The following link is to a paper that Cook and Rossi may be familiar with--

 http://www.roxit.ax/CN.pdf

It deals with the interaction of electrons with the nuclei and their influence 
on nuclear reactions.  Very interesting.  Note the connection to the Lugano 
professors.  It parallels some of the ideas Cook and Rossi have presented. 

Bob Cook (no relation to N. Cook)
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 2:25 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:mainstream physics paper bout the Hot Cat, co-author Andrea 
Rossi


  I wanted to show that the assertions and assumptions made in the Cook paper 
were inconsistent with generally accepted posits of LENR not to criticize those 
assertions and assumptions against know nuclear reactions. To little is known 
about how nuclear reaction in LENR occur to find fault with their description 
in a comparison with those accepted by nuclear physics.


  On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:

    Here is where Norman Cook and Rossi demonstrate a basic lack of 
understanding of nuclear physics.

    To be precise – as mentioned before, two alpha particles released from Be 
decay are indeed gamma free. That detail is not in question – as far as it 
goes, but it does not cover the complete fusion reaction, only part of it. 
Unfortunately many write-ups do not detail the complete reaction, and Wiki is 
an offender in this case. 

    Ironically, however - the proton + lithium-7 reaction has historically been 
used as a source of gamma radiation, going back half a century ! But if you 
obtained your PhD degree by mail order, as did AR - then you may not have known 
that.

    What is being missed here, and in Norman Cook’s explanation - is the prompt 
gamma which occurs (statistically) at the time the proton interacts with the 
lithium nucleus to form beryllium and then later two alphas. The Li nucleus 
becomes excited, but it cannot simply convert directly to beryllium without an 
energetic emission to compensate for the kinetic energy which caused the 
fusion. There are known signatures for these gammas and statistically they 
occur when protons fuse with lithium at low energy.


    Proton + Li-7 → Be-8 + γ (gamma) → alpha + alpha (no gamma)

    Note: This gamma does NOT derive from the beryllium decay itself - but from 
the fusion of the proton with the lithium nucleus. This is not always depicted 
in the reaction graphics, and if you depend on Wiki as your sole authority on 
physics, then you may miss it. 

    From: Axil Axil 


    Figure 5 depicts the alpha creation process. See how the alpha particles 
are moving away in opposite directions?


    Figure 5: The lowest-lying excited-state of 7 Li4 (A) has a lattice 
structure to which an additional proton will produce a two-tetrahedron 
structure, giving 8 Be4 (B). The double alpha lattice structure (C) can then 
break into independent two alpha particles (D), which are released with 17 MeV 
of angular momentum, but without gamma radiation. 


    On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

    Axil--



    You said Cook said this: "Cook says that high energy alpha particles exit 
the NAE at high energy and deliver their energy to the far field at an some 
indeterminate distance from the NAE that produced the energy."  



    I did not see this statement.  Where was Cook's statement made?



    What I saw in the new paper was that the energy of the alphas from the Be-8 
decay was in the form of 17 Mev of angular momentum (spin energy)--not kinetic 
energy.  (The slowing-down of 17 MeV alphas would cause noticeable x-rays and 
other high energy EM radiation.)  The alphas apparently stays put and transfers 
its excess energy via spin coupling, one spin quanta or so at a time.



    Bob Cook





    ----- Original Message ----- 

    From: Axil Axil 

    To: vortex-l 

    Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 8:57 AM

    Subject: Re: [Vo]:mainstream physics paper bout the Hot Cat, co-author 
Andrea Rossi


    Like so many LENR theories, the Cook theory of the LENR reaction is not 
fundamental. Like almost all other LENR  theories, it deals with the emergent 
results of the fundamental LENR reaction without explaining the cause of the 
observed experimental results.


    If a theory cannot explain EVERY aspect of the experimental results in 
every dimension, it is not valid.

    In particular, the way energy of these high powered alpha particles are 
converted to heat is not addressed, even though that part of the LENR theory is 
central to how the energy of the nuclear reaction is converted to soft x-rays 
and extreme ultraviolet light.


    I have concluded from the experimental results derived from many LENR 
systems that the gamma suppression and the basic LENR nuclear reaction is 
tightly coupled together so that if a LENR based nuclear event occurs, no gamma 
is ever seen in a environment that has gotten hot enough (500C).


    Gamma suppression is an essential part of the LENR reaction.  So Gamma 
suppression is an essential part of what is going on inside the Nuclear Active 
Environment. If energy is carried away from the NAE, it cannot be converted to 
its final moderated form (soft x-rays and extreme ultraviolet light.) by the 
LENR reaction.  


    Cook says that high energy alpha particles exit the NAE at high energy and 
deliver their energy to the far field at an some indeterminate distance from 
the NAE that produced the energy. If this were true, there is always a slight 
chance that the alpha particle could exit the gas envelop and deposit its 
kinetic energy in the Alumina shell where a gamma ray would result. This gamma 
ray is never seen. So if an alpha particle is produced it must have little or 
no kinetic energy that is transferred to the far field.


    All the energy of the nuclear reaction is carried away from the NAE by the 
LENR reaction itself. The gamma emission is an intrinsic part of the LENR 
reaction energy transfer mechanism.



    On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 11:21 AM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote:

    Jones Beene writes.  "this paper is cannot be taken seriously. A waste of 
time."

    I wish you wouldn't just damn the paper out of hand but give some reasons 
of just why it is wrong.  I don't have the knowledge of nuclear reactions that 
some others do here, but most of the theories seem far from solid to me and 
this one is no worse.  It should at least be considered.




Reply via email to