In the RF world emissions can be generated by antennas that are far shorter than the wavelength of the radiation. The efficiency of the radiator becomes lower as the size decreases but it emits non the less.
Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Sun, Jun 1, 2014 1:46 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:An emerging "diproton plus halo" hypothesis From:Bob Cook As robinpoints out the size of the wave length of the EM radiation does not depend uponthe size of the emitting entity. Hi Bob, Did Robin say that? – if so,his point comes under the category of opinion AFAIK - since the emission of EM radiationalways depends to an extent on the geometry of the emitter. The semantic problem is indefining “geometry” in a relative sense. The nucleus in motion can emit longerwavelength than gamma, but only so long as the motion is resonant, as in Larmorprecession, for instance. The halo nucleus would fit somewhere in between. Can you cite instances orevidence in physics of a stationary nucleus emitting EM radiation which is longwavelength – say random RF or light emission which is not related to precession? If the size of theemitting entity did not matter, we should see visible light, UV and even RF comingfrom nuclei in almost any random frequency - as opposed to coming from excited electrons– or in the case of NMR (or Mossbauer) from the Larmor frequency, which isbased on nuclear precession in a magnetic field, which is a resonant motionalwavelength - thousands of longer than the size of the nucleus. In fact, my belief (pendinga citation from you or Robin to contradict it) - is that this blanket statementabove about lack of a geometrical parameter is completely incorrect - and infact no nucleus can emit longer wavelength EM radiation than either its dimensionspermit, or its resonant path in space permits (precession or equivalent motion).This emission would be due partly to geometry and partly due to excess internalenergy which is released in quanta and not randomly. There was a controversythat arose about 15 years ago where UV and optical radiation was said(incorrectly) to derive directly from low energy transitions in radioactive nuclei.Of course, the problem is that it is difficult for experts to determine wherethe radiation comes from unless you have bare nuclei in a vacuum. Spontaneousultraviolet luminescence from U and Th was reported by Irwin in 1997, Richardsonin 1998 and Shaw in 1999– but in the end, all of these reports were debunked,since the ultraviolet emission could be attributed to nitrogen in the airsurrounding the sample, or to mundane sources like k-shell emission lines whichhad previously been undocumented. http://web.ornl.gov/~webworks/cpr/pres/109281_.pdf Of course, inner shellelectrons can emit UV but not nuclei, AFAIK - unless the nucleus is locked intoa larger orbital periodic motion of its own. In fact, the UV quanta fromelectrons can be proportionate to the orbital period (geometry) as Millssuggest by the Rydberg energy quanta. Mossbauer radiation is another exampleand it is entirely denominated by geometry (in forcing magnetic precession). The shortest emission wavelength(lowest quanta of energy) which I have seen from a relatively cold nucleus (nonkinetic radiation) corresponds to mass energy around 6 keV. If there isanything shorter in the literature, it would be helpful to cite it – as thishas plenty of relevance to understanding LENR. Jones
