From: Steve High
Here is a sure indication of his value, to physicists with
open minds: decades of asking obvious but inconvenient questions (where does
spin energy come from? [snip]A detail that stands out in Zebuhr’s writeup, relative to Rossi (and to other forms of anomalous energy with a ferromagnetic component) in trying to explain how large amounts of thermal energy can appear without a known nuclear source - is this paragraph. “It solves the problem that got Don in trouble in physics class—the apparent violation of conservation of energy that occurs during “pair production” when a photon of at least 1.022 MeV “creates” an electron-positron pair and does not account for the large spin energy in the “created” particles. Don shows that the spin comes directly from the negative-energy “sea,” restoring conservation.” OK. Not sure that is worded as well as it could be - but think about the inverse of that reaction in the context of the “quantum foam” – the interface of 3-space with reciprocal space, where the epo field can be sensed on both sides of the dimensional interface. The electrons and positrons from the “sea” are attracted across the interface by a magnetic “gateway,” which can be the nucleus of a ferromagnetic atom like Ni-62, but when they cannot tunnel across, will instead occasionally annihilate into photons, which can remain in either dimension. Either 2 or 3 photons are formed which creates problems for conservation of spin which is generally ignored. However, if spin energy remains in the gateway nucleus (a nickel atom) it can be thermalized as excess heat. It is also possible for spin to couple the other way, and for energy to be removed from 3-space. This energy in one sense is nuclear, but in another sense arises from matter and antimatter. That is why it was labeled as not a “known nuclear source” since it is not appreciated as the source of thermal gain (or loss) in LENR. One of the reasons that Don was attracted to Brian Ahern’s work for EPRI was that he realized that anomalous cooling could also be an effect of the Dirac sea – which Brian showed. Too bad Don could not hang on long enough to see an unequivocal report which we are all hoping will happen with the TIP/Elforsk report. That report, if positive, will almost certainly point to Hotson’s Dirac explanation - and NOT to Focardi’s (nickel transmuting into copper). Jones
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
