Wow, this is a provocative paper Axil - but can it be relevant to Ni-H, given the energies involved?
That is the $64 question. In short, do oxygen atoms accelerated to 10s of MeV indicate that anything similar will happen when 10 million times less energy is employed, such as in LENR? In this paper - the beam used is almost 80 MeV which is considered "low energy" in accelerator physics, but is a factor of 10^8 more than the 'thermal triggering' of Rossi in the 350C range. That is one problem of quoting the authors mention of the phrase "low energy" out of context. Surprisingly, the answer could still be yes - in the sense that QM is "probability driven" as opposed to thermodynamically driven. Yet, it is not black-and-white comparison in this case, since there is only the one paper standing on its own. But still, enhanced tunneling of nuclear pairs is a most intriguing hypothesis, and moreover, is more easily falsifiable in LENR, than in hot physics. However, another relevance to a nickel-based reactor, found in this particular paper - where oxygen is the active reactant - could involve oxygen pairing in nickel-oxide instead of, or in addition to, proton pairing ! There is a double relevance, and that part too is falsifiable. But the larger problem is that there is little indication that Rossi (or DGT) use NiO "nanometric" powder (as opposed to Ni unoxidized). And Piantelli - who is inaccurate about his pronouncements on so many issues (like argon), says over and over oxygen in a no-no! He could NOT BE MORE WRONG! In fact, several of us have read the soon-to-be published report - mentioned by Brian Ahern to another group - where NiO nanopowder, which is commercially available at 10 nm (from QSI) is extraordinarily active for thermal gain. In fact it is the most active nanopowder ever tested in this line of R&D ! But caveat: it is far from Rossi's claimed results in terms of watts-per-gram of reactant. And yet Piantelli, who is going sideways on many issues, says that the reactor must be thorough purged many times to get rid of nickel oxide! IOW - he wants to eliminate the most active ingredient. What does it all mean? Do we see a hint of entanglement of one species (proton pairs) bleeding over into entanglement of another (oxygen pairs)? That is most provocative! Side note, does that kind of double entanglement violate "conservation of miracles"? <g> In fact, given the implications of a "QM probability field" affecting a spatial domain, it would seem at first like this kind of cross-entanglement is conceptually possible - although to be honest, a quick googling turns up nothing. This is one more detail where a thorough isotopic analysis (from Sweden) would solve many lingering issues. If nothing else, I hope that this particular thread will convince Rossi that he can benefit from public disclosure of this analysis ! Ask yourself this (Andrea, or Sven, or Hanno) would you have recognized the significance of 18O if it should turns up in your analysis? I think not. Nor would anyone else prior to today likely notice of this arcane detail, other than the few dozen specialist in Ivory-Towers somewhere who have read the paper. It seems on its surface to have little relevance to anything practical and who would have thought that paired protons tunnel far easier than alphas? The bottom line: "None of us is as smart as all of us" and it is extremely doubtful that this important connection to Rossi/DGT/Thermacore, if it does turn up in a thorough isotopic analysis, would even have been noticed without direct access to this paper. So thanks again Axil (even if you were right for the wrong reason :-)) Jones From: Axil Why do entangled proton pairs pass through the coulomb barrier of a heavy element nucleus with high probability in collisions with energies well below those required to breach this barrier? This curiosity has been observed is heavy low energy ion collision studies. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1101.1393.pdf This letter presents evidence that (1) 2p transfer (and not _-particle transfer) is the dominant transfer process leading to _Z = 2 events in the reaction 16O+208Pb at energies well below the fusion barrier, and (2) 2p transfer is significantly enhanced compared to predictions assum- ing the sequential transfer of uncorrelated protons, with absolute probabilities as high as those of 1p transfer at energies near the fusion barrier. Measurements of transfer probabilities in various reac- tions and at energies near the fusion barrier have there- fore been utilized to investigate the role of pairing corre- lations between the transferred nucleons. Pairing effects are believed to lead to a significant enhancement of pair and multi-pair transfer probabilities [2, 4{7]. Closely re- lated to the phenomenon of pairing correlations is the nuclear Josephson effect [8], which is understood as the tunneling of nucleon pairs (i.e. nuclear Cooper-pairs) through a time-dependent barrier at energies near but be- low the fusion barrier. This effect is believed to be similar to that of a supercurrent between two superconductors separated by an insulator. An enhancement of the trans- fer probability at sub-barrier energies is therefore com- monly related to the tunneling of (multi-)Cooper-pairs from one superfluid nucleus to the other [2]. NOTE: this experiment was done with both nuclei being doubly-magic with a closed shell of protons and neutrons...just like nickel.
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
