Wow, this is a provocative paper Axil - but can it be relevant to Ni-H, given the energies involved?
The paper we are discussing indicates to me that superconductive processes exist even at many millions of degrees in temperature. IOW, Quantum mechanical tunneling can exist in super-hot places. This tunneling process may even exist inside the sun where it makes nuclear reactions that should not happen…proceed with great vigor. LENR may well be a kind of superconductivity, where proton pair formation and associated tunneling is a key causative agent. If tunneling through the coulomb barrier happens at extreme temperatures, then it is logical to suspect that this superconductive quantum mechanical process will become even more productive and probable as the temperatures fall. In a nutshell, quantum theory tells us that two entangled particles behave as a single physical object, no matter how far apart they are. This effect leads to quantum nonlocality. To make a long story short, it is as if quantum particles live outside space-time – and experiments confirm this. It seems to me that the ability of entangled protons to tunnel is increased in proportion as the numbers of pairs join an increasingly huge and growing macro-entangled assemblage. This does not happen at extreme temperatures but will happen at “Rossi reactor operating temperatures” This new theory informs us about how some perplexing and puzzling processes happen in a NiH reactor. In my mind, one of the important and mysterious unanswered questions in the behavior of the NiH reactor is how a NiH reactor meltdown occurs. More specifically this story may well go as follows: the increased power produced in a Ni-H reaction as the temperature increases beyond a critical limit even to and beyond the meltdown threshold may well be caused by the increase in collision speed between the given proton pair and the increasing blackbody vibrational speed of the nickel atom confined in the lattice. There may well be a large reservoir of entangled proton pairs formed by the micro powder that will cause a high temperature reaction beyond the melting point of nickel. In other words, the micro powder creates a supply of proton pairs stored in an abundant backlog to such an extended level that once ignited will cause the destruction of the powder that produced it. This example illustrates what may happen. First a billion proton pairs are formed in and around the micro-powder. In steady state operation, the Brownian motion in the nickel lattice produces a steady state fusion level in which the NiH reactor produces power at a constant rate. For some reason...say operator error, a temperature rise increases the collision rate between the proton pairs and the nickel atoms in the lattice. The reaction reinforces itself because more heat begets more collision based fusions which produce even more heat. The powder will melt, at 700C but the reaction does not depend on the powder to continue; it uses the backlog of proton pairs that have built up over time. The reaction continues up to the melting point of bulk nickel and continues until the backlog of proton pairs are reduced below the reaction threshold. So the job of the Micro powder is to produce proton pairs in abundance and not to cause the fusion reaction. This temperature based reaction will happen even when the nickel is reduced to the bulk state. In addition, the effect of the Radio frequency generator may well be to magnetically stabilize the vibrational rate of the proton pair ensemble whose constant EM frequency affects a steadying of the rate of fusion reactions thus discouraging a meltdown runaway. On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > >
