In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 19 Nov 2012 08:51:20 -0800: Hi, 1. More energetic neutrinos react more strongly with matter. 2. A massive localized fusion reaction somewhere below the surface of the Sun might take a day or so for the energy to reach the surface, and produce a CME. 3. Neutrinos produced during such a reaction would need to be more energetic than those from the p-p reaction, resulting in such neutrinos being more effective at triggering decay reactions on Earth (see #1). 4. Due to their low reaction rate with matter, neutrinos are barely restricted by the mass of the Sun, and reach the Earth just minutes after being created at the locality of the fusion reaction, thus providing a "real time" indication that the fusion reaction is taking place. 5. I once saw an estimate that it takes 10000 years for fusion energy from the core to reach the surface. In which case the fusion reaction I posit here would need to be fairly shallow to reach the surface in just a day. 6. Such a fusion reaction would need to involve heavier elements than Hydrogen to explain the more energetic neutrinos. The Carbon cycle might be a reasonable candidate. (Both 13N & 15O have fairly short half lives, so the cycle could proceed rapidly if the starting materials were present - especially if a supply of shrunken Hydrinos were on hand to reduce the tunneling time).
> > This story from Purdue is of interest for several >unexplained energy phenomenon, including LENR and the recent disclosure of >Ed Storms. That disclosure is suggestive a hidden kind of radiation which >accelerates nuclear decay rates. >http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2012/Q3/new-system-could-predict-sol >ar-flares,-give-advance-warning.html > A known variety of radiation which can alter decay rates is >neutrinos, except for the huge problem that neutrinos should not be detected >or absorbed in anywhere close to the needed amount. > > The undefined radiation is associated with solar flares but >precedes the flare. However, since neutrinos are always present in a massive >flux that is relatively independent of flares, but would not be absorbed in >anything like the proportions which are required to alter decay- does this >finding not specifically suggest a new kind of radiation which renders >neutrinos more active (absorbable)? > I think that it does suggest this or something similar, but >the University Researchers involved will not go that far. (as Mel Brooks >sez: we have to protect our phony baloney jobs). > To me, this finding suggests that the standard neutrino >flux, which is a given, can be modulated or altered somehow, so as to be >absorbed at many or orders of magnitude higher rates, when the mystery >radiation is present (compared to normal). That radiation can be produced in >LENR apparently, as well as in the solar corona. (note: the flare is a >corona feature, which is a bit different than a solar feature). > In short, this mystery radiation would operate like the A-B >effect - except with respect to the neutrino flux instead of with respect to >charged particles. It could even be called a neutrino Aharonov-Bohm effect. >QUOTE: Researchers have recorded data during 10 solar flares since 2006, >seeing the same pattern...."We have repeatedly seen a precursor signal >preceding a solar flare," Fischbach said. "We think this has predictive >value." Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
