comes too close... especially a DDDL. Falsifiability? Yes, this is falsifiable in three different way, which is a big advantage. Give me a working Rossi reactor :-) and a few months: if the [Ni<->Ni] explanation is true, if will be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. P.S. do I get to keep the reactor? _ One more thing to add ... wrt the overdue suggestion (Doh, slaps forehead) that Rossi's "secret sauce" is looking like it is deuterium. Thank you, Clean Planet. The reaction would probably work best if it is started with regular hydrogen, and then deuterium is added later. This is because the "exchange" reaction between hydrogen and deuterium itself is so robust. In fact, many of the early critics of LENR thought that the entire phenomenon could be related to deuterium exchange. It is that energetic. As we know, Rossi has this mysterious system - which he calls cat-and-mouse. He has been intentionally vague on how it functions. Yet in reappraisal, this system is fully consistent with having two chambers, the main one containing hydrogen and the nickel reactant - and the smaller one deuterium (or a mix of H and D). The metering response can be simply by voltage to a window, since deuterium will diffuse through many proton conductors in direct proportion to negative charge. Positive charge stops the diffusion, which is easily controllable by a sensor. The purpose of the small chamber (mouse) is to meter D into the main chamber at a controlled rate, to avoid a runaway. If Rossi can be believed, he suffered several runaways with the HotCat which we can imagine did not have this kind of metering device. This seems to fit into everything we know, so long as one ignores R
RE: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
Jones, Why not consider also the Ni58 + 2p -> Zn60 -> Cu60 -> Ni60? Zn60 has a spin 0. _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: lundi 22 septembre 2014 17:34 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation Typo- the suggested reaction is Ni58 + D -> Cu60 -> Ni60 _ I've looked through the isotope charts again - searching for reactions that rapidly decay back to the starting element or to any stable isotope which has already been reported to be there, and have not found any other possibility... ...other than Ni58 (d,Cu59) -> Ni60 which happens by EC or positron emission, with a half-life of 20 minutes or so, and which fits the facts as reported in the most robust experiments (Rossi, DGT, Thermacore, Mills). 1) No or few gamma 2) No or little radioactive ash 3) No tritium, helium or positron annihilation 4) No or little bremsstrahlung 5) Excess energy which is at least 1000 times more than chemical Since nickel absorbs a deuteron and decays back to nickel in minutes, with low energy release, this reaction fits the bill. You may be thinking - what about the positron (beta positive) decay? No problem there, since nuclei which decay by positron emission also decay by electron capture in a known branching ratio which is dependant on the net energy of reaction. According to wiki-the-wonderful, in low-energy decays, electron capture is energetically favored by reactions below 1.022 MeV. The final state will have an electron added or a positron removed - and so the energy released is determinative of what can happen in the branching. As the energy of the decay goes up, so does the branching ratio towards positron emission. However, if the energy difference is low, then positron emission cannot occur, and electron capture is the sole decay mode. This would seem to be "ready-made" for the DDDL or deuteron-deep-Dirac-level species, which uses its tight electron for more than one purpose and probably reduces the net energy of the reaction as well. This still leaves spin conservation as the major problem. The end products of this reaction would be Ni60, and the starting nickel would be Ni58, so that is no problem. Both are spin 0. But the intermediary isotope, with short half-life would be Cu60 which is spin 2+ and the deuterium can only add is 1+ spin, and the EC electron another ½ spin. This over-simplification of spin issues - probably means that the reaction can only happen if a neutrino is captured, or else the inherent spin deficit decreases the half-life even more than its short nature. Probably the neutrino. Best of all - as a general working hypothesis which would make this relevant to LENR but is not expected to be seen anywhere else (which explains why it is not documented in the physics literature, as of now) there is NO other isotope in the periodic table (other than Ni58) - which is both a proton conductor and demonstrably neutron-deficient ! (the proof of that being that Ni-58 is lower amu than the preceding lower Z element (cobalt-59). That's right it is a perfect storm scenario. If this evolving explanation is correct, it will be seen nowhere else in the periodic table, since it demands conditions which do not exist anywhere else. This means, "anthropomorphically speaking" - that Ni58 desperately "wants" two more neutrons, and to get them, it essentially "steals" from its surroundings, whenever a deuteron comes too close... especially a DDDL. Falsifiability? Yes, this is falsifiable in three different way, which is a big advantage. Give me a working Rossi reactor :-) and a few months: if the [Ni<->Ni] explanation is true, if will be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. P.S. do I get to keep the reactor? _ One more thing to add ... wrt the overdue suggestion (Doh, slaps forehead) that Rossi's "secret sauce" is looking like it is deuterium. Thank you, Clean Planet. The reaction would probably work best if it is started with regular hydrogen, and then deuterium is added later. This is because the "exchange" reaction between hydrogen and deuterium itself is so robust. In fact, many of the early critics of LENR thought that the entire phenomenon could be related to deuterium exchange. It is that energetic.
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
If you look at the ICCF-18 transmutation study of nickel and palladium study by Cook, you will see that Mizuno shows the same isotopic shifts in nickel that DGT shows. Ni61 does not participate in the reaction but all other isotopes of nickel do. Sorry, that link to this reference is broken. On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Arnaud Kodeck wrote: > Jones, > > Why not consider also the Ni58 + 2p -> Zn60 -> Cu60 -> Ni60? Zn60 has a > spin > 0. > > _ > From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] > Sent: lundi 22 septembre 2014 17:34 > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: RE: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation > > Typo- the suggested reaction is Ni58 + D -> Cu60 -> Ni60 > > _ > > I've looked through the isotope charts again - > searching for reactions that rapidly decay back to the starting element or > to any stable isotope which has already been reported to be there, and have > not found any other possibility... > > ...other than Ni58 (d,Cu59) -> Ni60 which > happens by EC or positron emission, with a half-life of 20 minutes or so, > and which fits the facts as reported in the most robust experiments (Rossi, > DGT, Thermacore, Mills). > > 1) No or few gamma > 2) No or little radioactive ash > 3) No tritium, helium or positron annihilation > 4) No or little bremsstrahlung > 5) Excess energy which is at least 1000 times more than chemical > > Since nickel absorbs a deuteron and decays back to > nickel in minutes, with low energy release, this reaction fits the bill. > You > may be thinking - what about the positron (beta positive) decay? No problem > there, since nuclei which decay by positron emission also decay by electron > capture in a known branching ratio which is dependant on the net energy of > reaction. > > According to wiki-the-wonderful, in low-energy > decays, electron capture is energetically favored by reactions below 1.022 > MeV. The final state will have an electron added or a positron removed - > and > so the energy released is determinative of what can happen in the > branching. > As the energy of the decay goes up, so does the branching ratio towards > positron emission. However, if the energy difference is low, then positron > emission cannot occur, and electron capture is the sole decay mode. This > would seem to be "ready-made" for the DDDL or deuteron-deep-Dirac-level > species, which uses its tight electron for more than one purpose and > probably reduces the net energy of the reaction as well. > > This still leaves spin conservation as the major > problem. The end products of this reaction would be Ni60, and the starting > nickel would be Ni58, so that is no problem. Both are spin 0. > > But the intermediary isotope, with short half-life > would be Cu60 which is spin 2+ and the deuterium can only add is 1+ spin, > and the EC electron another ½ spin. This over-simplification of spin issues > - probably means that the reaction can only happen if a neutrino is > captured, or else the inherent spin deficit decreases the half-life even > more than its short nature. Probably the neutrino. > > Best of all - as a general working hypothesis which > would make this relevant to LENR but is not expected to be seen anywhere > else (which explains why it is not documented in the physics literature, as > of now) there is NO other isotope in the periodic table (other than Ni58) - > which is both a proton conductor and demonstrably neutron-deficient ! (the > proof of that being that Ni-58 is lower amu than the preceding lower Z > element (cobalt-59). That's right it is a perfect storm scenario. If this > evolving explanation is correct, it will be seen nowhere else in the > periodic table, since it demands conditions which do not exist anywhere > else. > > This means, "anthropomorphically speaking" - that > Ni58 desperately "wants" two more neutrons, and to get them, it essentially > "steals" from its surroundings, whenever a deuteron comes too close... > especially a DDDL. > > Falsifiability? Yes, this is falsifiable in three > different way, which is a big advantage. Give me a working Rossi reactor > :-) > and a few months: if the [Ni<->Ni] explanation is true, if will be proved > beyond all reasonable doubt. > > P.S. do I get to
RE: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
From: Arnaud Kodeck Jones, Why not consider also the Ni58 + 2p -> Zn60 -> Cu60 -> Ni60? Zn60 has a spin 0. _ the suggested reaction is Ni58 + D -> Cu60 -> Ni60 Arnaud, This would be a three body reaction, no? You may be suggesting this reaction - in the event that Rossi does not use deuterium. That is wise to consider - since he professes not to, despite a tank of it being seen in his lab, early on. There is an even better possibility when two protons densified as a DDL molecule, and would act like the two needed neutrons, to make this reaction work. If my understanding is correct, nickel-58 is active ONLY because it is neutron-deficient, and the two protons do not help the immediate situation, at least not on the surface - even if both protons decay to neutrons, eventually. However, all bets are off with the DDL, since it allows the protons to look like "virtual neutrons". There is nothing out there, which fits all of the parameters seamlessly, so in the end - we need reliable data. But it looks like we are framing a workable situation with enough variable to accommodate either D, H or H+D as the active gases. In short, your suggestion may work well - an especially if Rossi uses hydrogen only, and even more so - if the signature of the DDL formation (soft x-ray) is documented. Jones <>
RE: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
Yes, in my view, the DDL state diatomic hydrogen (shrunken hydrogen) reacts with Ni58. Should both atoms be in shrunken state? Is the DDL atoms small enough to go in the lattice? We can consider as well with pD or DD DDL state if natural hydrogen is used. _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: lundi 22 septembre 2014 18:28 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation From: Arnaud Kodeck Jones, Why not consider also the Ni58 + 2p -> Zn60 -> Cu60 -> Ni60? Zn60 has a spin 0. _ the suggested reaction is Ni58 + D -> Cu60 -> Ni60 Arnaud, This would be a three body reaction, no? You may be suggesting this reaction - in the event that Rossi does not use deuterium. That is wise to consider - since he professes not to, despite a tank of it being seen in his lab, early on. There is an even better possibility when two protons densified as a DDL molecule, and would act like the two needed neutrons, to make this reaction work. If my understanding is correct, nickel-58 is active ONLY because it is neutron-deficient, and the two protons do not help the immediate situation, at least not on the surface - even if both protons decay to neutrons, eventually. However, all bets are off with the DDL, since it allows the protons to look like "virtual neutrons". There is nothing out there, which fits all of the parameters seamlessly, so in the end - we need reliable data. But it looks like we are framing a workable situation with enough variable to accommodate either D, H or H+D as the active gases. In short, your suggestion may work well - an especially if Rossi uses hydrogen only, and even more so - if the signature of the DDL formation (soft x-ray) is documented. Jones <>
RE: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
_ From: Arnaud Kodeck Yes, in my view, the DDL state diatomic hydrogen (shrunken hydrogen) reacts with Ni58. Should both atoms be in shrunken state? Yes, that would seem to be highly beneficial. The reaction looks less like a three-body reaction if it happens with a tight DDL molecule, which is possibly in the 10s of Fermi size range. Is the DDL small enough to go in the lattice? Easily. The beauty of nickel as the host - from the Rydberg orbital viewpoint, is that it has two orbitals which are located at very good match in energy level for the correct "hole", both of which are in its valence band at IP5 and IP6 ! This would essentially permit the DDL molecule, which has two electrons of a set Rydberg value, to find stability inside the shell - by replacing two normal electrons of nickel at a moderately deep level. Very few proton conductors have two deep orbitals which are adjoining in Rydberg values. Curiously, cobalt and iron are the others. This means any ferromagnetic material could be substituted for some of the nickel and host the DDL. From there, the excursion of the DDL to the nucleus on an occasional basis would seem to be highly favored. Only nickel has the neutron deficient isotope, however. As you can see, this is a mix of Mills CQM, the DDL version of other theorists and a few new additions. It would not require that excess energy is given up in shrinkage, as does Mills theory, since the progression goes to fusion eventually, which never happens according to CQM. This version does "borrow" the idea that the orbital electrons must have Rydberg values if they are to give up a proper "hole" for substitution (with the two electrons of the DDL). But AFAIK - Mills has not recognized the novelty of this suggestion, which is that "adjoining holes" in the valence shell of a ferromagnetic element like nickel, is the special parameter for LENR. Why would he? ...since he denies LENR is real, it has not occurred to him. In fact he uses other metals besides nickel these days instead in his own experiments. Maybe he intentionally avoids nickel :-) Jones <>
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 22 Sep 2014 08:33:43 -0700: Hi, >Typo- the suggested reaction is -> Ni60 [snip] Ni58 + D -> Cu60 + 11.252 MeV Normally one would expect prompt gammas from this reaction totaling 11.25 MeV. If no gammas are detected, what do you propose happens to the energy? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
The usual "lame" rationalizations we have used is that the energy was borrowed in advance to overcome the Coulomb barrier or shed in advance to achieve the redundancy ... But you're right - fusion numbers simply don't work well for the reality of a Rossi type reaction, as there is too much excess energy to hide... and this rationalization is no better than the factionalized gamma. So there you have it... back to "no-fusion in LENR" it is... -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com Hi, >Typo- the suggested reaction is -> Ni60 [snip] Ni58 + D -> Cu60 + 11.252 MeV Normally one would expect prompt gammas from this reaction totaling 11.25 MeV. If no gammas are detected, what do you propose happens to the energy? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 22 Sep 2014 16:32:02 -0700: Hi, [snip] >The usual "lame" rationalizations we have used is that the energy was >borrowed in advance to overcome the Coulomb barrier or shed in advance to >achieve the redundancy ... > >But you're right - fusion numbers simply don't work well for the reality of >a Rossi type reaction, as there is too much excess energy to hide... and >this rationalization is no better than the factionalized gamma. > >So there you have it... back to "no-fusion in LENR" it is... I would still be inclined to consider reactions that produce heavy charged particles. The heavier and slower, the better. E.g. fusion/fission reactions. I think the secondary gammas from heavily charged slow moving daughter nuclei might have been shielded. One possibility is the p-B11 reaction which produces quite low energy alphas because there are three of them. Furthermore the double charge on the alpha particles means both rapid energy loss to electrons, and strong repulsion from other nuclei, thus strongly reducing the chances of creating secondary gammas. Also, if such a reaction were to occur within the mass of the Boron, then the short range of the alphas would mostly keep them in the Boron itself, and the lowest excited state of B11 is 2.1247 MeV. This is not much less than the energy of the alphas, so in order to produce any secondary gammas at all, such an alpha would need to collide directly with another B11 nucleus almost immediately after creation, i.e. before it lost too much energy through ionization. That thus works to reduce the intensity of any secondary radiation. (B10 OTOH has excited states at 718 & 740 keV, but then B10 is only 20% of natural Boron). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Axil Axil wrote: If you look at the ICCF-18 transmutation study of nickel and palladium > study by Cook, you will see that Mizuno shows the same isotopic shifts in > nickel that DGT shows. Ni61 does not participate in the reaction but all > other isotopes of nickel do. > I'm having trouble finding the transmutation study by Cook. I have found this: http://iccf18.research.missouri.edu/files/Poster/Cook.pdf Is Cook's study on transmutations in nickel and palladium available online? I take it that it is a summary of experiments and not a set of ab initio calculations? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 8:01 PM, wrote: I would still be inclined to consider reactions that produce heavy charged > particles. The heavier and slower, the better. E.g. fusion/fission > reactions. The reactions I've been looking at recently have charged particles as daughters as well. But the daughters are generally protons in the 5-10 MeV range. The way I propose that gammas from excited nuclei are avoided is to suggest that the reactions occur at the surface and that the daughters fly out from the surface: + d +++ p p p +++ p p p d p p ++ p ---> p d p +++ p p d p p p +++ p p p + p Here the (+)'s are nickel lattice sites. The p results from an Ni(d,p)Ni reaction. The arrow represents the momentum. Although the p is born with ~ 5-10 MeV of energy, it burrows into the other p's at the surface, quickly thermalizing to a much lower energy. Occasionally there is a d that is broken apart through spallation. This wouldn't happen very often with a normal hydrogen mix, because there are only ~ 1/6000 parts deuterium, and only a fraction of these would be encountered (and only a fraction of the neutrons resulting from such spallations would exit the system). I think the secondary gammas from heavily charged slow moving daughter > nuclei > might have been shielded. > By this I take it you mean gammas from lattice sites excited through inelastic collisions? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Mon, 22 Sep 2014 21:08:59 -0700: Hi Eric, [snip] >On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 8:01 PM, wrote: > >I would still be inclined to consider reactions that produce heavy charged >> particles. The heavier and slower, the better. E.g. fusion/fission >> reactions. > > >The reactions I've been looking at recently have charged particles as >daughters as well. But the daughters are generally protons in the 5-10 MeV >range. The way I propose that gammas from excited nuclei are avoided is to >suggest that the reactions occur at the surface and that the daughters fly >out from the surface: ...but wouldn't you expect 1/2 to fly away from the surface, and half to fly into it? > >+ d > >+++ p p p > >+++ p p p d p p >++ p ---> p d p >+++ p p d p p p > >+++ p p p > >+ p > > >Here the (+)'s are nickel lattice sites. The p results from an Ni(d,p)Ni >reaction. The arrow represents the momentum. Although the p is born with >~ 5-10 MeV of energy, it burrows into the other p's at the surface, quickly >thermalizing to a much lower energy. Occasionally there is a d that is >broken apart through spallation. This wouldn't happen very often with a >normal hydrogen mix, because there are only ~ 1/6000 parts deuterium, and >only a fraction of these would be encountered (and only a fraction of the >neutrons resulting from such spallations would exit the system). > >I think the secondary gammas from heavily charged slow moving daughter >> nuclei >> might have been shielded. >> > >By this I take it you mean gammas from lattice sites excited through >inelastic collisions? Yes, that's what I meant. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 10:33 PM, wrote: ...but wouldn't you expect 1/2 to fly away from the surface, and half to fly > into it? > I would expect there to be an anisotropy. As I envision it, there's an electric arc pulling a mass of protons into a recess. For a fraction of a moment, the pressure is astronomical. During this brief moment a deuteron (the smaller species are all ionized within the arc) is forced up against a lattice site, coming from the direction of the open area and the current towards the wall of the substrate. Unless there's some kind of rotation during the moment of contact, if the lattice site is on the left and the deuteron is coming from the right to the left, I would expect the daughter proton to push off of the daughter nickel and be expelled back out to the right, which is the open area. I assume this would all happen too quickly for any kind of rotation of the nickel/deuteron system. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
I found it. https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/36817/SimulationNuclearTransmutationPresentation.pdf?sequence=2 On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 11:48 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Axil Axil wrote: > > If you look at the ICCF-18 transmutation study of nickel and palladium >> study by Cook, you will see that Mizuno shows the same isotopic shifts in >> nickel that DGT shows. Ni61 does not participate in the reaction but all >> other isotopes of nickel do. >> > > I'm having trouble finding the transmutation study by Cook. I have found > this: > > http://iccf18.research.missouri.edu/files/Poster/Cook.pdf > > Is Cook's study on transmutations in nickel and palladium available > online? I take it that it is a summary of experiments and not a set of ab > initio calculations? > > Eric > >
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 22 Sep 2014 16:32:02 -0700: [snip] The usual "lame" rationalizations we have used is that the energy was >borrowed in advance to overcome the Coulomb barrier or shed in advance to >achieve the redundancy ...[/snip] IMHO the lock step motion of gas atoms in a loaded lattice provide the "bank" that loans energy to the reaction. I see this as ZPE underpinning where the geometry organizes random motion even extending down into the smaller NAE region where the very local defects in the lattice oppose the quantum forces of cavity geometry all occurring unbeknownst to the gas atom who always sees his local environment full of virtual particles unchanged and simply responds to HUP to derive his normal random motion much like local and global geometry establishes local and regional weather patterns. My point is that I agree it may not be fusion but disagree wrt there not being a source of energy to borrow.. the lock step motion of that many atoms represent a bank or a hammer and the closed cavity of the NAE is the loan seeking anvil. Fran
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
Fran: As is have posted many times, it is hard to tell what emerges from what. What comes first the chicken of the egg. Did you know that the Casmir force and zero point energy can be completely controlled by polariton condensation. *New regime in the Casimir force observed* http://phys.org/news/2013-12-regime-casimir.html and *Dymamical Casimir emission from polariton condensates* http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.1027 The Casmir effect can be eliminated or greatly amplified by polariton condensation. This new understanding in among the new hot topics in cavity physics. On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 6:56 AM, Roarty, Francis X < francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote: > In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 22 Sep 2014 16:32:02 -0700: > [snip] The usual "lame" rationalizations we have used is that the energy was > >borrowed in advance to overcome the Coulomb barrier or shed in advance to > >achieve the redundancy ...[/snip] > > IMHO the lock step motion of gas atoms in a loaded lattice provide the > "bank" that loans energy to the reaction. I see this as ZPE underpinning > where the geometry organizes random motion even extending down into the > smaller NAE region where the very local defects in the lattice oppose the > quantum forces of cavity geometry all occurring unbeknownst to the gas > atom who always sees his local environment full of virtual particles > unchanged and simply responds to HUP to derive his normal random motion > much like local and global geometry establishes local and regional weather > patterns. > > My point is that I agree it may not be fusion but disagree wrt there not > being a source of energy to borrow.. the lock step motion of that many > atoms represent a bank or a hammer and the closed cavity of the NAE is the > loan seeking anvil. > > Fran > > >
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
Thanks Axil, good citation and not surprising – I have been following this near field region since day one, convinced that there is relativistic magic occurring as you approach the focal limits described by Liptschitz et all where the quantum forces from the solid geometry can initially focus. The author is calling for further research in light of data that doesn’t agree with our present models, instead the data suggests the force falls much faster with separation for this configuration[corrugated plane / sphere]. The geometry is not the standard perpendicular plate arrangement. I assume he applied the appropriate Casimir formulas for this geometry but the data – by disagreeing with calculated value indicates the better documented case for parallel plates is just coincidental [perhaps some missing parameter that cancels for the parallel case]. We knew that pv1=pv2 for a long time before the parameters were contained and we realized pv1/t1=pv2/t2 and the era of refrigeration was born. My gut still screams relativistic effects even though there is no dv/dt approaching C there is the intriguing possibility that the longer wavelength/larger virtual particles supposedly restricted from occurring between boundaries of smaller separation are actually still able to occupy the region by shrinking from our perspective such that any gas atoms present also seem to shrink [ie hydrino /fh]. My bet is that one day some math guy will prove a relationship between the Casimir formula and the dilation formula made famous in the Twin Paradox. I firmly believe these f/h can actually slip between separations we perceive as less than atomic orbital diameters because they are temporally displaced and still riding that focal distance between solid boundaries because they perceive a spatial separation due to dilation/contraction [ the fractional hydrogen is temporally displaced without the need for near C velocity] Fran From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 11:59 AM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation Fran: As is have posted many times, it is hard to tell what emerges from what. What comes first the chicken of the egg. Did you know that the Casmir force and zero point energy can be completely controlled by polariton condensation. New regime in the Casimir force observed http://phys.org/news/2013-12-regime-casimir.html and Dymamical Casimir emission from polariton condensates http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.1027 The Casmir effect can be eliminated or greatly amplified by polariton condensation. This new understanding in among the new hot topics in cavity physics. On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 6:56 AM, Roarty, Francis X mailto:francis.x.roa...@lmco.com>> wrote: In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 22 Sep 2014 16:32:02 -0700: [snip] The usual "lame" rationalizations we have used is that the energy was >borrowed in advance to overcome the Coulomb barrier or shed in advance to >achieve the redundancy ...[/snip] IMHO the lock step motion of gas atoms in a loaded lattice provide the "bank" that loans energy to the reaction. I see this as ZPE underpinning where the geometry organizes random motion even extending down into the smaller NAE region where the very local defects in the lattice oppose the quantum forces of cavity geometry all occurring unbeknownst to the gas atom who always sees his local environment full of virtual particles unchanged and simply responds to HUP to derive his normal random motion much like local and global geometry establishes local and regional weather patterns. My point is that I agree it may not be fusion but disagree wrt there not being a source of energy to borrow.. the lock step motion of that many atoms represent a bank or a hammer and the closed cavity of the NAE is the loan seeking anvil. Fran
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Mon, 22 Sep 2014 22:42:04 -0700: Hi Eric, On the face of it this sounds reasonable, but real life is seldom so simple. Some deuterons will bounce off lattice nuclei in elastic collisions and head off in completely different directions, so I would expect at least some reactions to produce protons that end up injected into the lattice. Note that at the atomic level material surfaces are often rough. >On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 10:33 PM, wrote: > >...but wouldn't you expect 1/2 to fly away from the surface, and half to fly >> into it? >> > >I would expect there to be an anisotropy. As I envision it, there's an >electric arc pulling a mass of protons into a recess. For a fraction of a >moment, the pressure is astronomical. During this brief moment a deuteron >(the smaller species are all ionized within the arc) is forced up against a >lattice site, coming from the direction of the open area and the current >towards the wall of the substrate. Unless there's some kind of rotation >during the moment of contact, if the lattice site is on the left and the >deuteron is coming from the right to the left, I would expect the daughter >proton to push off of the daughter nickel and be expelled back out to the >right, which is the open area. I assume this would all happen too quickly >for any kind of rotation of the nickel/deuteron system. > >Eric Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
I suspect both endothermic and exothermic reactions occur even inside the tokamak, but on balance more exothermic reactions occur. Harry On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 6:30 PM, wrote: > In reply to H Veeder's message of Sun, 21 Sep 2014 17:35:34 -0400: > Hi, > > Nuclear energies are 6 orders of magnitude larger than chemical energies, > which > I would expect to reduce the chances to the point where it's not even worth > considering. > However, that said, it should be noted that the same is not always true for > reactions where D is converted into T. > > e.g. the following reaction is exothermic:- > > 9Be+2H => 4He + 4He + 3H + 4.684 MeV > > > >On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 10:59 PM, wrote: > > > >> In reply to H Veeder's message of Sat, 20 Sep 2014 20:53:37 -0400: > >> Hi, > >> [snip] > >> >If hydrinos and deuterinos are both present, perhaps it is possible for > >> the > >> >neutron stripping to work in two directions such that a deuterino can > give > >> >up a neutron to a heavy nucleus and a heavy nucleus can give up a > neutron > >> >to hydrino. ( I am thinking of a nuclear version of epicatalysis.) > >> > > >> >Harry > >> A heavy nucleus won't give up a neutron to a Hydrino, because in doing > so > >> it > >> would lose about 5-10 MeV, but only gain 2.2 MeV from the formation of > the > >> deuteron. > >> > >> > > > >?That means it is an endothermic reaction, but that doesn't mean it is > >impossible?. > >I am not implying that neutron stripping should be discarded ?if the > >reverse reaction is possible. > >? > >I > >? ? > >mentioned epicatalysis because > >?theoretical research on? > > > >?the subject > > > >?was recently ? > >published in Physical Review E. Along with some empirical evidence the > >research suggests that deviations > >?of practical significance ? > >from the 2nd law of law thermodynamics are possible > >?with epicatalysis > >?:? > > > >https://www.facebook.com/ParadigmEnergy/posts/249600938581128 > > > >Now the theory of epicatalysis is based on chemical activity, but I don't > >see why the theory could not be broadened to include nuclear activity or > >other unconventional high energy activity if a given heat anomaly is too > >large to explain by just chemical activity. > > > >A tacit assumption of CF/LENR research is that an anomalous thermal signal > >will have practical significance if it results from the conversion of > >potential energy into kinetic energy in a one way process. The assumption > >holds whether the source of energy is nuclear or chemical or some other. > >Consequently, measured temperature anomalies are suspect until they are > >supported by additional calorimetry which yields a global temperature > rise. > >If this global temperature rise (excess heat signal) is not found, and > >measurement error is ruled out, then the temperature anomaly will be > >classified as a local fluctuation with no practical significance. This > >interpretation of temperature signals is motivated by the demands of the > >2nd law of thermodynamics. > > > >However, if a process like epicatalysis is creating the temperature > >anomalies then the methods used to measure an excess heat signal need to > be > >reconsidered. Detecting an excess heat signal ordinarily means looking for > >a global temperature rise which requires that the source of an anomaly be > >placed in a thermally closed environment since it is assumed the > >temperature rise is based on the creation of kinetic energy from inside > the > >system. In contradistinction epicatalysis transfers energy from a lower > >temperature region to a higher temperature region. If the purpose of the > >enclosure is to detect a global temperature rise none will be found. > > > >Harry > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk > > http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html > >
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
In reply to H Veeder's message of Wed, 24 Sep 2014 21:46:11 -0400: Hi, [snip] >I suspect both endothermic and exothermic reactions occur even inside the >tokamak, but on balance more exothermic reactions occur. > >Harry Endothermic reactions only happen when ingoing particles have enough kinetic energy to make the reaction happen. IOW they are not really endothermic when all energy sources are taken into account. However most nuclear reactions where a neutron transfers to an external proton to create deuterium would be genuinely endothermic, and thus would not occur, unless of course the proton had high kinetic energy to start with. Of course it's possible that this happens, but the reactions going the other way are going to outnumber them by many thousands to 1, because very few of the energetic protons created are immediately going to encounter another heavy nucleus before losing some energy to ionization, and of those that do immediately encounter another heavy nucleus, only a small percentage are going to produce D. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:13 PM, wrote: > In reply to H Veeder's message of Wed, 24 Sep 2014 21:46:11 -0400: > Hi, > [snip] > >I suspect both endothermic and exothermic reactions occur even inside the > >tokamak, but on balance more exothermic reactions occur. > > > >Harry > > Endothermic reactions only happen when ingoing particles have enough > kinetic > energy to make the reaction happen. IOW they are not really endothermic > when all > energy sources are taken into account. > > However most nuclear reactions where a neutron transfers to an external > proton > to create deuterium would be genuinely endothermic, and thus would not > occur, > unless of course the proton had high kinetic energy to start with. > > Of course it's possible that this happens, but the reactions going the other way > are going to outnumber them by many thousands to 1, because very few of the > energetic protons created are immediately going to encounter another heavy > nucleus before losing some energy to ionization, and of those that do > immediately encounter another heavy nucleus, only a small percentage are > going > to produce D. > > Ok now lets return to condensed matter systems. All the nuclear reactions offer ed for reports of "excess heat" in such systems are suppose to be theoretically impossible. Since we are dealing in impossibilities from the outset, it seems like false logic to argue that the probability of endothermic reactions is improbable. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:59 PM, H Veeder wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:13 PM, wrote: > >> In reply to H Veeder's message of Wed, 24 Sep 2014 21:46:11 -0400: >> Hi, >> [snip] >> >I suspect both endothermic and exothermic reactions occur even inside the >> >tokamak, but on balance more exothermic reactions occur. >> > >> >Harry >> >> Endothermic reactions only happen when ingoing particles have enough >> kinetic >> energy to make the reaction happen. IOW they are not really endothermic >> when all >> energy sources are taken into account. >> >> However most nuclear reactions where a neutron transfers to an external >> proton >> to create deuterium would be genuinely endothermic, and thus would not >> occur, >> unless of course the proton had high kinetic energy to start with. >> >> Of course it's possible that this happens, but the reactions going the > other way > >> are going to outnumber them by many thousands to 1, because very few of >> the >> energetic protons created are immediately going to encounter another heavy >> nucleus before losing some energy to ionization, and of those that do >> immediately encounter another heavy nucleus, only a small percentage are >> going >> to produce D. >> >> > > Ok now lets return to condensed matter systems. > > > All the nuclear > reactions > offer > ed > for reports of "excess heat" > in such > systems > are suppose to be > theoretically > impossible. > > Since we are dealing in impossibilities from the outset, it seems like > false logic to argue that the probability of endothermic reactions > is improbable. > > Harry > That should read: Ok now lets return to condensed matter systems. All the nuclear _explanations_ offered for reports of "excess heat" in such systems are supose to theoretically impossible. Since we are dealing in impossibilities from the outset, it seems like false logic to argue that the probability of endothermic reactions is improbable. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
In reply to H Veeder's message of Wed, 24 Sep 2014 23:04:12 -0400: Hi Harry, [snip] >Since we are dealing in impossibilities from the outset, it seems like >false logic to argue that the probability of endothermic reactions >is improbable. [snip] I have told you what I think and why. Whether or not you choose to accept it is up to you. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 5:42 PM, wrote: > In reply to H Veeder's message of Wed, 24 Sep 2014 23:04:12 -0400: > Hi Harry, > [snip] > >Since we are dealing in impossibilities from the outset, it seems like > >false logic to argue that the probability of endothermic reactions > >is improbable. > [snip] > I have told you what I think and why. Whether or not you choose to accept > it is > up to you. > > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk > > http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html > > I found this drawing on a site which happened to be extremely critical of P&F's research. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OpDKkgdQKrgP29Nxa0N_biIsLz0qeY8UGDGpFJCFSy0/edit?usp=sharing What I like about the drawing is that it shows the three d-d fusion pathways all passing through the same intermediate stage of high energy helium 4. I modified the drawing to show the reaction going in both directions before the excited intermediate stage has a chance to decay. I think that the lattice facilitates the initiation of fusion but it also tends to inhibits the completion the fusion process. The question of course is of what relevancy is this scenario if it does not produce energy? If it can form an epicatalytic process then it is very relevant. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
I suggest that a very fast monolithic reaction process will allow Helium-2 (diproton) to form. Then immediately, before the positrons decay can take place producing neutrons, two diproton atoms will fuse to the latent helium 4 intermediate product will take place comprised of 4 protons. After positron emission produces 2 neutrons to form helium 4,, the characteristic LENR emission of 1,02 MeV gammas will manifest, Upon the collision of a particle and an anti-particle, e.g. electron and positron, these are "annihilated" as particles and the mass of these particles converted into energy. Electron and positron have a rest mass which is together equal to an energy of 1.02 MeV. Upon the "annihilation" of both particles, two gamma, The usual radiation product of a LENR reaction is positrons and lots of them. On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 8:34 PM, H Veeder wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 5:42 PM, wrote: > >> In reply to H Veeder's message of Wed, 24 Sep 2014 23:04:12 -0400: >> Hi Harry, >> [snip] >> >Since we are dealing in impossibilities from the outset, it seems like >> >false logic to argue that the probability of endothermic reactions >> >is improbable. >> [snip] >> I have told you what I think and why. Whether or not you choose to accept >> it is >> up to you. >> >> Regards, >> >> Robin van Spaandonk >> >> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html >> >> > > I found this drawing on a site which happened to be extremely critical of > P&F's research. > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OpDKkgdQKrgP29Nxa0N_biIsLz0qeY8UGDGpFJCFSy0/edit?usp=sharing > > What I like about the drawing is that it shows the three d-d fusion > pathways all passing through the same intermediate stage of high energy > helium 4. I modified the drawing to show the reaction going in both > directions before the excited intermediate stage has a chance to decay. I > think that the lattice facilitates the initiation of fusion but it also > tends to inhibits the completion the fusion process. The question of course > is of what relevancy is this scenario if it does not produce energy? If it > can form an epicatalytic > process then it is very relevant. > > > Harry > >
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
Upon the "annihilation" of both particles, two gamma, should read Upon the "annihilation" of both particles, two 512 KeV gamma are produced that travel in an antiparallel direction away from the point of "annihilation" . On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > I suggest that a very fast monolithic reaction process will allow Helium-2 > (diproton) to form. Then immediately, before the positrons decay can take > place producing neutrons, two diproton atoms will fuse to the latent helium > 4 intermediate product will take place comprised of 4 protons. > > After positron emission produces 2 neutrons to form helium 4,, the > characteristic LENR emission of 1,02 MeV gammas will manifest, > > Upon the collision of a particle and an anti-particle, e.g. electron and > positron, these are "annihilated" as particles and the mass of these > particles converted into energy. Electron and positron have a rest mass > which is together equal to an energy of 1.02 MeV. Upon the "annihilation" > of both particles, two gamma, > > The usual radiation product of a LENR reaction is positrons and lots of > them. > > On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 8:34 PM, H Veeder wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 5:42 PM, wrote: >> >>> In reply to H Veeder's message of Wed, 24 Sep 2014 23:04:12 -0400: >>> Hi Harry, >>> [snip] >>> >Since we are dealing in impossibilities from the outset, it seems like >>> >false logic to argue that the probability of endothermic reactions >>> >is improbable. >>> [snip] >>> I have told you what I think and why. Whether or not you choose to >>> accept it is >>> up to you. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Robin van Spaandonk >>> >>> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html >>> >>> >> >> I found this drawing on a site which happened to be extremely critical of >> P&F's research. >> >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OpDKkgdQKrgP29Nxa0N_biIsLz0qeY8UGDGpFJCFSy0/edit?usp=sharing >> >> What I like about the drawing is that it shows the three d-d fusion >> pathways all passing through the same intermediate stage of high energy >> helium 4. I modified the drawing to show the reaction going in both >> directions before the excited intermediate stage has a chance to decay. I >> think that the lattice facilitates the initiation of fusion but it also >> tends to inhibits the completion the fusion process. The question of course >> is of what relevancy is this scenario if it does not produce energy? If it >> can form an epicatalytic >> process then it is very relevant. >> >> >> Harry >> >> >
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
I don't see how it challenge F&P, it is theory? 2014-09-28 2:34 GMT+02:00 H Veeder : > > > On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 5:42 PM, wrote: > >> In reply to H Veeder's message of Wed, 24 Sep 2014 23:04:12 -0400: >> Hi Harry, >> [snip] >> >Since we are dealing in impossibilities from the outset, it seems like >> >false logic to argue that the probability of endothermic reactions >> >is improbable. >> [snip] >> I have told you what I think and why. Whether or not you choose to accept >> it is >> up to you. >> >> Regards, >> >> Robin van Spaandonk >> >> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html >> >> > > I found this drawing on a site which happened to be extremely critical of > P&F's research. > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OpDKkgdQKrgP29Nxa0N_biIsLz0qeY8UGDGpFJCFSy0/edit?usp=sharing > > What I like about the drawing is that it shows the three d-d fusion > pathways all passing through the same intermediate stage of high energy > helium 4. I modified the drawing to show the reaction going in both > directions before the excited intermediate stage has a chance to decay. I > think that the lattice facilitates the initiation of fusion but it also > tends to inhibits the completion the fusion process. The question of course > is of what relevancy is this scenario if it does not produce energy? If it > can form an epicatalytic > process then it is very relevant. > > > Harry > >
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
The link has two drawings on the same page. The top drawing, which is the one I found, doesn't challenge F&P research. The bottom drawing is my modified version and it is intended to show that the fusion process can be considered reversible as long as it does not reach the final stage. Are you asking yourself "why is he proposing a hypothetical fusion process that does not result in the production energy?" Harry On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 5:10 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote: > I don't see how it challenge F&P, > it is theory? > > 2014-09-28 2:34 GMT+02:00 H Veeder : > >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 5:42 PM, wrote: >> >>> In reply to H Veeder's message of Wed, 24 Sep 2014 23:04:12 -0400: >>> Hi Harry, >>> [snip] >>> >Since we are dealing in impossibilities from the outset, it seems like >>> >false logic to argue that the probability of endothermic reactions >>> >is improbable. >>> [snip] >>> I have told you what I think and why. Whether or not you choose to >>> accept it is >>> up to you. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Robin van Spaandonk >>> >>> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html >>> >>> >> >> I found this drawing on a site which happened to be extremely critical of >> P&F's research. >> >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OpDKkgdQKrgP29Nxa0N_biIsLz0qeY8UGDGpFJCFSy0/edit?usp=sharing >> >> What I like about the drawing is that it shows the three d-d fusion >> pathways all passing through the same intermediate stage of high energy >> helium 4. I modified the drawing to show the reaction going in both >> directions before the excited intermediate stage has a chance to decay. I >> think that the lattice facilitates the initiation of fusion but it also >> tends to inhibits the completion the fusion process. The question of course >> is of what relevancy is this scenario if it does not produce energy? If it >> can form an epicatalytic >> process then it is very relevant. >> >> >> Harry >> >> >
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
In reply to H Veeder's message of Sun, 28 Sep 2014 19:18:08 -0400: Hi Harry, >The link has two drawings on the same page. The top drawing, which is the >one I found, doesn't challenge F&P research. > >The bottom drawing is my modified version and it is intended to show that >the fusion process can be considered reversible as long as it does not >reach the final stage. >Are you asking yourself "why is he proposing a hypothetical fusion process >that does not result in the production energy?" > >Harry [snip] If it happened nobody would notice. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 2:54 PM, wrote: If it happened nobody would notice. > Yes. I think it would be indistinguishable from an elastic collision (if the two situations are different). Eric
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 1:07 AM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 2:54 PM, wrote: > > If it happened nobody would notice. >> > > Yes. I think it would be indistinguishable from an elastic collision (if > the two situations are different). > > Eric > > That analogy assumes the excited nucleus immediately reverts or fissions back into the original parts. However, if there is a significant time delay before fission occurs and the excited nucleus is able to migrate to different site during that delay, then when fission does occur it will cause a local temperature increase at the different site. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
In reply to H Veeder's message of Tue, 30 Sep 2014 17:39:12 -0400: Hi, [snip] >On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 1:07 AM, Eric Walker wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 2:54 PM, wrote: >> >> If it happened nobody would notice. >>> >> >> Yes. I think it would be indistinguishable from an elastic collision (if >> the two situations are different). >> >> Eric >> >> >That analogy assumes the excited nucleus immediately reverts or fissions >back into the original parts. >However, if there is a significant time delay before fission occurs and the >excited nucleus is able to migrate to different site during that delay, >then when fission does occur it will cause a local temperature increase at >the different site. There isn't time for it migrate. The fission to either He3 + n or T + p happens in about 1E-22 sec. For this not to happen, it would have to fission back to D+D in less time than that. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
Harry I like the idea of excited He as an intermediate. However, I would indicate low energy radiation associted will He* spin energy deflation with angular momentum an the spin energy distributed throughout the quantum dot mattrix and its electrons. The He* may occur in pairs aligned antiparallel in the local magnetic field to allow conservation of AM. THERE ARE NO GAMMAS. Bob Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE SmartphoneH Veeder wrote: The link has two drawings on the same page. The top drawing, which is the one I found, doesn't challenge F&P research. The bottom drawing is my modified version and it is intended to show that the fusion process can be considered reversible as long as it does not reach the final stage. Are you asking yourself "why is he proposing a hypothetical fusion process that does not result in the production energy?" Harry On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 5:10 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote: > I don't see how it challenge F&P, > it is theory? > > 2014-09-28 2:34 GMT+02:00 H Veeder : > >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 5:42 PM, wrote: >> >>> In reply to H Veeder's message of Wed, 24 Sep 2014 23:04:12 -0400: >>> Hi Harry, >>> [snip] >>> >Since we are dealing in impossibilities from the outset, it seems like >>> >false logic to argue that the probability of endothermic reactions >>> >is improbable. >>> [snip] >>> I have told you what I think and why. Whether or not you choose to >>> accept it is >>> up to you. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Robin van Spaandonk >>> >>> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html >>> >>> >> >> I found this drawing on a site which happened to be extremely critical of >> P&F's research. >> >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OpDKkgdQKrgP29Nxa0N_biIsLz0qeY8UGDGpFJCFSy0/edit?usp=sharing >> >> What I like about the drawing is that it shows the three d-d fusion >> pathways all passing through the same intermediate stage of high energy >> helium 4. I modified the drawing to show the reaction going in both >> directions before the excited intermediate stage has a chance to decay. I >> think that the lattice facilitates the initiation of fusion but it also >> tends to inhibits the completion the fusion process. The question of course >> is of what relevancy is this scenario if it does not produce energy? If it >> can form an epicatalytic >> process then it is very relevant. >> >> >> Harry >> >> >
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 12:17 AM, frobertcook wrote: I like the idea of excited He as an intermediate. > I recall reading that 4He does not have a bound excited nuclear state, although it may have a resonance for a very brief period of time. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
Eric-- You wrote the following some time ago: - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2014 7:58 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 12:17 AM, frobertcook wrote: I like the idea of excited He as an intermediate. I recall reading that 4He does not have a bound excited nuclear state, although it may have a resonance for a very brief period of time. Eric Do you know if the experiments looked at excited spin energy states that may be possible at higher spin quanta? It probably would take the form of a deformed nucleus with some moment of inertia or dipole arrangement created by high magnetic or electric fields at resonant condition, like that associated with a tuned high energy laser beam shinning on double ionized 4He nuclei. Bob
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Bob Cook wrote: Do you know if the experiments looked at excited spin energy states that > may be possible at higher spin quanta? Unfortunately I don't have any other details and don't know of a particular experiment to refer to. Here is the quote from a textbook I recently finished reading: For nuclear physicists, the deuteron should be what the hydrogen atom is for atomic physicists. Just as the measured Balmer series of electromagnetic transitions between the excited states of hydrogen led to an understanding of the structure of hydrogen, so should the electromagnetic transitions between the excited states of the deuteron lead to an understanding of its structure. Unfortunately, there are *no excited states* of the deuteron—it is such a weakly bound system that the only "excited states" are unbound systems consisting of a free proton and neutron. [1] Eric [1] Kenneth S. Krane, *Introductory Nuclear Physics*, pp. 80-81; author's emphasis.
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
tonian), and over time a state such as s = 1, l = 0 may become a state of s = 1, l = 2. Parity is still constant in time so these do not mix with odd l states (such as s = 0, l = 1). Therefore the quantum state of the deuterium is a superposition (a linear combination) of the s = 1, l = 0 state and the s = 1, l = 2 state, even though the first component is much bigger. Since the total angular momentum j is also a good quantum number (it is a constant in time), both components must have the same j, and therefore j = 1. This is the total spin of the deuterium nucleus. To summarize, the deuterium nucleus is antisymmetric in terms of isospin, and has spin 1 and even (+1) parity. The relative angular momentum of its nucleons l is not well defined, and the deuteron is a superposition of mostly l = 0 with some l = 2. The measured value of the deuterium magnetic dipole moment, is 0.857 μN. This suggests that the state of the deuterium is indeed only approximately s = 1, l = 0 state, and is actually a linear combination of (mostly) this state with s = 1, l = 2 state. The electric dipole is zero as usual. The measured electric quadropole of the deuterium is 0.2859 e·fm2. While the order of magnitude is reasonable, since the deuterium radius is of order of 1 femtometer (see below) and its electric charge is e, the above model does not suffice for its computation. More specifically, the electric quadrupole does not get a contribution from the l =0 state (which is the dominant one) and does get a contribution from a term mixing the l =0 and the l =2 states, because the electric quadrupole operator does not commute with angular momentum. The latter contribution is dominant in the absence of a pure l = 0 contribution, but cannot be calculated without knowing the exact spatial form of the nucleons wavefunction inside the deuterium. Source: 1. Elements of Nuclear Physics, W. E Burcham, Longman,1979. 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen-2 ">>>>>>> Note the last paragraph and the conclusion about electric quadrupoles not commuting with angular momentum. It suggests that there may be a way to stimulate the D via an electric quadrupole input signal. Also with a magnetic moment the D must respond to a magnetic field and fine tuning of an oscillating magnetic field may very well excite the D to flip up and down in the field. The composite particles of the D should have sligltly different magnetic moments that can respond and create an "excited" state IMHO on a transient short lived time frame. However in a coherent system such a transient may be enough to cause other transitions of similar energy states to occur with mass energy being changed to angular momentum energy. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 9:54 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Bob Cook wrote: Do you know if the experiments looked at excited spin energy states that may be possible at higher spin quanta? Unfortunately I don't have any other details and don't know of a particular experiment to refer to. Here is the quote from a textbook I recently finished reading: For nuclear physicists, the deuteron should be what the hydrogen atom is for atomic physicists. Just as the measured Balmer series of electromagnetic transitions between the excited states of hydrogen led to an understanding of the structure of hydrogen, so should the electromagnetic transitions between the excited states of the deuteron lead to an understanding of its structure. Unfortunately, there are no excited states of the deuteron—it is such a weakly bound system that the only "excited states" are unbound systems consisting of a free proton and neutron. [1] Eric [1] Kenneth S. Krane, Introductory Nuclear Physics, pp. 80-81; author's emphasis.
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
Eric-- One additional comment on the D excited state question. Suppose in stead of one D you realize a pair of D's with their spin vectors pointing in opposite directions in a coherent system like one may have in the middle of a body centered cubic (BCC) cell of a Pd metal lattice or a Ni metal lattice with a strong B magnetic field. Such a pair may act like a Cooper pair with a 0 spin and hence a 4He nucleus. The transition from 2 D's to 4He could occur via a distribution of mass energy to excited spin states of the lattice electrons and/or metal nuclei. Proper alignment initially of the the D's may be important to obtain antiparallel conditions and could be encouraged statistically with varying magnetic fields and /or temperature of the lattice. A quadruple oscillating electric field may also help to excite the D's to shed their excess mass relative to the developing 4He particle. The magnetic field should actually reduce the spatial options available in the BCC cell for the D's that happen to be there and improve the statistics for their arriving at the same location to form a Cooper pair. The spin coupling may be a strong tendency in such a situation. It is with electrons as Pauli pointed out. Bob - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 9:54 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Bob Cook wrote: Do you know if the experiments looked at excited spin energy states that may be possible at higher spin quanta? Unfortunately I don't have any other details and don't know of a particular experiment to refer to. Here is the quote from a textbook I recently finished reading: For nuclear physicists, the deuteron should be what the hydrogen atom is for atomic physicists. Just as the measured Balmer series of electromagnetic transitions between the excited states of hydrogen led to an understanding of the structure of hydrogen, so should the electromagnetic transitions between the excited states of the deuteron lead to an understanding of its structure. Unfortunately, there are no excited states of the deuteron—it is such a weakly bound system that the only "excited states" are unbound systems consisting of a free proton and neutron. [1] Eric [1] Kenneth S. Krane, Introductory Nuclear Physics, pp. 80-81; author's emphasis.
RE: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
Bob, I have cherry-picked three major “spin facts” from this compendium which indicate that if one wants to apply a nano-magnetism or spin-coupling modality to LENR, it is highly preferable to use deuterium, as opposed to hydrogen. That may be why Mizuno chose the deuterium-nickel combination. All eyes will be shifting to Mizuno in less than three weeks. From: Bob Cook [snip] The deuteron, being an isospin singlet, is antisymmetric under nucleon exchange due to isospin, and therefore must be symmetric under the double exchange of their spin and location. Therefore it can be in either of the following two different states: Symmetric spin and symmetric under parity. In this case, the exchange of the two nucleons will multiply the deuterium wavefunction by (-1) from isospin exchange, (+1) from spin exchange and (+1) from parity (location exchange), for a total of (-1) as needed for antisymmetry…. In this case, the exchange of the two nucleons will multiply the deuterium wavefunction by (-1) from isospin exchange, (-1) from spin exchange and (-1) from parity (location exchange), again for a total of (-1) as needed for antisymmetry. [snip] …suggesting that there may be a way to stimulate the D via an electric quadrupole input signal. Also with a magnetic moment the D must respond to a magnetic field and fine tuning of an oscillating magnetic field may very well excite the D to flip up and down in the field. The composite particles of the D should have slightly different magnetic moments that can respond and create an "excited" state IMHO on a transient short lived time frame. However in a coherent system such a transient may be enough to cause other transitions of similar energy states to occur with mass energy being changed to angular momentum energy. The quadrupole input is a strong clue. <>
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
Jones-- Was there any indication that the Mizuno experiments used quadrupole electric or magnetic inputs? I was not aware of this, if it happened. Also keep in mind that D is a Bose particle (as is 4HE) and can form a BEC or a duplex BEC with two different Bose particles. This may be a reality in a strong magnetic field, temperature be damned. The question I have is how a BEC can shed energy and change the mass of its constituents without disrupting the condensate. Maybe it is a series of condensation and disruption that controls the reaction. The dynamics of this process would be key to controlling the rate of the process. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: "Jones Beene" To: Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2014 6:34 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation Bob, I have cherry-picked three major “spin facts” from this compendium which indicate that if one wants to apply a nano-magnetism or spin-coupling modality to LENR, it is highly preferable to use deuterium, as opposed to hydrogen. That may be why Mizuno chose the deuterium-nickel combination. All eyes will be shifting to Mizuno in less than three weeks. From: Bob Cook [snip] The deuteron, being an isospin singlet, is antisymmetric under nucleon exchange due to isospin, and therefore must be symmetric under the double exchange of their spin and location. Therefore it can be in either of the following two different states: Symmetric spin and symmetric under parity. In this case, the exchange of the two nucleons will multiply the deuterium wavefunction by (-1) from isospin exchange, (+1) from spin exchange and (+1) from parity (location exchange), for a total of (-1) as needed for antisymmetry…. In this case, the exchange of the two nucleons will multiply the deuterium wavefunction by (-1) from isospin exchange, (-1) from spin exchange and (-1) from parity (location exchange), again for a total of (-1) as needed for antisymmetry. [snip] …suggesting that there may be a way to stimulate the D via an electric quadrupole input signal. Also with a magnetic moment the D must respond to a magnetic field and fine tuning of an oscillating magnetic field may very well excite the D to flip up and down in the field. The composite particles of the D should have slightly different magnetic moments that can respond and create an "excited" state IMHO on a transient short lived time frame. However in a coherent system such a transient may be enough to cause other transitions of similar energy states to occur with mass energy being changed to angular momentum energy. The quadrupole input is a strong clue.
RE: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
-Original Message- From: Bob Cook > Was there any indication that the Mizuno experiments used quadrupole electric or magnetic inputs? I was not aware of this, if it happened. This is an interesting point, and the Mizuno experiment may not have been optimized. Hopefully the next iteration will tell us more. One interesting thing about superparamagnetism is that a quadrupole is a natural outgrowth of any changing field, and if the deuterium becomes superparamagnetic that is all we need. > Also keep in mind that D is a Bose particle (as is 4HE) and can form a BEC or a duplex BEC with two different Bose particles. This may be a reality in a strong magnetic field, temperature be damned. Deuterium in normally diamagnetic as a molecule and we really do not need for it to a BEC to see excess energy. As a bare nucleus, it may be superparamagnetic, and that could be enough for spin coupling. Superparamagnetism in somewhat "new" to consideration in the LENR field, since it is an outgrowth of nanotechnology. We have much to learn about spin-coupling but in my mind, superparamagnetism will be a major piece of the puzzle, but certainly bosons which are superparamagnetic are more likely to participate in energy transfers than fermions. > The question I have is how a BEC can shed energy and change the mass of its constituents without disrupting the condensate. Well - Deuterium cannot even become a condensate in normal LENR, since it requires cryogenic temperatures. However, there are boson condensates in SPP which form at elevated temperature but they are not massive. Axil and myself have presented scholarly articles to that effect. An answer for original question is that an SPP condensate allows energy to be coupled from A to B (where A is a boson like the deuteron) without itself necessarily participating in the reaction. > Maybe it is a series of condensation and disruption that controls the > reaction. The dynamics of this process would be key to controlling the rate > of the process. Still not sure why you think that deuterium can become a BEC above a few degrees of absolute zero? Is there any evidence for this? Jones - Original Message - Bob, I have cherry-picked three major “spin facts” from this compendium which indicate that if one wants to apply a nano-magnetism or spin-coupling modality to LENR, it is highly preferable to use deuterium, as opposed to hydrogen. That may be why Mizuno chose the deuterium-nickel combination. All eyes will be shifting to Mizuno in less than three weeks. From: Bob Cook [snip] The deuteron, being an isospin singlet, is antisymmetric under nucleon exchange due to isospin, and therefore must be symmetric under the double exchange of their spin and location. Therefore it can be in either of the following two different states: Symmetric spin and symmetric under parity. In this case, the exchange of the two nucleons will multiply the deuterium wavefunction by (-1) from isospin exchange, (+1) from spin exchange and (+1) from parity (location exchange), for a total of (-1) as needed for antisymmetry…. In this case, the exchange of the two nucleons will multiply the deuterium wavefunction by (-1) from isospin exchange, (-1) from spin exchange and (-1) from parity (location exchange), again for a total of (-1) as needed for antisymmetry. [snip] …suggesting that there may be a way to stimulate the D via an electric quadrupole input signal. Also with a magnetic moment the D must respond to a magnetic field and fine tuning of an oscillating magnetic field may very well excite the D to flip up and down in the field. The composite particles of the D should have slightly different magnetic moments that can respond and create an "excited" state IMHO on a transient short lived time frame. However in a coherent system such a transient may be enough to cause other transitions of similar energy states to occur with mass energy being changed to angular momentum energy. The quadrupole input is a strong clue.
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
I wrote: Unfortunately I don't have any other details and don't know of a particular > experiment to refer to. Here is the quote from a textbook I recently > finished reading: ... > It was late last night, and the paragraph I found and quoted pertained to deuterium, not 4He, which you were asking about, Bob. I recall reading that 4He does not have an excited state either, but I will have to see if I can find where I saw that (it might also have been a mistaken impression). Eric
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
Jones- I do not know of data on high temperature BEC's of particles of high mass. Y. Kims theory for the reaction of Bose particles, including duplex compinations of different Bose particles, may be of some importance. I have not studied his theory in depth, but the fact that he seems to think BEC may be involved in the LENR process suggests that room temperature BEC may happen. The following is a list of Kim's theories of recent times. a.. Y.E. Kim, "Theoretical Analysis and Reaction Mechanisms for Experimental Results of Hydrogen-Oxygen-Metal Systems," Purdue Nuclear and Many-Body Theory Group (PNMBTG) preprint — PNMBTG-05-2014 (May 2014). (PDF) a.. Y.E. Kim, "Hartree-Fock Theory with Correlation Effects Applied to Nuclear Reaction Rates for Charged Bose Nuclei Confined in a Harmonic Trap," Purdue Nuclear and Many-Body Theory Group (PNMBTG) preprint PNMBTG-8-2013 (August, 2013). (PDF) a.. Y.E. Kim, "Conventional Nuclear Theory of Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions in Metals: Alternative Approach to Clean Fusion Energy Generation," Purdue Nuclear and Many Body Theory Group (PNMBTG) Preprint PNMBTG-12—7 (July 2012). Invited paper presented at the 17th International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF-17), Daejeon, Korea, August 12-17, 2012. (PDF), to be published in the ICCF-17 Proceedings. a.. Y.E. Kim, "Cryogenic Ignition of Deuteron Fusion in Micro/Nano-Scale Metal Particles," Purdue Nuclear and Many Body Theory Group (PNMBTG) Preprint PNMBTG-11-2011 (November 2011). Invited paper presented at Topical Meeting of the 2012 Nuclear and Emerging Technologies for Space (NETS), the 43rd Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, March 19-23, 2012, the Woodlands, Texas. (PDF) a.. Y.E. Kim, "Nuclear Reactions in Micro/Nano-Scale Metal Particles," Few-Body Systems 54, 25-30 (2013), invited paper presented at the 5th Asia-Pacific Conference on Few-Body Problems in Physics (APFB2011), Seoul, Korea, August 22-26, 2011. (PDF) a.. Y.E. Kim, "Generalized Theory of Bose-Einstein Condensation Nuclear Fusion for Hydrogen-Metal System," Purdue Nuclear and Many Body Theory Group (PNMBTG) Preprint PNMBTG-6-2011 (June 2011). (PDF) They can be copied as PDF documents from the following web page: http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/yekim.html Another paper by Kim has the following abstract: ABSTRACT Generalized theory of Bose-Einstein condensation nuclear fusion (BECNF) is used to carry out theoretical analyses of recent experimental results of Rossi et al. for hydrogen-nickel system. Based on incomplete experimental information currently available, preliminary theoretical explanations of the experimental results are presented in terms of the generalized BECNF theory. Additional accurate experimental data are needed for obtaining more complete theoretical descriptions and predictions, which can be tested by further experiments. The full paper can be found at the following web page: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2746057/posts The latter link suggested the BEC that I have talked about at above cryogenic temperatures. Bob Cook Bob Cook - Original Message - From: "Jones Beene" To: Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2014 7:33 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation -Original Message- From: Bob Cook Was there any indication that the Mizuno experiments used quadrupole electric or magnetic inputs? I was not aware of this, if it happened. This is an interesting point, and the Mizuno experiment may not have been optimized. Hopefully the next iteration will tell us more. One interesting thing about superparamagnetism is that a quadrupole is a natural outgrowth of any changing field, and if the deuterium becomes superparamagnetic that is all we need. Also keep in mind that D is a Bose particle (as is 4HE) and can form a BEC or a duplex BEC with two different Bose particles. This may be a reality in a strong magnetic field, temperature be damned. Deuterium in normally diamagnetic as a molecule and we really do not need for it to a BEC to see excess energy. As a bare nucleus, it may be superparamagnetic, and that could be enough for spin coupling. Superparamagnetism in somewhat "new" to consideration in the LENR field, since it is an outgrowth of nanotechnology. We have much to learn about spin-coupling but in my mind, superparamagnetism will be a major piece of the puzzle, but certainly bosons which are superparamagnetic are more likely to participate in energy transfers than fermions. The question I have is how a BEC can shed energy and change the mass of its constituents without disrupting the condensate. Well - Deuterium cannot even become a condensate in normal LENR, since it requires cryogenic temperatures. However, there are boson condensates in SPP which form at elevated temperature but they are not massive. Axil and
RE: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
-Original Message- From: Bob Cook > I do not know of data on high temperature BEC's of particles of high mass. > Y. Kims theory for the reaction of Bose particles, including duplex compinations of different Bose particles, may be of some importance. I have not studied his theory in depth, but the fact that he seems to think BEC may be involved in the LENR process suggests that room temperature BEC may happen. Yes - to a degree, the BEC is likely to be involved, but not in a high mass particle like the deuteron. There are dozens of papers like this http://www.nature.com/nmat/journal/v13/n3/full/nmat3825.html It would appear that the limit for BEC at high temperature is about a few thousand times less than the mass of the deuteron.
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
it is highly preferable to use deuterium, as opposed to hydrogen. I disagree. Deuterium has a non zero spin whereas hydrogen has a zero spin which is required in low powered LENR reactions. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > Bob, > I have cherry-picked three major “spin facts” from this compendium which > indicate that if one wants to apply a nano-magnetism or spin-coupling > modality to LENR, it is highly preferable to use deuterium, as opposed to > hydrogen. That may be why Mizuno chose the deuterium-nickel combination. > All > eyes will be shifting to Mizuno in less than three weeks. > > From: Bob Cook > [snip] The deuteron, being an isospin singlet, is antisymmetric under > nucleon exchange due to isospin, and therefore must be symmetric under the > double exchange of their spin and location. Therefore it can be in either > of > the following two different states: Symmetric spin and symmetric under > parity. In this case, the exchange of the two nucleons will multiply the > deuterium wavefunction by (-1) from isospin exchange, (+1) from spin > exchange and (+1) from parity (location exchange), for a total of (-1) as > needed for antisymmetry…. In this case, the exchange of the two nucleons > will multiply the deuterium wavefunction by (-1) from isospin exchange, > (-1) > from spin exchange and (-1) from parity (location exchange), again for a > total of (-1) as needed for antisymmetry. [snip] > > …suggesting that there may be a way to stimulate the D via an electric > quadrupole input signal. Also with a magnetic moment the D must respond > to > a magnetic field and fine tuning of an oscillating magnetic field may very > well excite the D to flip up and down in the field. The composite > particles > of the D should have slightly different magnetic moments that can respond > and create an "excited" state IMHO on a transient short lived time frame. > However in a coherent system such a transient may be enough to cause other > transitions of similar energy states to occur with mass energy being > changed > to angular momentum energy. > > The quadrupole input is a strong clue. > > >
RE: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
From: Axil it is highly preferable to use deuterium, as opposed to hydrogen. I disagree. Deuterium has a non zero spin whereas hydrogen has a zero spin which is required in low powered LENR reactions. Says who? What is your evidence?
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
Ni61 is non reactive as stated by DGT and confirmed by Mizuno as presented in Cook's !CCF-18 presentation On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > *From:* Axil > > > > it is highly preferable to use deuterium, as opposed to hydrogen. > > > > I disagree. > > > > Deuterium has a non zero spin whereas hydrogen has a zero spin which is > required in low powered LENR reactions. > > > > > > Says who? What is your evidence? > > >
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
See https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/36817/SimulationNuclearTransmutationPresentation.pdf?sequence=2 On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > Ni61 is non reactive as stated by DGT and confirmed by Mizuno as presented > in Cook's !CCF-18 presentation > > On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > >> *From:* Axil >> >> >> >> it is highly preferable to use deuterium, as opposed to hydrogen. >> >> >> >> I disagree. >> >> >> >> Deuterium has a non zero spin whereas hydrogen has a zero spin which is >> required in low powered LENR reactions. >> >> >> >> >> >> Says who? What is your evidence? >> >> >> > >
RE: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
So what, that’s not general evidence? Even if true, it relates to nickel, and not to hydrogen/deuterium. Everything since 1989 in LENR points to deuterium being as active if not more than hydrogen. From: Axil Axil * Ni61 is non reactive as stated by DGT and confirmed by Mizuno as presented in Cook's ICCF-18 presentation … Deuterium has a non zero spin whereas hydrogen has a zero spin which is required in low powered LENR reactions. Says who? What is your evidence? <>
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
I would disagree with the spins reported by Axil for D and a Proton. D is +1 and the Proton is +1/2 in non excited states or ground states. The neutron also has a +1/2 spin. The proton and neutron spins seem to add to make up the +1 spin of the D. Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2014 12:17 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation From: Axil it is highly preferable to use deuterium, as opposed to hydrogen. I disagree. Deuterium has a non zero spin whereas hydrogen has a zero spin which is required in low powered LENR reactions. Says who? What is your evidence?
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
ns it would have been much more stable (although still beta decaying to deuterium) had the strong force been 2% greater. Its instability is due to spin-spin interactions in the nuclear force, and the Pauli exclusion principle, which forces the two protons to have anti-aligned spins and gives the diproton a negative binding energy.* *By the way, the ash produced by the LENR reaction will have a non-zero nuclear spin such as lithium, boron, and beryllium. This is due to the fact that the ash is at the end of the LENR reaction chain that terminates with an isotope featuring a non-zero nuclear spin.* *Furthermore, all the stable isotopes of copper have a non-zero nuclear spin. This may be way these isotopes are found in the ash assay of Rossi’s reactor.* *One last correlation remains.* *It seems that the popular wet LENR catalyst acts like a superconductor for protons where protons pair up into a cooper pair.* *See* *http://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.1386.pdf <http://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.1386.pdf>* *This work emphasizes that atoms in the crystal-field of KHCO3 are not individual particles possessing properties in their own right. They merge into macroscopic states and exhibit all features of quantum mechanics: non-locality, entanglement, spin-symmetry, superposition and interferences. There is every reason to suppose that similar quantum effects should occur in many hydrogen bonded crystals undergoing structural phase transitions.* *I understand spin-symmetry to mean a zero spin.* *This catalyst provides a proton dimer of zero spin to the wet LENR reaction. This is the reason why this catalyst enhances electrolytic LENR in water. * On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Bob Cook wrote: > I would disagree with the spins reported by Axil for D and a Proton. D > is +1 and the Proton is +1/2 in non excited states or ground states. The > neutron also has a +1/2 spin. The proton and neutron spins seem to add to > make up the +1 spin of the D. > > Bob > > - Original Message - > *From:* Jones Beene > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Saturday, October 18, 2014 12:17 PM > *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation > > *From:* Axil > > > > it is highly preferable to use deuterium, as opposed to hydrogen. > > > > I disagree. > > > > Deuterium has a non zero spin whereas hydrogen has a zero spin which is > required in low powered LENR reactions. > > > > > > Says who? What is your evidence? > > > >
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
Axil-- Take a look at the Norman Cook discussion that you just posted as to the depletion of the various isotopes of Ni in LENR testing that Cook evaluates. IT INCLUDES DEPLETION OF ODD NUCLEON ISOTOPES WITH NET SPIN (NI-59 WITH -3/2) AS WELL AS EVEN NUCLEON ISOTOPES WITH 0 SPIN. ONLY NI-61 (ODD NUMBER OF NUCLEONS) DOES NOT SEEM TO REACT MUCH. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2014 4:11 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation There is good reason to believe that magnetism is the prime mover in LENR. Under this speculative paradigm, it is interesting to consider the options and consequences of this conjecture. In such a paradigm, any technology that is friendly to magnetism would be good for LENR, and conversely, a technology that undercuts the strength of magnetism is bad. The Pd/D wet technology is more unfriendly to magnetism than nickel because it makes magnetism more difficult to maintain. Firstly as a general technological principle, an isotope must have a nuclear spin of zero to enable the LENR reaction. There is much experimental evidence to support this conjecture. For an explanation see below. In this respect, palladium has a nuclear spin profile that is about 78% effective. 105Pd has a non-zero spin and is 22% of the isotopic contents of run of the mill palladium. On the other hand, Nickel is much more efficient in terms of supporting magnetism. 61Ni has a non-zero nuclear spin, but that isotope is only 1.14% of the isotopic content of Nickel. Palladium is paramagnetic and Nickel is ferromagnetic. So nickel is more desirable than palladium as a magnetic reaction catalyst. In more detail, this thinking is underpinned by a speculative LENR reaction rule that is interesting to explore. That rule is that the LENR reaction must occur among atomic ions that have zero nuclear spin. In explanation, Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) is a physical phenomenon in which nuclei in a magnetic field absorb and re-emit electromagnetic radiation. This energy is at a specific resonance frequency which depends on the strength of the magnetic field and the magnetic properties of the isotope of the atoms; in practical applications, the frequency is similar to old style VHF and UHF television broadcasts (60–1000 MHz). NMR allows the observation of specific quantum mechanical magnetic properties of the atomic nucleus. All isotopes that contain an odd number of protons and/or of neutrons have an intrinsic magnetic moment and angular momentum, in other words a nonzero spin, while all nuclides with even numbers of both have a total spin of zero. The most commonly studied NMR active nuclei are 1H and 13C, although nuclei from isotopes of many other elements (e.g. 2H, 6Li, 10B, 11B, 14N, 15N, 17O, 19F, 23Na, 29Si, 31P, 35Cl, 113Cd, 129Xe, 195Pt) have been studied by high-field NMR spectroscopy as well. It is now known that Ni61 does not participate in the LENR reaction. Ni61 is a NMR active isotope. When a magnetic field is applied to an NMR active isotope, the magnetic energy imparted to the nucleus is dissipated by induced nuclear vibrational energy which is radiated away as rf energy. The non-zero spin of the the nucleus shields the nucleus from the external magnetic field not allowing that field to penetrate into it. External magnetic fields catalyze changes in the protons and neutrons in the nucleus as well as enabling accelerated quantum mechanical tunneling. If this external magnetic field is shielded by NMR activity, LENR transmutation of the protons and neutrons in the nucleus is made more difficult. Therefore, during the course of an extended LENR reaction cycle, isotope depletion will tend to favor the enrichment and buildup of NMR active elements. Hydrogen with non-zero spin will not participate in the LENR reaction whereas cooper pairs of protons will. Expect LENR reactions centered on pairs of protons with zero spin. Also, as the LERN reaction matures and more NMR active isotopes accumulate, the LENR reactor will put out increasing levels or rf radiation derived from the nuclear vibrations of the NMR isotope. This NMR thinking also applies to the nature of the various isotopes of hydrogen. Molecular hydrogen occurs in two isomeric forms, one with its two proton spins aligned parallel (orthohydrogen), the other with its two proton spins aligned antiparallel (parahydrogen). At room temperature and thermal equilibrium, hydrogen consists of approximately 75% orthohydrogen and 25% parahydrogen. Orthohydrogen hydrogen has non zero spin, this is bad for Ni/H LENR because the non zero spin wastes magnetic energy by producing RF radiation. Parahydrogen hydrogen has zero spin. This is good for Ni/H LENR because this type of hydroge
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
Ni59 is not stable. I don't see it mentioned in the Cook report. You have a case for Pd105 but this non zero spin conjecture is not a hard cast rule. Non zero spin is just unfavorable in the LENR reaction based on the strength of the magnetic field producing the reaction. Non zero spin just discourages the LENR reaction, not prevents it. A strong enough magnetic field will transmute anything no matter what the spin of the nucleus is. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Bob Cook wrote: > Axil-- > > Take a look at the Norman Cook discussion that you just posted as to the > depletion of the various isotopes of Ni in LENR testing that Cook > evaluates. > > IT INCLUDES DEPLETION OF ODD NUCLEON ISOTOPES WITH NET SPIN (NI-59 WITH > -3/2) AS WELL AS EVEN NUCLEON ISOTOPES WITH 0 SPIN. ONLY NI-61 (ODD > NUMBER OF NUCLEONS) DOES NOT SEEM TO REACT MUCH. > > Bob Cook > > - Original Message - > *From:* Axil Axil > *To:* vortex-l > *Sent:* Saturday, October 18, 2014 4:11 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation > > *There is good reason to believe that magnetism is the prime mover in > LENR. Under this speculative paradigm, it is interesting to consider the > options and consequences of this conjecture. In such a paradigm, any > technology that is friendly to magnetism would be good for LENR, and > conversely, a technology that undercuts the strength of magnetism is bad.* > > > > *The Pd/D wet technology is more unfriendly to magnetism than nickel > because it makes magnetism more difficult to maintain. Firstly as a general > technological principle, an isotope must have a nuclear spin of zero to > enable the LENR reaction. There is much experimental evidence to support > this conjecture. For an explanation see below. In this respect, palladium > has a nuclear spin profile that is about 78% effective. 105Pd has a > non-zero spin and is 22% of the isotopic contents of run of the mill > palladium. * > > > > *On the other hand, Nickel is much more efficient in terms of supporting > magnetism. 61Ni has a non-zero nuclear spin, but that isotope is only 1.14% > of the isotopic content of Nickel.* > > > > *Palladium is paramagnetic and Nickel is ferromagnetic. So nickel is more > desirable than palladium as a magnetic reaction catalyst.* > > > *In more detail, this thinking is underpinned by a speculative LENR > reaction rule that is interesting to explore. That rule is that the LENR > reaction must occur among atomic ions that have zero nuclear spin.* > > *In explanation, Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) is a physical > phenomenon in which nuclei in a magnetic field absorb and re-emit > electromagnetic radiation. This energy is at a specific resonance frequency > which depends on the strength of the magnetic field and the magnetic > properties of the isotope of the atoms; in practical applications, the > frequency is similar to old style VHF and UHF television broadcasts > (60–1000 MHz). NMR allows the observation of specific quantum mechanical > magnetic properties of the atomic nucleus. * > > > > *All isotopes that contain an odd number of protons and/or of neutrons > have an intrinsic magnetic moment and angular momentum, in other words a > nonzero spin, while all nuclides with even numbers of both have a total > spin of zero. The most commonly studied NMR active nuclei are 1H and 13C, > although nuclei from isotopes of many other elements (e.g. 2H, 6Li, 10B, > 11B, 14N, 15N, 17O, 19F, 23Na, 29Si, 31P, 35Cl, 113Cd, 129Xe, 195Pt) have > been studied by high-field NMR spectroscopy as well.* > > > > *It is now known that Ni61 does not participate in the LENR reaction. Ni61 > is a NMR active isotope. When a magnetic field is applied to an NMR active > isotope, the magnetic energy imparted to the nucleus is dissipated by > induced nuclear vibrational energy which is radiated away as rf energy. The > non-zero spin of the the nucleus shields the nucleus from the external > magnetic field not allowing that field to penetrate into it. External > magnetic fields catalyze changes in the protons and neutrons in the nucleus > as well as enabling accelerated quantum mechanical tunneling. If this > external magnetic field is shielded by NMR activity, LENR transmutation of > the protons and neutrons in the nucleus is made more difficult.* > > > > *Therefore, during the course of an extended LENR reaction cycle, isotope > depletion will tend to favor the enrichment and buildup of NMR active > elements.* > > > > *Hydrogen with non-zero spin will not participate in the LENR reaction > whereas cooper pairs of protons will. Expect LENR reactions centered on > pairs of protons with zero spin.* > > >
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 6:20 AM, Bob Cook wrote: A quadruple oscillating electric field may also help to excite the D's to > shed their excess mass relative to the developing 4He particle. > This sounds a little bit wishful to me. :) Eric
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Ni61 is non reactive as stated by DGT and confirmed by Mizuno as presented > in Cook's !CCF-18 presentation > I interpret the "depletion analysis" differently than presented in Cook's presentation (e.g., slide 52 [1]). If 61Ni sits in the middle of a chain of neutron captures, it will be a kind of hump that must be crossed, where any that is taken away (e.g., by transition to 62Ni) is given back by transitions from lower isotopes. I.e., it participates quite a bit, rather than very little, contrary to what Norman Cook seems to be saying. There is also this nice quote (slide 37): The raw data suggest that Ni-58 and Ni-60 were consumed, while neutrons > were added to Ni-61, Ni-62 and Ni-64, but “depletion analysis” indicates > otherwise… If Norman Cook has misinterpreted the data, as I think he might have, then Mizuno's results would appear to fit quite nicely with Rossi's recent results. (Almost too nicely.) Eric [1] https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/36817/SimulationNuclearTransmutationPresentation.pdf?sequence=2
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
Eric-- Yeh--You are probably right. However, the idea related to a little project I was assigned in the early 1980's to look into a news report of a professor at the U of Arizona (as I remember) that had developed a procress for transmutation of nuclear wastes. He had written a nuclear physics text book and it included magnetic quadrupole and electric quadrupole coupling in some detail. The idea was that a nucleus could be stimulated to an excited state and then decay to a non-radioactive state or new stable nucleus. A patent had been applied for per the news article. When I tried to retrieve the patent, it had apparently become black. Folks at Oak Ridge who I thought should be aquainted with the work would not talk with me. They should have, given my job. Related experience with others lead me to conclude the blackness of the patent. It was not the first time I had come across an unexplained lack of communication relative to an interesting patent. About the mid 80's I reviewed the PNL prepared DOE document for options for disposal of high level nuclear waste, published in the late 1970's. It was a major work addressing defense wastes as well as commercial wastes and related to options for NEPA evaluations.One option included a similar scheme to the professor's, I thought. The details were spelled out via reference documents in some detail. The conclusion was that such a method was impractical because there was not a cheap way to get electric or magnetic energy through the cloud of electrons of normal radioactive waste. I was not able to get the references for the details. Since that time lots has happened to the capability of tuned electronics with lasers in particular. Tuning was an issue in the early 80's to provide resonance coupling with the moments of the various radioactive nuclei. Such tuned signals can penetrate the electronic clouds around nuclei and allow good deposition of the directed energy. Much of the then current technology was black in my estimation. It was with this background that my recent wishful thinking kicked in. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2014 10:38 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 6:20 AM, Bob Cook wrote: A quadruple oscillating electric field may also help to excite the D's to shed their excess mass relative to the developing 4He particle. This sounds a little bit wishful to me. :) Eric
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
Eric-- I had the same thought about Ni-61 as you had in reviewing Cook's slides. I did not go thought the logic as you have. However, my general conclusion from a quick review of the presentation is that there seems to be definite evidence of transmutations of various Ni, Fe, Cr isotopes. However, one question that I had regarding the depletion of the various isotopes at the NAE was that it was not a transmutation but merely an explosive mechanical removal. Bob - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2014 10:59 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Ni61 is non reactive as stated by DGT and confirmed by Mizuno as presented in Cook's !CCF-18 presentation I interpret the "depletion analysis" differently than presented in Cook's presentation (e.g., slide 52 [1]). If 61Ni sits in the middle of a chain of neutron captures, it will be a kind of hump that must be crossed, where any that is taken away (e.g., by transition to 62Ni) is given back by transitions from lower isotopes. I.e., it participates quite a bit, rather than very little, contrary to what Norman Cook seems to be saying. There is also this nice quote (slide 37): The raw data suggest that Ni-58 and Ni-60 were consumed, while neutrons were added to Ni-61, Ni-62 and Ni-64, but “depletion analysis” indicates otherwise… If Norman Cook has misinterpreted the data, as I think he might have, then Mizuno's results would appear to fit quite nicely with Rossi's recent results. (Almost too nicely.) Eric [1] https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/36817/SimulationNuclearTransmutationPresentation.pdf?sequence=2
Nuclear bucket brigade - was Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 5:51 PM, wrote: > In reply to H Veeder's message of Tue, 30 Sep 2014 17:39:12 -0400: > Hi, > [snip] > >On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 1:07 AM, Eric Walker > wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 2:54 PM, wrote: > >> > >> If it happened nobody would notice. > >>> > >> > >> Yes. I think it would be indistinguishable from an elastic collision > (if > >> the two situations are different). > >> > >> Eric > >> > >> > >That analogy assumes the excited nucleus immediately reverts or fissions > >back into the original parts. > >However, if there is a significant time delay before fission occurs and > the > >excited nucleus is able to migrate to different site during that delay, > >then when fission does occur it will cause a local temperature increase at > >the different site. > > There isn't time for it migrate. The fission to either He3 + n or T + p > happens > in about 1E-22 sec. For this not to happen, it would have to fission back > to D+D > in less time than that. > > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk > > http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html > > I wonder if the decay time of 1E-22 secs is theoretically derived or if it is empirically derived. If it is empirically derived then it might not always be true, but I will accept your point for the time being and switch to a process involving neutron stripping, which is where our exchange began. Imagine a line of nickel nuclei with one deuterium nucleus in the gap between the first two nickel nuclei. The remaining gaps are each occupied with a hydrogen nucleus. Imagine just the deuterium and hydrogen nuclei oscillating back and forth in unison in the gaps. When the deuterium nucleus gets close enough to connect with the second Nickel nucleus it gives up its neutron to that nickel nucleus. Since the second nickel nucleus has an extra neutron it is now in an excited state. While it is excited the hydrogen nucleus on the left retreats and the hydrogen nucleus on the right is approaches. Eventually the hydrogen nucleus on the right connects with the excited nickel nucleus and the extra neutron in the excited nickel nucleus is transferred to it. (Technically speaking this is not a reverse reaction since it involves a new association, but this is a work in progress which you and others are helping to complete so forgive me if I do not use always use the best terms). The neutron transfers continue so that energy is moved from the beginning of the line to the end of the line. I illustrated the process here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dzUFl91yhYGk5CTnAX_eXCYPgIemqlTF3XuQkRQf_hA/edit?usp=sharing The process is like a bucket brigade but instead of water being transferred it is fire. Incidentally while looking at some youtube videos of bucket brigades I stumbled on a video where fire is moved instead of water. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsfJZfHARLk Anyway, if the general conept is not inane, I am sure there are other possible bucket brigades involving different nuclei. Harry
Re: Nuclear bucket brigade - was Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 9:25 PM, H Veeder wrote: When the deuterium nucleus gets close enough to connect with the second > Nickel nucleus it gives up its neutron to that nickel nucleus. > I think you're going to need a powerful force to make this part happen. Think of the proton that is part of the deuteron and the nickel nucleus as extremely powerful, oppositely magnetized metal spheres. They're going to do whatever they can to avoid each other, including sending the deuteron along a curved path out of the line of collision with the nickel nucleus if such a path is allowed by the velocity of the deuteron. Eric
Re: Nuclear bucket brigade - was Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
I wrote: Think of the proton that is part of the deuteron and the nickel nucleus as > extremely powerful, oppositely magnetized metal spheres. > I didn't say that very well. They're like two magnets with the same poles facing each other (these magnets are monopoles, so there's no other pole to allow them to flip around). Also, magnetism isn't the force involved, technically speaking, but the general physical interaction is how I think about it. Eric
Re: Nuclear bucket brigade - was Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
Now I'll give *you* something to believe. I'm just one hundred and one, five months and a day.' 'I can't believe *that!*' said Alice. 'Can't you?' the Queen said in a pitying tone. 'Try again: draw a long breath, and shut your eyes.' Alice laughed. 'There's no use trying,' she said 'one *can't* believe impossible things.' 'I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. 'When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast. On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 12:39 AM, Eric Walker wrote: > I wrote: > > Think of the proton that is part of the deuteron and the nickel nucleus as >> extremely powerful, oppositely magnetized metal spheres. >> > > I didn't say that very well. They're like two magnets with the same poles > facing each other (these magnets are monopoles, so there's no other pole to > allow them to flip around). Also, magnetism isn't the force involved, > technically speaking, but the general physical interaction is how I think > about it. > > Eric > >
Re: Nuclear bucket brigade - was Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
In reply to H Veeder's message of Wed, 1 Oct 2014 00:25:05 -0400: Hi, [snip] >Since the second nickel nucleus has an extra neutron it is >now in an excited state. While it is excited the hydrogen nucleus on the >left retreats and the hydrogen nucleus on the right is >approaches. Timing problem again. Gamma emission in approx. 1E-17 sec. Oscillation rate of the H atoms in the THz range. That means that the cycle time of the H atoms is about 1E-12 sec. Gamma decay is about 10 times faster, so most of the time the energy will be emitted as a gamma. Furthermore, I don't think the Nickel is going to be all that willing to part with it's new toy anyway. ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: Nuclear bucket brigade - was Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 5:52 PM, wrote: > In reply to H Veeder's message of Wed, 1 Oct 2014 00:25:05 -0400: > Hi, > [snip] > >Since the second nickel nucleus has an extra neutron it is > >now in an excited state. While it is excited the hydrogen nucleus on the > >left retreats and the hydrogen nucleus on the right is > >approaches. > > Timing problem again. Gamma emission in approx. 1E-17 sec. Oscillation > rate of > the H atoms in the THz range. That means that the cycle time of the H > atoms is > about 1E-12 sec. Gamma decay is about 10 times faster, so most of the > time > the energy will be emitted as a gamma. > Furthermore, I don't think the Nickel is going to be all that willing to > part > with it's new toy anyway. ;) > > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk > > http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html > > Every theorist begins by choosing to accept some impossibilities and to reject other impossibilities. It seems to me that the choice is based as much on logic and evidence as it is based on the theorist's particular training, personal experiences and intuition. Since I can't draw on a wealth of knowledge about chemistry, nuclear physics or condensed matter to lend credibility to my choices I will hence forth not theorize about this phenomena. Harry Harry Harry