A Hypothesis Concerning the Connection Between the “Mössbauer Effect” and the “Rossi Effect” (Norman Cook)

The following slideshow was sent to me by Dr. Norman D. Cook, professor of Infomatics at Kensai University in Osaka, Japan. The slides accompanied a presentation that he made at the JCF16 meeting on December 11-12, 2015 in Kyoto, Japan.

Norman Cook has been collaborating with Andrea Rossi on developing a theoretical understanding of the physics behind the “Rossi Effect” in the E-Cat, and according to Rossi, Norman Cook is one of the few people who has visited the 1 MW plant where Rossi is currently working.

In the preface to this slideshow, Dr. Cook explains:

This is a preliminary version of a much more complex work that I am preparing with Andrea Rossi, based on experimental data and on more complex mathematical structure. The work with Rossi will take more time, due to the complexity of the engagement.

http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/CookPresentationJCF16Dec2015.pdf

http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/CookPresentationJCF16Dec2015.pdf

  • Stephen

    On the JONP web site following one of my questions Andrea Rossi mentioned that they are able to monitor the gamma spectra from within the e-cat devices. This data could go along way to showing if the gammas of energies corresponding to the transitions mentioned by Norman Cook are occurring. Unless they are some how all absorbed before detection of course. It will be really interesting to see once they are able to process that data.

    • Bob Greenyer

      An interesting March 2012 post on the Fusor forums where a contributor postulates Nuclear isomer stimulated fusion.

      He postulates that you first excite atoms (he cites the most extreme case being Rydberg State Hydrogen) and then this allows atoms to be in a closer configuration to the target fused product .

      He notes “This could be particularly advantageous for heavier ion fusion”

      http://www.fusor.net/board/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=7287

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Maybe the nickel-62 is a nonrepresentative sample that vaporized out of the following reaction and picked out because it looked
    interesting.

    Nickel-64 hydride, p~~Ni~~p, absorbs its covalently bonded protons to become zinc-66 in an excited state that in turn fissions into nickel-62 and helium-4.

    Ni(64) + 2 p > Zn(66)* > Ni(62) + He(4) 11.8 MeV

    PS
    The infrared stretching of the “soft” polarizable covalent
    nickel hydride bonds, p~~Ni~~p, may initiate a nuclear reaction.

    The same old stuff I rambled on about in the off-topic comments
    here (were I misspelled infrared).
    http://coldfusionnow.org/peter-gluck-and-yeong-e-kim-on-lenr-research/

    • Bob Greenyer

      Stepwise progression to 64Ni and then back to 62Ni (via 4He decay) is why I suggest that 62Ni is a true catalyst.

      • Axil Axil

        But Ni62 does not occur in the Piantelli reaction. Why not?

        • Bob Greenyer

          Hi Axil,

          Not sure I follow you.

          Piantelli has 62Ni in there and stepwise transmutations are what he and Focardi et al established through Hypothesis and empirical observation.

          One must hold in mind the rate of his reactions is vastly below that claimed for Rossi and did not include Lithium in the experiments published.

          It would be interesting to see the elemental/isotopic analysis for the experiment that had been running for multiples of years.

          • Axil Axil

            The idea that I want to undercut is to take a isolated factor that shows up in one system and generalize it to all LENR reactions. The Ni62 transmutation is just a one in a million happenstance that cannot be applied as a general rule throughout LENR.

            There are some LENR systems that don’t even use nickel. Piantelli states that over half the known elements can be used in the LENR reaction.

            http://newinflow.ru/pdf/Klimov_Poster.pdf

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Maybe the gamma rays are from bremsstrahlung (“braking radiation”) from the electrons that are being knocked around by alphas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremsstrahlung

    Li(7) + p > Be(8)* > 2 He(4) 17.3 MeV

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Do you know how this reaction occurs in hot fusion or Cockcroft-Walton experiment? Does it occur via the Be(8) intermediate state or not? If it occurs via Be(8), is there gamma emission (I think there should be, in that case, in order to satisfy momentum conservation). And last, if it occurs via Be(8), which excited state of Be(8)* is it?

      In short, the main question to me is: if you collide a proton beam to Li7 target, does one get only alphas or also gammas, and what is the gamma spectrum one gets?

  • http://renewable.50webs.com/ Christopher Calder

    Hergen – January 13th, 2016 at 11:13 AM

    Dear Mr Rossi,

    What would be the weight and the volume (perhaps liters) of a 20 kw e-cat x reactor?

    Thank you.

    _________________

    Andrea Rossi – January 13th, 2016 at 5:15 PM

    Hergen:

    Ballpark numbers: like a 20 cigarette packet, while the weight could be 300-400 grams, plus the apparatus to use the energy, that is different depending on the use, the fluid, etc.

    Warm Regards,

    A.R.

    • US_Citizen71

      WOW!

  • Fedir Mykhaylov

    Interesting results were obtained when considering channeling gamma and gamma conversion of some of the issues discussed in the plasmons Professor Beckmann

  • clovis ray

    Very interesting paper, understood most of it, i did wonder, a bit at this,

    Feynman argues that the “simultaneity” of electron
    phenomena is the problem that prevents a “classical”
    understanding of the quantum world. The simultaneous
    presence of one parGcle at two locaGons is classically
    impossible, but such an interpretaGon is thought to be a
    necessary consequence of the role of Heisenberg’s
    uncertainty principle.

    • LilyLover

      It’s a Feynman thing, ignore it.
      Dr. Cook will very soon revise that theory, soon after Rossi allows the inside peek at the radiation data.
      You did not understand that because, it’s not coherent theory, yet.

  • Private Citizen

    All this theory and no conclusion with a simple, openly testable experiment to prove it?

    You might say Rossi’s reactor is the test, but it is not openly replicable at this point.

    Theory talks, but experimental evidence walks.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    I think that the analysis is wrong, because it lacks energy conservation. Transition E5->E6 on nucleus2 is possible only if the nucleus is already in state E5, not if it’s in ground state. And if one wants to have nucleus2 in real state E6, the nucleus must have been in E5 really, not virtually. The explanation on slide 34 about this issue is just wrong.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      I guess that both E6 and E5 could be characterized as ‘virtual’ states, which become ‘real’ only for a tiny moment. One might assume that the overall energy of the nucleus in these cases would be less than the energy in case of a ‘real’ E6 or E5. Maybe the difference would correspond to a different ratio of probabilities of all possible ‘virtual’ states (F9). Consider also that after the excitation the nucleus goes back to its ground state (slide 34-35) – which indicates that conservation of energy is not violated.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        But (slide 37) we are told that we get many quanta from E6->E5->…->E1->Eground which together carry the same energy as E6. Where does this energy come from?

        • Andreas Moraitis

          These transitions might also be thought as transitions between ‘virtual’ states, except that the input energy has been high enough to cause a ‘real’ (not only partial) excitation. I could imagine that in the first case no energy would be released, there would be simply a redistribution within the system (again F9).

          In any case you should ask Rossi about this issue.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            „No energy“ should be read as „no additional energy“. I understood it that way that the energy that comes in is released as kinetic energy that is eventually transferred to the lattice.

        • Stephen

          I must admit I have been wondering about this as well, but I’m also sure that both Norman Cook and Andrea Rossi are more than aware of the fundamental laws of physics such as conservation of energy. In fact If I recall correctly Andrea Rossi has mentioned that conservation of states and energy in other contexts. If it was already in E5 I suppose it would no longer be a virtual transition but a real one, but if not I’m curious how they take reconcile this energy difference, probably I’m not understanding fully the resonance process. Could multiple photons at this energy that in Total cover the over all energy difference resolve this? Could the additional energy be extracted from elsewhere?

          • Bob Greenyer

            Perhaps the suggestion is that the forced nature of the interaction releases harvestable energy – or energy that can trigger transmutation, whilst the starting state is either reversible with either 1. non-harvistable (until now) incident environmental energy or 2. as a result of energy yield from transmutation.

            Is he actually not simply addressing the lack of high energy gammas one may ordinarily see from the kind of transmutations claimed and the thermal nature of the output of the device?

            Gamma Rays are essentially high energy photons – perhaps this hypothisis / understanding from Cook is what has allowed Rossi to choose between heat, light and electricity. Potentially, this kind of thinking could allow selected isotopes to down convert high energy gammas to light photons and possibly also, via photo voltaics, to electricity.

            • Stephen

              These are very good ideas. Both the harvesting energy from the environment and as a result of transmutation. I’m curious how it can work in details and if it fits the details of the behaviour… I was also wondering if the binding energy is effected somehow and this might tie in with your transmutation idea.

              If it works along the ideas described by Norman Cook I agree that the selection of isotopes could be very critical to how the gamma is converted. If transmutation is occurring as well this could also affect the process… maybe this is what they are seeing when they talk about changes in efficiency within the e-cat.

              I do wonder if looking at gamma absorption as a mirror to gamma emission in a classical way is correct. In the latter case (emission) the photon is emitted as a consequence of the energy transition to a lower states, the former case (absorption) the photon would only transit the nucleus or nucleon over a very short amount of time maybe 10 -22s or 10 -23s. Can Heisenbergs uncertainty principle be applied to this in terms of energy and would it be the uncertainties for energy and time in both cases absorption and emission?

              Oh well I guess all will become clearer in time if a certain range of energy is put into it 😉

        • Bob Greenyer

          This got me wondering too, but then I did not want to talk about it as I am not party to the verbal presentation that was given along with the slides.

  • blanco69

    For me an excellent, clear and concise presentation from Dr Cook that even I could follow most of. I understood the stuff about the resonance absorbtion of gamma rays but I didn’t quite pick up what the source of all this gamma radiation is. Surely not a tube with a resistance wire in it.

  • Zephir

    Mossbauer lattice effects were proposed for explanation of cold fusion long time, at least from 1994 (David Goodstein, Kozima and others). http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02780710 Therefore I’m missing the explanation, what new is actually in the above presentation.

    • US_Citizen71

      I think the references to prior work as well as supporting experimental data will come with the full paper. We must remember that these are slides from a presentation.

  • Stephen

    Great to read this presentation. I would like to thank to Norman Cook for sharing it here with us. I think Norman Cooks explanation of the Mössbauer Effect was one of the best and clearest I have read and its development to the extended Mössbauer Effect and Rossi effect was also very well put over. After reading the presentation I can appreciate it is part of a much larger deeper and more technical work. The idea of higher energy resonance transitions is very intriguing to me. I think it is a very smart idea to explain at least part of the behaviour. My mind is full of questions regarding the virtual high energy resonances and such and how they become real but probably the answers are there and I will dwell a bit more on it to try and understand it more.

    It seems to me that the paper uses Mössbauer resonance as part of the explanation and my personal view is that this is a very good idea, however it does seem to me that the effect could also be stimulated or work in synergy with other forms of resonance and stimuli such as SPP Phonons and laser stimulation proposed else where. I’m not sure if the initial stimulation is covered in this paper for example. Perhaps in analogy to the “extended Mössbauer effect” there is a resonance of this idea with some of the other ideas sometimes expressed here.

    I also can’t help wondering if the virtual high nucleus resonances can have sufficient level to couple some how with high energy electron level transition resonances (or even nucleon resonances and perhaps lead to some of the behaviour seen by Holmlid in his experiment).

    Regarding the different elements and isotopes included in the fuel: I wonder if an experimental device could be made, where a small well characterised sample was easily placed and extracted from within the wafer. I suppose the commercial e-cat and e-cat X would not be suitable since they are sealed units and optimised for production. Perhaps such a device could include samples modules that contain samples useful for experimentation and characterisation of the phenomena. This could be particular materials, particular nano structures, even particular sensors and devices designed to better observe the phenomena.

    If the device was simpler than the optimised e-cat to protect IP perhaps with enough open data for it to work reliably perhaps it could be used by different universities and organisations for investigating and expanding on the knowledge regarding this phenomena. Perhaps once the e-cat test is completed once further open data can be released this could enable MFMP to develop or adapt one of their devices for this purpose.

  • http://www.facebook.com/100002656573372 Ian Walker

    Hi all

    I think we now understand what Rossi’s catalyst is. He even named it as the Rossi effect.

    Further the enhanced Mössbauer effect should be testable with a fission isotope.

    And the Rossi effect along with the enhanced Mössbauer effect should have a use in radiation shielding.

    Clearly Rossi’s real skill was in his engineers ability to tame radiation.

    Kind Regards walker

    • clovis ray

      Hi,Ian,

      You said, He even named it as the(Rossi effect.) correction i named this effect, the Rossi effect, and i was over ruled a couple times but i prevailed, as the name stuck, and will will always be call that, this is my story and i’m sticking too it.

  • Bob Greenyer

    I think the most interesting part of this paper for replicators is that it re-confirms the claim that tungsten and iron (preferably 183W and 57Fe isotopes) are *IN* the fuel – additionally it claims that Zinc (specifically 67Zn) is also in the fuel.

    This is a speculative extension to a known effect to explain one aspect of the Lugano report – one which we intend to test and have purchased some pure tungsten as it has a high 183W content without requiring high cost.

    • Gerard McEk

      Bob, I saw a presentation in which you seemed very convinced that 62Ni is the basis of Rossi’s secret. Now, after having seen Cook’s presentation, are you still sure that AR is using enriched Nickel?

      • Bob Greenyer

        Cook is trying to explain an experiment where we have conclusively proven that at least the thermal measurement was incorrectly done.

        There is no evidence in the Lugano Fuel analysis that either 183W or 67Zn was present – we know that small amounts of 57Fe was present as part of the large Fe based ‘particle 3’ and we presume minute amounts of 61Ni were present on the assumption that natural Nickel was there, it may be higher if 62Ni was added as the most likely impurity in near-pure centrifugally refined 62Ni would be 61Ni as it is the next closest stable isotope – this alone could have tripled the 61 Ni in the Fuel. Perhaps serendipity led to a discovery and the work with Cook has led to an understanding that calls upon other favourable isotopes… leading to E-Cat X.

        It is conceivable that Rossi has told Cook that 183W, 67Zn and 57Fe and 61Ni were in the heater wire or another part of the inside of the reactor – Cook seems to be VERY clear that this was in the “Fuel”. But you have to refer back to the Ash to determine what is where at the “end”.

        If we take the Lugano analysis at face value – we have to conclude that having predominantly 62Ni is still as effective as any other Ni isotope, does this fit with Cook’s paper? – it means having only 62Ni cannot be a bad thing, regardless of if it started there, was salted or was developed as part of the reaction. Moreover, as the 7Li would be depleted at the end of the 32days – one could also conclude that the reaction is becoming more efficient to compensate for the lack of 7Li abundance – though I have argued it only needs to be a few atoms thick.

        • Gerard McEk

          Thanks Bob, so Cook did not convince that much.
          BTW: Ni cannot be enriched by gas centrifuges, because no suitable stable gas molecule (like UF6 for Uranium) is available. High quantities of enriched Ni will therefore be extremely expensive.

          • Bob Greenyer

            We were told by the supplier that sold the 62Ni to Rossi that they use nickel tetra carbonyl (which is a gas above 43ºC) in their centrifuges.

            They said they did not like the process – mostly because of the extreme toxicity.

    • Toussaint françois

      Bob when will you start another dogbone test ?

      • Bob Greenyer

        Well – after the above, it is tempting to run the inconel based Dog Bone.

        At the moment Alan is preparing the next *GlowStick* which we hope to run in coming fortnight – I’ll help with the live doc and comms on that. I hope to run some hand on experiments again myself with me356 next month.

        Before then, I’d like to do a explanatory video that I think is very important.

    • Axil Axil

      The general LENR solution is a difficult bar to get over. It needs to explain other things than just the Rossi effect. Every LENR experiment must be covered by the general solution. The low energy case of the chicken egg and the microbe need to be addressed. This is also the golden ball reaction to cover.

      • Bob Greenyer

        When we have a reliable prototype reactor/fuel – then many hypothesis will be testable.

  • Gerard McEk

    It is indeed interesting to read that the Mossbaur effect could antamate oscillations that are needed to concur the Colomb Barrier (CB) and at the same time absorb gamma’s. Both need an explanation in a theory for LENR. Discrete Breathers need oscillations to work and help to overcome the CB, so in my view they still fit in a new theory.

  • Axil Axil

    In the slide that includes the title “• Transmutations: Various large isotopes”

    This slide comes out of the Lugano report appendix 3 figure 7 on page 48

    Notice how the lithium is mostly Li7.

    This large isotope assay is on the FUEL and NOT on the ash, The question rightly is why does the FUEL contain all those rare earth elements?

    Rossi better get himself a more careful analyst of his reaction other than COOK.

    • Monty

      You dont seem to be very fond of Dr.Cook….

      • Axil Axil

        I lost my respect for Cook’s opinion when the Rossi/Cook theory put forth just after the Lugano test stood in opposition to the transmutation events describing the pure 100 micron Ni62 particle.

        • Monty

          i am not sure that transmutation is the only possible explanation of this “100 micron pure Ni62 particle”

  • Axil Axil

    Rossi has a short memory. The E-Cat pumped out gamma radiation galore.

    Jed Rothwell said: ” Rossi’s reactor threatened to go out of control once, and one time when it turned on it produced an enormous burst of radioactivity, which was measured by Celani. It was off the scale. Fortunately, it only lasted for a millisecond or so. Otherwise it would have killed everyone in the room. Think for a moment what would happen if one of his large reactors were to go out of control and explode or irradiate people. A large-scale accident could easily bring about the permanent demise of cold fusion. Research in this field might be banned. After Mizuno’s accident at Hokkaido University, the University refused to let him conduct any more experiments.”

    LENR can produce radiation. It happens when the reactor is cold below a certain critical temperature. Rossi papered over this behavior by adding a heater to the reactor that mitigate radiation production.

    Rossi needs to explain why LENR produces radiation in some situations and does not produce radiation in other situations. The “Mössbauer Effect” is not sensitive to temperature. Cook must go back to the drawing board and start anew with a theory that addresses all the experimental facts.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      “Rossi’s reactor threatened to go out of control once, and one time when it turned on it produced an enormous burst of radioactivity, which was measured by Celani.”

      If he was talking about gammas, this is what one might expect – not primarily due to temperature, but due to lattice disintegration which would reduce the Mössbauer effect.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        If „one time when it turned on“ refers to a cold start, this explanation would obviously not be applicable.

        • Axil Axil

          It is absolutely applicable because this purported effect must describe the LENR reaction during any possible condition and in any possible phase be it at startup or shutdown.

          The law of gravity works on hot days and cold days at night and during the day. A LENR cause works all the time no matter what the condition.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            I meant my explanation, Axil, not yours;-) It might be applicable in the case of runaway events, though.

            • Axil Axil

              LENR can occur without a lattice in the plasma phase.

              http://newinflow.ru/pdf/Klimov_Poster.pdf

              • Zephir

                Yes, but the multiparticle collisions inside oriented stream of plasma are always involved there. My theory doesn’t actually require the periodically arranged atoms, but oriented atoms into an linear filaments.

                The similar effect is already utilized with mainstream physicists with generation of X-ray radiation with pulses of infrared laser (i.e. laser of much lower energy). Again, the key here is, these pulses are applied to supersonic streams of atoms expanding into a vacuum. After all, Klimov also got his findings during research of supersonic plasma streams for aeronautics.

            • Zephir

              The general explanation can be, at the high temperatures the collisions of atoms aren’t strictly low-dimensional/linear: the atoms vibrate so that portion of atom nuclei gets deflected from line of collisions.

              Which has detrimental effect on slowing down/thermalization of products of collisions (the neutrons), because such a neutrons aren’t absorbed well and they can escape from the lattice.

          • Zephir

            /* It is absolutely applicable because this purported effect must describe the LENR reaction during any possible condition */

            Here I’m explaining, that the cold fusion actually consist of multiple trick, each of which applies to differently wide scope of cold fusion systems. Only few of them are truly fundamental. The smooth running of cold fusion is actually a result of synergy of multiple effects, each of which contributes to successful energy yield. The hot fusion systems are conceptually very trivial and the mutual speed/energy of particle collisions is the only parameter, which matter here. But the cold fusion collisions are collective and much less dimensional.

            https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics_AWT/comments/2ip31z/ecat_report_released_not_a_conventional_source_of/cl86pp6

            Therefore schematic deterministic thinking of mainstream physics (which only looks for single cause or it neglects them all) cannot be applied to physics of multiparticle systems.

    • Gerard McEk

      I assume that Cook knows more details of Rossi’s experiments than we mortals do. So maybe this is also a revelation of additional details?

      • Axil Axil

        LENR without “new physics”?

        The goal of the Rossi theory is to explain this effect without resorting to new physics. Or could that be without reference to quantum mechanics?

        • Gerard McEk

          Axil, I like your multiple ‘new physics’ considerations about how LENR may work. On the other hand, if it can be explained by ‘common physics’, then that is even better. Then you do not need to wait for a whole generation of physicists to die, to get it accepted ;).

          • Zephir

            There is still a big question, if for example the dark matter is solely new effect, or the phenomena, which could be derived with application of general relativity to myriads tiny space-time curvatures, representing the quantum vacuum. Of course, we’ll need new formal tools for to analyze it, but the underlying principle remains the very same – just the scope is different. And I’m also convinced, that the quantum mechanics could be derived from classical wave mechanics of multiparticle systems.

            http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-physics-what-is-really-real-1.17585

            In dense aether model the quantum mechanics doesn’t differ from phenomena, which we would observe at the water surface during observation it with its surface ripples in similar way, like the waterstriders do – it’s just 3D like the observation inside the foam – whereas the water surface is just 2D. The boundary between classical and new physics is therefore more blurred, than one may think.

        • Zephir

          I believe, it could be explained with existing physics – but under more consequential thinking. The quantum physics of extensively multiparticle systems is still poorly developed – but not because it consists of fundamentally new physics – but simply because the resulting equations are too complex for being able solved analytically. I’m also discussing it here:

          https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics_AWT/comments/2ip31z/ecat_report_released_not_a_conventional_source_of/cl86pp6

    • US_Citizen71

      The one time blip in the early demo could be caused by a number of things; random cosmic radiation, a sample of something highly radioactive being used to jump start the reaction, a random fusing of deuterium and tritium in the fuel,…

      Without knowing exactly what was happening in the the other room explaining the anomaly with the theory isn’t exactly necessary. The higher output of radiation when he was pushing the reactor to a 200+ cop would fit the theory as the energy being transferred was higher than normal leading to the receiver elements being pumped higher as well causing a bigger release as they lost the excitement.

    • Zephir

      I already attempted to explain the observed high sensitivity of nuclear reactions to temperature here https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics_AWT/comments/2ip31z/ecat_report_released_not_a_conventional_source_of/cl8nnf8

      The explanation could be, the lattice effects (not just Mossabauer resonance) run at the thin surface layer of lithium alloy, covering the nickel surface, which is in liquid crystal state (actually fluid but organized with crystal surfaces beneath it). At the higher temperatures this alloy evaporates, at lower temperatures it does crystallize.

      • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

        Cook’s proposal seems interesting (I cannot judge if it is good, but it is not fringe).

        My naive perception is that physicist should take cares of others theory and do “cold fusion” of some ideas.

        My personal bet is that LENR seems to have “preference for low energy outcome”.

        My intuition, following edmund Storms idea, is that it is the opposite of the crash-test method of hot fusion. For me LENR is as if you slowly cool a QM system until it need a fusion energy to get back normal temperature. System is so indebted than it is never hot.

        The vision as explained by lomax (to criticize Ed) is that it assume a nuclear isomer of the hydroton that have lower than usual energy level.

        My intuition is something like a lake solidifying until a grenade explode because of huge mechanical constraint, making the lake liquid again.

        there is probably a heat pump somewhere, to pull energy from the nucleus collectivity… fueled by heat, or by “stimulation” (laser, ultrasound, pression change…)

        the machine is probably the crack of Ed Storms, with an hydroton machine inside.
        Maybe Discrete breather of Dubinko are the piston of the heat pump to evacuate/concentrate energy ?

        Maybe the Mosbauer effect of cook is the energy interaction that is transfering energy from the discrete breather to the nucleus, causing nuclear isomeric transitions… maybe it is highly correlated proton and electron patch as promoted by Widom-Larsen-Srivastava-Swain theory, exploiting evanescent wave of incredible value.

        This is naive vision, from an engineer, but seriously
        – LENR prefer low energy outcome
        – only way is inverted process like what propose Ed Storms, dissipating energy before fusion
        – only energy storage I see for MeV energy, is nuclear isomeric transitions
        – only way to change isomeric transition is Mosbauer&alike keV to Mev fluorescence
        – only way to concentrate keV Mosbauer energy, from chemistry context is Discrete Breather or LAH or alike
        – all of that requires insulated QM collection of atoms, which is only possible in a strange NAE, like Hydroton in his electron-shielded crack.

        My analysis is from requirements, from energy scale, from behaviors…
        If you find another way to make nuclear isomeric transitions, to add and divide eV into keV and MeV back into keV, to insulate thousands of atoms from chemistry noise…

        Making physicist work together on theory is like asking cats to hunt in pack.

  • LindbergofSwed

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mössbauer_effect
    It has been used, for instance, in precisely measuring small energy changes in nuclei, atoms, and crystals induced by electrical, magnetic, or gravitational fields…
    There you have it: induced by magnetic fields…

    • Mats002

      I think you got a typo in the link, did you mean this link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mössbauer_effect ?

      • Mats002

        Gosh! I got the same typo when pasting the link here, some ‘bad’ character in there obviously.

        Using google, searching
        wiki mössbauer effect
        will get you there.

  • Ophelia Rump

    That seems surprisingly standard. I predict a lot of choking and collar pulling over the lack of revolutionary theory. Antagonists will not be pleased.