Jones,
I still share some of Piantelli's fear of oxidizing the reactants
instead of oscillating back and forth between molecular and atomic forms of
hydrogen like Moller and Lyne proscribe. I can understand that other endless
reactions including oxygen may be possible that still harness these same
changes in geometry and dispersion forces. If the reaction is clean and
reversible without adversely affecting the surrounding geometry or Casimir
quality factor then I can accept oxygen as beneficial to the process. The fear
was that the oxides would plate out as a solid and not be able to migrate as a
gas between changing values of geometry to reverse the reaction.
[snip] who would have thought that paired protons tunnel far easier than
alphas?[/snip] I never went so far as to suggest that hydrinos are entangled
but my relativistic interpretation of Casimir effect [based on Naudts paper on
the hydrino as relativistic hydrogen] did lead me to suggest that the
fractional orbits were displaced on the time axis and that the columb barrier
might be reduced between hydrogen with different fractional values. I suspect
that the molecular bond of fractional h2 can temporarily maintain the
fractional value of h2 even when the relativistic value induced by the local
Ni geometry changes. This then would allow for a fractional h1 that translates
instantly to reflect the local geometry to collide with a fractional h2 of a
different fractional value [a temporal axis displacement]. It is this temporal
displacement that I believe allowed Naudts to use math normally reserved for
photons that can occupy the same state because from our perspective they occupy
the same spatial coordinates only displaced on the time axis. This time axis
displacement is also what I posit reduces the columb barrier where the protons
displacement beach other is both spatial and temporal allowing the spatial
displacement to fall much lower than normal without opposition.
Regards
Fran
_____________________________________________
From: Jones Beene [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 9:41 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:entangled proton pairs show enhanced tunneling
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.
