RE: [Vo]:The ZPED theory of quasi-nuclear gain (long post)
-Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com I wasn't implying that Isomer energy violated CoE. I was referring to your statement that the whole process would be 'double exotherm' which I took to mean that both the creation and destruction of the isomer would yield energy. Obviously, Robin - with anything so fundamentally at odds with the mainstream understanding of nuclear energy, as the Rossi device is (assuming it is real) the details will need to be fleshed out over time. This is only the beginning of a rough attempt to do that. The easiest way that I can explain how this can happen, in terms of ZPE theory and not having access to important details from Rossi, is to assume that an already unstable nucleus such as Te-123 or Te-125 or Zr-96 in the case of Arata/etc can absorb a virtual photon and release a real photon. This would be similar to fluorescence except involving the zero point field. I must admit that the whole process you are describing is as clear as mud to me. Well, thanks for the input anyway, and I hope to make this clearer over time. or else abandon it, if it does not stand up to criticism. Hey - that's what this forum is about, no? Specifically, where does the energy come from at each step of the process, and what are the steps for that matter? Here is the way it looks now, stepwise, in trying to recreate the sequence which is needed to get excess energy. 1) Hydrogen is converted to spillover (endothermic) 2) Spillover accumulates in Casimir Pits or cavities (neutral) 3) At a trigger temperature level, in the range of 250-350 C, IR heat is absorbed and re-emitted by the pycno in the surface cavities sequentially, with an asymmetry due to the Lamb shift (gainful), or due to relativistic effects 4) There would be a transitory net gain from steps 1-3, from the zero point field for a short time (sub second) w/o a source to replenish ZPF; but a net loss (endotherm) is expected when run for a longer periods with no metastable fuel (which is an expected Casimir cooling effect) 5) Any energy deficit in the ZPF stimulates decay from metastable nuclei, since part of their inherent stability is via virtual photons which are absent. 6) These metastable nuclei begin to decay at accelerated rates leading to an enhanced correlation field which develops over time so that a different kind of chain reaction is seen. This is the intangible 'criticality' level. 7) Much of the radiation couples to the ZPF to restore the energy balance from gain derived from ZPE 'pumping' (#3 above) 8) Net gain can be seen in 3-space when everything is properly engineered so that the correlation field is above a threshold of critical accumulation, and the energy of metastable nuclei is released above the lowest stimulus level. 9) The gain per metastable atom is at least ~100,000 times chemical but far less than fission or fusion - and the only ash seen is in a change isotope ratio of the tellurium (or other metastable fuel) with occasionally nuclear transmutations due to the small proportion of high energy photons that do not couple to the ZPF but end up in 3-space instead. 10) The purpose of the nano-nickel is solely as a spillover catalyst. IOW Rossi himself got the roles completely reversed and his catalyst is the fuel, whereas his fuel (nano nickel) is the catalyst. How is that for slightly clearer than mud ? :-) Jones
Re: [Vo]:The ZPED theory of quasi-nuclear gain (long post)
From Jones: ... 9) The gain per metastable atom is at least ~100,000 times chemical but far less than fission or fusion - and the only ash seen is in a change isotope ratio of the tellurium (or other metastable fuel) with occasionally nuclear transmutations due to the small proportion of high energy photons that do not couple to the ZPF but end up in 3-space instead. From: While trying to educate myself on the mysteries of the element, Tellurium, I came across the following tidbit: From: http://www.ptable.com/ Excerpt: * Precautions Tellurium and tellurium compounds are considered to be mildly toxic and need to be handled with care, although acute poisoning is rare.[59] Tellurium is not reported to be carcinogenic.[59] Humans exposed to as little as 0.01 mg/m3 or less in air develop tellurium breath, which has a garlic-like odor.[50] The garlic odor that is associated with human intake of tellurium compounds is caused from the tellurium being metabolized by the body. When the body metabolizes tellurium in any oxidation state, the tellurium gets converted into dimethyl telluride, (CH3)2Te, which is volatile and is the cause of the garlic-like smell. Even though the metabolic pathways of tellurium are not known, it is generally assumed that they resemble those of the more extensively studied selenium, because the final methylated metabolic products of the two elements are similar.[60][61][62] * Of particular interest: ...tellurium gets converted into dimethyl telluride, (CH3)2Te, which is volatile... The first thing that popped in my fecund activated brain was wondering if tellurium poisoning might also help explain some of the mysterious cases of Spontaneous Human Combustion we occasionally hear about. these victims tend to end up being almost entirely consumed by a VERY INTENSE SOURCE OF HEAT! It would be interesting to know whether there exists anecdotal evidence to suggest that some of these victims had bad breath - garlic breath. I gather many SHC victims were not in the best of health, which also suggests the possibility that some might have been suffering from some kind of metabolic poisoning. (Don't light a match!) Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:The ZPED theory of quasi-nuclear gain (long post)
Although I agree with most if not all of the proposed ZPED theory my position is that many of the non nuclear or hybrid theories like Mills', Rossi or Haisch - Moddel depend on an ashless reaction powered directly from ZPE as the predominant source of energy. Many contend that any energy extraction from ZPE violates the first law of thermodynamics but this is because the first law assumes ZPE is too chaotic to be exploited (Apparently true in an isotropic energy density but not confirmed when said isotropy is broken into gradients). Many of the claims of anomalous heat all seem to occur when this isotropy is broken and, IMHO, represent an interim ashless reaction. The reaction can be a chemical or physical asymmetry such that the gas atoms are modified in some way before returning to a particular energy density - the asymmetry even opposes this return and it is left for ZPE to overcome this opposition. Reifenschweiler effect may reflect how ZPE manipulates Space-Time to satisfy this asymmetry in restoring an orbital to ground state by dilating time. What Puthoff and others refer to as vacuum engineering or, vacuum energy suppression, provides a loophole to this assumed violation of COE upon which a Heisenberg trap could be based. The amount of ash seen in these experiments does not seem to be in keeping with the amount of energy released. The theory Jones presents is itself a hybrid between nuclear and Zero Point energy where decay is enhanced by change in energy density / supression. This theory still results in an exchange of mass for energy in a manner which I completely agree with yet I still remain convinced that energy can also be harvested directly (in exchange for time dilation) from zero point energy without radioactive decay or conversion of mass. I am alone in seeing a connection between spontaneous emission, pyrophoricity and radioactivity, Although the first two are not radioactive I propose that they are all a result of energy balancing between a Puthoof atomic model ground state and vacuum energy density. Rapid changes in energy density are associated with catalytic action (pores in skeletal catalysts and nano powders) , spontaneous emission of photons and anomalous half life decays (cavity supression). My point is that these imbalances don't have to result in radioactive decay but rather the ground state could interact with the energy density to be propelled through space and/or time as a result. Regards Fran -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2011 6:41 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:The ZPED theory of quasi-nuclear gain (long post) -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com How would the nucleus deform into the active isomer is the real question, and/or can the deformation be itself be exothermic so that there is a 'double exotherm' all caused by the same stimulus ? There are too few papers to base an informed opinion. RvS - If so, it would be a violation of the first law of thermodynamics, so it's not very likely IMO. Robin - No, no. Nuclear fission or fusion do not violate CoE for the simple reason that mass is converted to energy. This is no different. Induced gamma emission (IGE) or internal conversion (IT) are both solid fact, not hypothetical. Mass is being converted to energy as in fission and fusion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gamma_emission The hypothetical part of it - especially as it might relate to the E-Cat via the ZPED theory is that the gamma emission can be stimulated by a deficit in the zero point field, and that some (or most) of the induced emission couples directly to the depleted field... and that isotope redistribution reveals the ultimate mass deficit. That is not too big a stretch IMO. It does not violate CoE. The few elements subject to so-called isomer energy are no different in metastability than are the fission candidates Th, U or Pu - except the excess mass identity is less clear; this is because the beginning and ending element can be the same but not necessarily the isotope balance. I have tried to find any study which connects IGE to isotope distribution shifts, but if there are any - then they are classified. Isomer energy itself is a newer field that was born out of top secret military devices like the hafnium or tantalum (gamma) lasers, and especially the UAV program. What the nature of the loss mass involved consists of, is nebulous: Gluons? Pions? who knows? IOW - it is too early to say what kind of mass is being converted, so one must simply consider this to be a subset of IGE for now. (or else dismiss it as unproved). For any CoE violation, one would need to show that no mass is being converted, which is next to impossible with an element like tellurium that has no many isotopes and isomers including the metastable Te-123, which it is a most excellent candidate for any kind of isotope
Re: [Vo]:The ZPED theory of quasi-nuclear gain (long post)
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: How is that for slightly clearer than mud ? J I do understand; but, it seems like a Heath Robinson approach to avoid (con)fusion. Noble if not Nobel. T
Re: [Vo]:The ZPED theory of quasi-nuclear gain (long post)
Sooo, where does Ni come into play? Is it the spillover catalyst or is Pd? And which material has the Casimir cavities? The Ni or the Zr? I think a pycno piccy would be nice. T
RE: [Vo]:The ZPED theory of quasi-nuclear gain (long post)
Nickel is probably in the form of an alloy and serves as the spillover catalyst, however, since pure nickel, even nano-sized - is not as good as alloys. Rossi answers straight-out to one question that he uses no precious metals, right? Of course, his credibility is in doubt for that and other reasons, but many alloys of nickel are quite good for spillover, and it does not have to be Pd. For instance Ni-Mo is quite good with only 5-10% Mo added. One of Miley's paper actually had a rough drawing of how he thinks IRH might appear but I can't remember which one. -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton Subject: Re: [Vo]:The ZPED theory of quasi-nuclear gain (long post) Sooo, where does Ni come into play? Is it the spillover catalyst or is Pd? And which material has the Casimir cavities? The Ni or the Zr? I think a pycno piccy would be nice. T
RE: [Vo]:The ZPED theory of quasi-nuclear gain (long post)
Fran - I generally agree except the problem with Mills or Haisch/Moddel et al. is that they make claims for the nickel hydrogen reaction alone, not requiring a second stage nuclear 'makeup' reaction - but the claims cannot be verified by others. They probably can do it, but not robustly and perhaps not for extended periods. Until they can do it 'on demand', it seems reasonable to suggest that Rossi is essentially doing a similar thing, yet he (inadvertently) provided a pathway for nuclear gain, and that extra detail seems to have allowed him to demonstrate a robust reaction in circumstances where others get mixed results. Mills has not asked me for advice but if he did, I would suggest adding an active ingredient to his solid fuel reactor that does have this ZPED pathway for accelerated decay. Same with Haisch/Moddel. The first thing to try is bismuth telluride, and the second is zirconia. Either of these must be recycled with heat and pressure several times to achieve nano-fracturing; but they probably do not need to be nanopowder at the outset (hopefully). It is that simple (almost). This setup might also require a nuclear trigger like thorium. Can you interest Moddel in trying this? It could be as simple as adding a commercially obtained product to an earlier experiment. Jones -Original Message- From: Roarty, Francis X Although I agree with most if not all of the proposed ZPED theory my position is that many of the non nuclear or hybrid theories like Mills', Rossi or Haisch - Moddel depend on an ashless reaction powered directly from ZPE as the predominant source of energy. Many contend that any energy extraction from ZPE violates the first law of thermodynamics but this is because the first law assumes ZPE is too chaotic to be exploited (Apparently true in an isotropic energy density but not confirmed when said isotropy is broken into gradients). Many of the claims of anomalous heat all seem to occur when this isotropy is broken and, IMHO, represent an interim ashless reaction. The reaction can be a chemical or physical asymmetry such that the gas atoms are modified in some way before returning to a particular energy density - the asymmetry even opposes this return and it is left for ZPE to overcome this opposition. Reifenschweiler effect may reflect how ZPE manipulates Space-Time to satisfy this asymmetry in restoring an orbital to ground state by dilating time. What Puthoff and others refer to as vacuum engineering or, vacuum energy suppression, provides a loophole to this assumed violation of COE upon which a Heisenberg trap could be based. The amount of ash seen in these experiments does not seem to be in keeping with the amount of energy released. The theory Jones presents is itself a hybrid between nuclear and Zero Point energy where decay is enhanced by change in energy density / supression. This theory still results in an exchange of mass for energy in a manner which I completely agree with yet I still remain convinced that energy can also be harvested directly (in exchange for time dilation) from zero point energy without radioactive decay or conversion of mass. I am alone in seeing a connection between spontaneous emission, pyrophoricity and radioactivity, Although the first two are not radioactive I propose that they are all a result of energy balancing between a Puthoof atomic model ground state and vacuum energy density. Rapid changes in energy density are associated with catalytic action (pores in skeletal catalysts and nano powders) , spontaneous emission of photons and anomalous half life decays (cavity supression). My point is that these imbalances don't have to result in radioactive decay but rather the ground state could interact with the energy density to be propelled through space and/or time as a result. Regards Fran -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2011 6:41 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:The ZPED theory of quasi-nuclear gain (long post) -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com How would the nucleus deform into the active isomer is the real question, and/or can the deformation be itself be exothermic so that there is a 'double exotherm' all caused by the same stimulus ? There are too few papers to base an informed opinion. RvS - If so, it would be a violation of the first law of thermodynamics, so it's not very likely IMO. Robin - No, no. Nuclear fission or fusion do not violate CoE for the simple reason that mass is converted to energy. This is no different. Induced gamma emission (IGE) or internal conversion (IT) are both solid fact, not hypothetical. Mass is being converted to energy as in fission and fusion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gamma_emission The hypothetical part of it - especially as it might relate to the E-Cat via the ZPED theory is that the gamma emission can be stimulated by a deficit in the zero point field
Re: [Vo]:The ZPED theory of quasi-nuclear gain (long post)
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 21 Mar 2011 07:49:33 -0700: Hi, [snip] 3) At a trigger temperature level, in the range of 250-350 C, IR heat is absorbed and re-emitted by the pycno in the surface cavities sequentially, with an asymmetry due to the Lamb shift (gainful), or due to relativistic effects I thought the Lamb shift was between 2S 2P levels. I'm not sure that these levels even apply to pycno. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:The ZPED theory of quasi-nuclear gain (long post)
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 21 Mar 2011 07:49:33 -0700: Hi, [snip] 6) These metastable nuclei begin to decay at accelerated rates leading to an enhanced correlation field which develops over time so that a different kind of chain reaction is seen. This is the intangible 'criticality' level. ...here again, there are no metastable atoms in Te AFAIK. All nuclei are in their ground state. As I understand it, there is nothing magical about the metastable states. They are excited nuclear states, just like the excited states of other nuclei, except that they are spin prohibited from photon decay to the ground state. That's why they have such long half lives. Because they are like other excited states, I see no reason why they should be especially susceptible to acquiring a virtual photon and releasing it as a real photon, and since this clearly doesn't happen all the time with all nuclei, I see no reason why it should be happening with nuclei capable of entering meta-stable states. That is doesn't happen all the time is obvious, because if it did, the Universe would be so hot, it would only exist as plasma at best, and we consist of stable condensed matter, not a hot plasma. IOW we wouldn't be here. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:The ZPED theory of quasi-nuclear gain (long post)
OK - this may be even a little further out of the box than my norm but have often wondered how the Puthoff atomic model of a balanced ground state orbit takes radioactivity into account. If the ZPE falls short of pushing the orbit up to a stable radius such that it fluctuates between different stable states does this model radioactive decay in the atom? Could we instead be seeing a relativistic mechanism that relieves this ZPE imbalance (preventing decay) and letting the atom remain stable at the lower radius? Could the different methods Jones and others have proposed exploit changes in vacuum suppression to provide an opportunity for unstable atoms to transfer this excess away and remain stable? My point being that energy should be just as available through preventing or at least delaying decay as opposed to allowing it, even if, said mechanism is only available under exotic conditions. Fran Re: [Vo]:The ZPED theory of quasi-nuclear gain (long post) mixent Sat, 19 Mar 2011 21:55:54 -0700 In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sat, 19 Mar 2011 11:36:15 -0700: Hi, [snip] This creates a local energy deficit - in which an unstable nucleus, like Te-125 or Zr-96 become far more susceptible to decay, and can effectively 'regauge' the depleted local field, while leaving some (but comparatively little) remnant radioactivity. If the energy from the ZPE is being replenished by Te125m, decaying to Te125 (stable), then you need some Te125m to start off with. However this isotope has a half life of only 57 days, so there isn't any in nature. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
RE: [Vo]:The ZPED theory of quasi-nuclear gain (long post)
Robin, * If the energy from the ZPE is being replenished by Te125m, decaying to Te125 (stable), then you need some Te125m to start off with. However this isotope has a half life of only 57 days, so there isn't any in nature. True but the point (not explained well) is that there is lots of Te125 - over 7% in nature. IOW one kg of tellurium has a lot of energy content, even if we limit it to the 125 isotope - consistent with the results claimed. In fact, going into the m state or metastable isomer may be more common than anyone thinks, and may happen with other isotopes besides this one. How so? Well, the 57 day half-life could be extreme. and in fact - the extremely long half-life is the only reason that this particular one stands out, and is known to us - when in fact IT (as an energy dumping mechanism) could be far more common in neutron heavy elements than realized when they are under stress. There are only a few candidate elements anyway - and they are rare, so this lack of understanding about the IT mechanism - would not be unexpected. It was not even taught in University until relatively recently. How would the nucleus deform into the active isomer is the real question, and/or can the deformation be itself be exothermic so that there is a 'double exotherm' all caused by the same stimulus ? There are too few papers to base an informed opinion. The instability needed to deform any nucleus and create the isomer - could be related to the ZPF deficit itself. or else come from the close approach of pycno, or from relativistic effects as Fran suggests. Obviously most of this kind of detail would need to come from experiment, and the focus is shifting to that. If this analysis is correct, it is limited to the few elements in nature that can have deformed nuclei and that could be the crux of the Rossi discovery - that he has stumbled on the critical mass level of one of the most active IT element in nature, if not the most active. If so - Rossi has no clue. Jones
Re: [Vo]:The ZPED theory of quasi-nuclear gain (long post)
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sun, 20 Mar 2011 12:10:33 -0700: Hi, [snip] How would the nucleus deform into the active isomer is the real question, and/or can the deformation be itself be exothermic so that there is a 'double exotherm' all caused by the same stimulus ? There are too few papers to base an informed opinion. If so, it would be a violation of the first law of thermodynamics, so it's not very likely IMO. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
RE: [Vo]:The ZPED theory of quasi-nuclear gain (long post)
-Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com How would the nucleus deform into the active isomer is the real question, and/or can the deformation be itself be exothermic so that there is a 'double exotherm' all caused by the same stimulus ? There are too few papers to base an informed opinion. RvS - If so, it would be a violation of the first law of thermodynamics, so it's not very likely IMO. Robin - No, no. Nuclear fission or fusion do not violate CoE for the simple reason that mass is converted to energy. This is no different. Induced gamma emission (IGE) or internal conversion (IT) are both solid fact, not hypothetical. Mass is being converted to energy as in fission and fusion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gamma_emission The hypothetical part of it - especially as it might relate to the E-Cat via the ZPED theory is that the gamma emission can be stimulated by a deficit in the zero point field, and that some (or most) of the induced emission couples directly to the depleted field... and that isotope redistribution reveals the ultimate mass deficit. That is not too big a stretch IMO. It does not violate CoE. The few elements subject to so-called isomer energy are no different in metastability than are the fission candidates Th, U or Pu - except the excess mass identity is less clear; this is because the beginning and ending element can be the same but not necessarily the isotope balance. I have tried to find any study which connects IGE to isotope distribution shifts, but if there are any - then they are classified. Isomer energy itself is a newer field that was born out of top secret military devices like the hafnium or tantalum (gamma) lasers, and especially the UAV program. What the nature of the loss mass involved consists of, is nebulous: Gluons? Pions? who knows? IOW - it is too early to say what kind of mass is being converted, so one must simply consider this to be a subset of IGE for now. (or else dismiss it as unproved). For any CoE violation, one would need to show that no mass is being converted, which is next to impossible with an element like tellurium that has no many isotopes and isomers including the metastable Te-123, which it is a most excellent candidate for any kind of isotope redistribution in the conversion process. If no mass is lost, then of course you are correct; but suffice it to say that all of this hypothesis is on a fairly firm foundation due to IGE and the undeniable billions that have gone into it from the USAF under the blanket of the UAV programs. Best estimate is $12 billion since 2002 into UAV of which a quarter or more of that figure has gone into isomer energy or IGE. That is new information I got today from a reliable source, but it needs to be checked out. This kind of RD focused on IGE/IT/IE etc could explain why there is such a high level of official indifference at DoD to the E-Cat Rossi, which any fool can see has enormous military significance. They are probably already way ahead - and could have their own version of the E-Cat in an unmanned drone, with an enormous range ready to fly if not in the air now. It would not surprise me if the USAF borrowed some of the technology directly from Rossi a few years ago, come to think of it. The UAV program is not just top priority. It is the crème-de-la-crème and certainly would be expected to bring out all the spooks. Jones
Re: [Vo]:The ZPED theory of quasi-nuclear gain (long post)
Robin, Any of the non nuclear or hybrid theories like Jones', Mills', Rossi or Haisch - Moddel also violate the first law because the first law assumes ZPE cannot be exploited. What Puthoff refers to as vacuum engineering or suppression provides a loophole to this assumption upon which a Heisenberg trap could be based. Isn't Mills concept of ashless chemistry also in violation? Regards Fran On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 14:15 Robin wrote In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sun, 20 Mar 2011 12:10:33 -0700: Hi, [snip] How would the nucleus deform into the active isomer is the real question, and/or can the deformation be itself be exothermic so that there is a 'double exotherm' all caused by the same stimulus ? There are too few papers to base an informed opinion. If so, it would be a violation of the first law of thermodynamics, so it's not very likely IMO. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk
[Vo]:The ZPED theory of quasi-nuclear gain (long post)
This concept has a new kind of chain reaction at the heart of a complicated theory known as ZPED - zero point enhanced decay. Several related old posts have been revised and included here for convenience. Many observers have become increasingly open to the suggestion that what Andrea Rossi has discovered, serendipitously and possibly unknown to himself, can be characterized as a critical mass. of something operating for large non-chemical gain, with mild radioactivity. Obviously, the 'something' is not directly related to nuclear fission, since neutrons are absent. The most puzzling detail is the lack of sufficient radioactivity to account for the excess heat. However, energy from nuclear decay or isomeric transition (IT) can be involved at a secondary level, if most of it can be coupled to an exchange mechanism with the zero point field. This overall modality is related to a physical mass of reactants, but it could easily be leaning towards having additional intangible considerations - which casts everything into a different light. Rather than change the well-known phrase 'critical mass' to the more precise: 'critical accumulation' (in order to accommodate intangible considerations) it seems prudent merely to acknowledge that this process is not directly connected to standard uranium fission, except metaphorically; but it does demand threshold levels of at least one variable and possibly several. The important behavior of the underlying system becomes emergent - in the way Ball describes in Critical Mass - How one thing leads to another, which is online at Google Books. This does not delve deeply enough into quantum mechanics to be helpful in the precise pursuit (explaining Andrea Rossi's E-Cat discovery). However, the insight on emergent systems is helpful for those who do not appreciate how a large jump in gain can arrive in such a surprising way. The irony here is that QM and critical mass are antithetical on one level of understanding - the small juxtaposed to the large. One intangible consideration in the operation of any quantum mechanical process is that 'probability' itself, in the sense of 'correlation fields,' is responsive to accumulation - and/or to 'trigger' levels (leading to emergent behavior) in systems which depend on a flux of neutrons-substitutes, which will be called a vector. A moderately high stable temperature is one such trigger or vector, which operates to maximize stress within nanocavities. 'Probability' is also found at the underlying level of 'critical mass' via neutron interaction (fission chain reaction), but in this new form it is related to the zero point field in two steps. There is a secondary, accelerated nuclear decay (an isomeric conversion or a weak force reaction) which can seem at first to be primary, without looking at all the clues. This process is mediated by a dense form of hydrogen known as 'pycno'. This hypothesis is the merger of QM, cavity QED, and Casimir mechanics with mainstream nuclear reactions, and it will lead to a theory called ZPED, or zero point enhanced decay. The ultimate energy source is the atomic nucleus. Let's make that clear, even though the way it arrives is not straightforward and involves quantum mechanics, time shifting, and two distinct stages. Here are specific details: There is an unusual subset of heavy elements - four elements in the periodic table which are heavier (in a.m.u.) than the next element above them in the table. For instance, element 92 is heavier than element 93. There appears to be only four such elements in this category. As you might imagine (even not knowing the identity of the four) this characteristic could be strongly indicative of nuclear instability. The first three are quite well-known as the elements involved in nuclear fission: thorium, uranium and plutonium. The 'nuclear fission' common denominator of these elements is a too-heavy atomic mass, comparatively, and this property might indicate that the fourth element in this grouping is heavy enough to have its decay rate altered. However, this lesser known element is not known to undergo fission via neutron capture, as are the three above - and it does not participate in a chain reaction. At least not a chain reaction which is vectored by neutrons. It is also the lightest of the four. It is also a singularity in having the highest spread of atomic weight between its lowest and highest stable isotope of any element. Does that make it special in any way for a new kind of nuclear reaction, not involving neutrons as the active modality, but possibly involving another vector such as pycno, f/H or IRH (inverted Rydberg hydrogen) or other names which were once more closely identified with the Mills' hydrino? This fourth element is tellurium - element 52. It is best known in the compound bismuth-telluride, used in thermoelectrics, or cadmium telluride in photovoltaics. It is photoactive and tends to form into 2D layers in a way that seems to mirror
Re: [Vo]:The ZPED theory of quasi-nuclear gain (long post)
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sat, 19 Mar 2011 11:36:15 -0700: Hi, [snip] Those who favor a nuclear-only pathway might look to the P-e-P reaction as the aftermath. Some deuterium is expected in the ash. Just a side note here - I think the P-e-P reaction energy is all carried away by the neutrino (no free particles as in positron decay). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:The ZPED theory of quasi-nuclear gain (long post)
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sat, 19 Mar 2011 11:36:15 -0700: Hi, [snip] This creates a local energy deficit - in which an unstable nucleus, like Te-125 or Zr-96 become far more susceptible to decay, and can effectively 'regauge' the depleted local field, while leaving some (but comparatively little) remnant radioactivity. If the energy from the ZPE is being replenished by Te125m, decaying to Te125 (stable), then you need some Te125m to start off with. However this isotope has a half life of only 57 days, so there isn't any in nature. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
