In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 12 Apr 2010 16:13:52 -0700: Hi Jones, [snip] >Robin - > >What is the energy available for Zr-94?
Zr-94 => Mo-94 + 1.14 MeV >That isotope does not show up in my >reference for double beta decay. It is however in italics in the chart at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta-decay_stable_isobars which BTW doesn't mention the Ca-48 reaction Ca-48 => Ti-48 + 4.27 MeV (Ca-48 is 0.18% of natural Ca) which averages to 7.7 keV / atom of Ca. Which would make old concrete or limestone a great fuel source, about 1000 times better than coal. ;) Perhaps someone should try LENR using Ca(OH)2 iso LiOH? ;) There is almost as much Ca-48 in the crust as there is Zr (all isotopes combined; Ca is much more abundant than Zr). BTW the single beta decay of Ca-48 to Sc-48 is also energetically possible (278 keV). > >The real beauty, as an elegant explanation for many LENR phenomena, of using >"enhanced probability double beta decay" - (what I am calling DF) - is this: > >Since the daughter (ash) or transmuted isotope actually "needs" the two >emitted electrons (betas) then they often NEVER LEAVE the atom - and are I'm not so sure about this. The energy differences between the two atoms are calculated based upon mass differences between *atoms*, which means that the mass of the Mo atom is that of an atom with all it's electrons already in place. (actually this is not quite true; it's based on the mass of a singly or doubly ionized atom with the mass of the appropriate number of electrons simply added to it, however this electron(s) is/are the valence electrons and their binding energy is just a few eV, so to all intents and purposes the masses are atomic masses.) Note however that since they are already in place they have effectively already escaped from the nucleus, thus the energy stored in the potential difference between electron and nucleus has already been accounted for. That in turn means that the energy difference calculated based upon mass difference should be available as kinetic energy over and above the energy required to form the new atom, IOW the electron(s) should be able to escape. I realize that this diatribe isn't very clear, perhaps because it isn't very clear in my mind either. However I hope you can follow my argument. >picked up in the new inner orbitals or the new species (molybdenum in this >case). This explains the most difficult thing there is to justify in LENR - >the nearly complete lack (not total lack) of a gamma or x-ray signature, not >even a secondary. > >There could be a modest electron cascade of some sort, but generally there >is no substantial nuclear gamma or x-ray signature in DF, yet there is lot >of energy - roughly a 50,000:1 ratio, compared to combustion. > >Jones [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
