*The reason this claim of W-L theory is ludicrous --- Of course this is not LENR, but it is the model for gamma downshifting, and if you want to assert two distinct miracles - then it is wise to show some other evidence than the very phenomenon you wish to explain - with your outrageous claim. *
Gamma suppression does not cause LENR; it is accidental to the LENR reaction. However, it is still very important. It is the principle demarcation line between LENR and LENR+. The LENR reaction emits gammas and this energy release destroys the nuclear active sites. The LENR reactions will soon stop as the NAE are blown apart and cratered. On the other hand, LENR+ thermalizes the energy that is produced in the NAE as a secondary mechanism, but this thermalization of the reaction allows the LENR+ reaction to occur over and over again from the same NAE for months on end. When all this is considered, gamma thermalization is far more puzzling than we think; it is connected to the LENR reaction but not required by it. This type of mechanism is not supported by the W&L theory. Electrons produce both the reaction and the gamma thermalization. Electrons cannot do both jobs simultaneously. There must be a second optional mechanism that these elections undergo to cause suppress the gammas. I believe that that mechanism is Bose-Einstein condensation; a ubiquitous condition in the lattice that is readily and continuously restored and refreshed as the LENR+ reaction occurs. On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > There seems to be two different overlapping threads going on here, since > Mark's original suggestion relating to subatomic quark resonance was > hijacked (by moi) in favor of another related subject: "lack of gammas" in > LENR. Apologies for that. > > However, in regard to the latter, the take-away message should be that MeV > quanta (gamma radiation) once emitted, can only be downshifted in steps - > going down to 100s of keV, 10s of keV, hundreds of eV (EUV), 10s of eV (UV > light), visible light and then to IR light, etc. All of this must be > accomplished in dozens or hundreds of distinct steps involving millions of > target atoms. Lewis Larsen wants to tell the world of physics that no, it > is > possible to do it all in one step, in one particle. > > The reason this claim of W-L theory is ludicrous can be seen every day by > looking up. Our sun makes gamma radiation as its prime energy product - > yet > x-rays, ultraviolet, visible, infrared, microwave, and radio waves are all > emitted - and the proportion of IR is well-understood. Of course this is > not > LENR, but it is the model for gamma downshifting, and if you want to assert > two distinct miracles - then it is wise to show some other evidence than > the > very phenomenon you wish to explain - with your outrageous claim. > > In the sun, gammas cannot escape without colliding with protons and > electrons and losing a small portion of their energy on every collision - > over and over and over. The same should be true on earth IF gammas are > actually emitted. Moreover, a gamma ray typically spends 30,000 years > colliding with atomic particles and re-emitting energy at a slightly lower > energy level on the sun, until it finally escapes. That is a lot of > downshifting, and to assert that it can all be avoided, because "we need to > make gammas do that, in order to make our theory work" is essentially what > the rest of science is being asked to believe. > > Don't ask me to explain the calculations that provided this million-day > solar gamma lag time - but it is part of the standard model. Hagelstein - > at > least, suggests another pathway (phonon collective vibrations) that spreads > the MeV radiation out over trillions of atoms in the metal lattice, unlike > W-L which suggest a single particle downshifting. Almost no one in physics > believes Hagelstein is correct on this, but he is far closer to making a > case for "lack of gammas" than W-L. > > It seems a bit more logical to suggest that the lack of gammas can be > better > explained by the lack of the kind of nuclear reaction that produces gammas. > The most prevalent nuclear reaction in the Universe, reversible proton > fusion, produces no gammas. Shouldn't we be taking a closer look at RPF? > > > From: Axil > MIT Prof. Peter L. Hagelstein stated in an interview as > follows: > So there are no significant amount of neutrons, there's no > fast electrons, there's no gamma rays. There's nothing you might expect if > it were a more normal nuclear reaction process. The basic statement here is > that - if it's real and if it's nuclear... the argument for it being > nuclear > is that there's 4He (helium-4) observed in experiments, roughly one 4He for > every 24 MeV of energy that's created. So what you need in the way of a > theoretical model, basically a new kind of mechanism that doesn't work like > the old Rutherford reaction picture that nuclear physics is based on. So > that's the basic problem that I've been working on for a great many years. > The big problem is one that has to do with the quantum > mechanics issue. The nuclear energy comes in a big energy quantum, and if > it > didn't get broken up, then the big energy quantum would get expressed as > energetic particles, as normally happens in nuclear reactions. So the > approach we've taken is that we've said "the only conceivable route for > making sense of these observations at all, is that the big energy quanta > have to get sliced and diced up into a very very large number if much > smaller energy quanta." The much larger number is on the order of several > hundred million. In NMR physics and optical physics, people are familiar > with breaking up a large quantum into perhaps 30 smaller pieces, you could > argue that there are some experiments where you could argue that maybe that > numbers as high as 100 or so. It's unprecedented that you could take an MeV > quantum and chop it up into bite sized pieces that are 10s of meV. > Harry Veeder wrote: > > If a bunch of low energy photons is equivalent to the > energy of 1 high energy gamma photon, why can't a particular nuclear > reaction sometimes produce a mountain of infrared photons instead one gamma > photon? According to conservation of energy this is possible, so why is it > considered impossible? > > harry > > MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: > Dave stated: > "... and that the energy from the reactions is shared among > the atoms surrounding it. I have been looking for evidence that fusion can > take place in the compact environment of a cold fusion NAE in a manner that > is very different from that occurring within a plasma." > When one looks at subatomic particles as dipolar > oscillations, and within the NAE, all those oscillations being aligned and > IN-PHASE, they will serve as energy sinks for a specific wavelength of > energy. Thus, the amount of energy that would have been emitted in a gamma > is distributed as smaller packets amongst the large number of IN-phase > oscillators. > This all reminds me of a PhysOrg article I mentioned a few > years ago where the scientists had isolated two atoms, side by side, and > cooled to near 0K... they could watch as one of the atoms remained > completely still, while the other would wiggle, because it had a quantum of > heat energy and thus, [my conclusion] the internal oscillators were > out-of-balance, which causes the entire atom to 'shake'. What was > interesting is that they could do something (don't remember what) that > would > cause that quantum of heat to xfer from the shaking atom to the still one > and, you guessed it, the one that was still was now shaking and the former > holder of the quantum of heat was now still. > Back to Dave's statement... > Does the gamma get emitted, but then immediately absorbed > by > the 'Collective' oscillations, or is it a direct xfer of quanta of energy > as > explained above? In either case, whatever the exact conditions that are > required, it would seem that those conditions result in BOTH new low-energy > nuclear processes AND an energy sink which (almost entirely) favors > coupling > into lattice vibrations instead of emission of energetic particles. > -mark > From: David Roberson > >In the end, it should be crystal clear to anyone who > understands nuclear > engineering - that there is no possible way to adequately > explain the lack > of gammas in LENR - other than that they never happened at > all. > I agree with you Jones. The only way to explain this > process is to assume that the gammas are not emitted at any time and that > the energy from the reactions is shared among the atoms surrounding it. I > have been looking for evidence that fusion can take place in the compact > environment of a cold fusion NAE in a manner that is very different from > that occurring within a plasma. The system difference is evident and I > have > not seem papers describing known fusion events recorded within a metal > matrix where gammas are emitted at the expected levels. > >
