by
Lino Daddi
Retired Earlier Professor
at Naval Academy Leghorn, Italy
Abstract
They are considered the roles of miniatoms and virtual neutrons in LENR reactions of hydrogen and deuterium absorbed in solids.
Has highlighted the role of virtual neutrons in restructuring of the nucleus, when the strong force provides the required energy for the virtual neutrons becomes real neutrons.
Some behaviors can be facilitated in hydrogen by alternation of the proton-electron system between the condition of miniatom and the condition of virtual neutron. This alternation could increase range and duration of the compressed system <p/e> to allow the proton to meet with a nucleus of the solid.
.
Read the whole article
Download the ZIP file
.
Dr Rossi:
Can you explain better the relationship between safety and commercialization of the E-Cat ?
Godspeed,
Duke
Wladimir,
I’m happy to see that you are willing to acknowledge your mistake on 36Ar, rather than trying to argue it away or moving on to other topic with addressing it at all.
I’m saddened to see that you appear to have learned nothing from this incident, as you go immediately back to repeating the same arguments you’ve made before, including ones that you’ve just admitted were wrong.
1) You take the argument that you insisted was proof that 36Ar had mu=0 even though you found no such measurements and so had to fabricate their existence, as you admitted. Having found out you were wrong about 36Ar, you now use the exact same arguments to insist that these are proof that the 2+ excited state of 12C must also be zero, even though you’ve just demonstrated that those arguments are wrong.
2) You’re still taking statements and quotes from PR writeups of experiments, written by science writers who do not know the details of the experiment, and pretending that these are conclusive statements about the experiment and/or quotes from the researchers.
3) You once again take charge radius measurements which agree with conventional calculations and use them to “prove” that those calculations must be wrong. This is simply stupid.
4) You grab new, random examples of why nuclear theory must be wrong, without providing anything resembling a coherent argument. For example, your “argument” against the proposed structure of 12Be is based entirely on the fact that you *still don’t understand what a magnetic moment is*.
I don’t have the time or inclination to explain all of the errors in your several new nonsensical arguments, given that you will dismiss any and all statements questioning your conclusions. If someone else is interested in knowing what’s wrong with any of these arguments, I’m happy to provide that information. But since Wladimir has shown himself to be both uninterested in the truth and fundamentally dishonest in his arguments, I see no point in trying to educate him further.
Dropbox links again:
stove-heater-diagrams.pdf
https://www.dropbox.com/s/panmh9xlk25aqil/stove-heater-diagrams.pdf
stove-heater-explanatory-text.pdf
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ukjdzz92dy7dotw/stove-heater-explanatory-text.pdf
Dear Dr. Rossi,
Here is an idea for a very simple e-cat stove-heater. It is a development of the stove-heater I suggested in my comment in August.
(http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=816&cpage=7#comment-781224)
stove-heater-diagrams.pdf
(Dropbox link https://www.dropbox.com/s/panmh9xlk25aqil/stove-heater-diagrams.pdf)
stove-heater-explanatory-text.pdf
(Dropbox link https://www.dropbox.com/s/ukjdzz92dy7dotw/stove-heater-explanatory-text.pdf)
In some respects this stove-heater is a micro version of the gas e-cat, but needing an external heat source to bring the reactors up to LENR self-sustainability. This stove-heater has the additional benefit of a form of negative feedback to restrain the COP.
I appreciate that developing such a device would not be realistic until after the larger commercial and domestic e-cats are in common usage and well accepted, so please consider this suggestion as a starting point and a glimpse of what could possibly be achieved in the future.
Long View Regards,
Martyn Aubrey
NOTE:
In the Structure of 4Be12 according to Quantum Ring Theory:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=174562786074047&set=pcb.174562806074045&type=1&theater
actually the neutrons and the deuterons have not the same orbits radii.
As the neutrons have no attraction with the central 2He4, and they are pulled by the centripetal force, their orbit radii is a little larger than that of the deuterons , because on the deuterons actuates a magnetic force of attraction with the central 2He4 (this is explained in the item 3.8- Equilibrium via strong spin-interaction and via magnetic force in the page 7 of my paper Stability of Light Nuclei, published in Rossi’s blog:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Stability%20of%20light%20nuclei.pdf
But the deuteron D-1 and D-2 have the same orbit radious, and therefore their induced magnetic fields cancel one each other, because they have the same g-factor.
And the neutrons N-2 and N-4 cancel one each other, while the neutrons N-1 and N-3 cancell one each other, because they have the same g-factor
Why the structure for 4Be12 proposed by Dr. Nortershäuser is IMPOSSIBLE :
Dear readers of the Rossi’s blog.
Look at the structure proposed by Dr. Wilfried Nortershäuser for the 4Be12, as he had interpreted from the results of his experiments:
Structure of 4Be12 according to Dr. Nortershäuser:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=174562752740717&set=pcb.174562806074045&type=1&theater
The neutrons 1 and 2 have radius orbit different of the neutrons 3 and 4.
Therefore the g-factor for the neutrons 1 and 2 is different of the g-factor for the neutrons 3 and 4.
And so the magnetic moment induced by the rotation of the neutrons 1 and 2 (due to the nuclear spin of the nucleus) is different of the magnetic moment induced by the rotation of the neutrons 3 and 4.
Therefore the magnetic moment induced by the neutrons 1 and 2 cannot cancel the magnetic moment induced by the neutrons 3 and 4.
CONCLUSION:
From the structure proposed by Dr. Nortershäuser the 4Be12 cannot have magnetic moment zero in the ground state.
However 4Be12 is an even-even nucleus, and it has magnetic moment zero in the ground state, as confirmed by experiments (it is not quoted in the nuclear tables, just because it has total nuclear spin zero and total magnetic moment zero).
Therefore, from the interpretation of his experiment, Dr. Nortershäuser is proposing a structure for 4Be12 impossible to produce the nuclear properties of that nucleus.
The structure capable to produce nuclear spin zero and magnetic moment zero for 4Be12 in the ground is that according to the nuclear model proposed in Quantum Ring Theory:
Structure of 4Be12 according to Quantum Ring Theory:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=174562786074047&set=pcb.174562806074045&type=1&theater
All the deuterons and neutrons in the structure have the same radius orbit, and so all they have the same g-factor.
Therefore from the structure according to the nuclear model by Quantum Ring Theory the 4Be12 has nuclear spin zero and magnetic moment zero, as confirmed by experiments.
From the structure proposed by Dr. Nortershäuser we realize how much the nuclear theorists are desperate with the new experiments measuring the nuclear properties of the exotic light nuclei.
regards
wlad
Enrico Billi:
Lemale, lemale!
( Better get rowing)
Warm Remarks,
A.R.
Martyn Aubrey:
No, I did not. Probably has been spammed by the robot. Please try again from another address.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Magnetic moment for excited 12C with spin 2 had already been measured by experiments
I sent an email to Prof. Andrew Stuchbery, one of the researchers of the group which measured the g-factor for some light nuclei:
———————————————-
From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
To: andrew.stuchbery@anu.edu.au
Subject: g-factor and magnetic moment for excited 12C
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 14:24:57 -0200
Dear Prof. Andrew Stuchbery
You had worked in the experiments which had measured the g-factor for several excited even-even nuclei, as 20Ne, 32S, 36Ar…
The magnetic moment for excited 12C of the state 2+ is not quoted in the nuclear tables.
In several papers where the g-factor had been measured for even-even excited nuclei in the state 2+ , the g-factor for 12C is missing
Do you know why there is no information on the magnetic moment and g-gactor for excited 12C ?
regards
Wladimir Guglinski
———————————————-
He sent me the following reply:
———————————————-
Subject: Re: g-factor and magnetic moment for excited 12C
From: andrew.stuchbery@anu.edu.au
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 07:33:26 +1100
To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
Dear Wladmir
The first 2+ state of 12C is very short lived. This makes measurements very difficult. In principle the g factor could be measured relative to 13C by the transient field method. Such measurements were attempted by Dybdal et al around 1980 I think. There was some dispute with Speidel et al about the transient field strength that was never resolved, as I recall. These are tough experiments.
Does this answer your question?
Regards
Andrew
————————————————
COMMENT:
The explanation makes no sense, because:
1- The half-life of excited 6C12 with spin 2 is 45fs.
2- The half-life of excited 12Mg24 with spin 4 is 38fs, and its magnetic moment had been measured in 1983 by the method TF, given the value +1,6.
So, dear Jr,
you are wrong.
Dybdal and Speidel tried to measure the magnetic momment of the excited 12C with spin 2.
And why the magnetic moment of the excited 12C with spin 2 is not quoted in the nuclear tables?
Well,
the reason is obvious:
Dybdal and Speidel expected to measure a value different from zero, because a magnetic moment zero with spin 2 is impossible, according to the currente nuclear models.
And as their experiments did not succeed to measuere a value different from zero, they decided do not report the value zero for the editors of nuclear tables.
It seems the mystery is over.
regards
wlad
Evidence of the magnetic moment zero for excited 12C
Dear Jr.
look at the paper:
————————————————
Viewpoint: The carbon challenge
Within this context, Epelbaum et al. are tackling an extremely complicated and tough theoretical problem. Already, the ground state of carbon-12 is a difficult many-body problem. The Hoyle state lies 7.6 million electronvolts higher in energy than the ground state, but it has the same total angular momentum (J=0) and parity (positive). The fact that the two states share the same quantum numbers, but very different spatial configurations, complicates the calculations. The average density of nuclear matter is much higher than that found in solids or atoms, and the interaction between nucleons is dictated by the strong force. This force, in particular for the important s-waves, is repulsive at short distances [less than half of a femtometer (fm)] but has an attractive component at intermediate and long ranges (up to 2–3fm). For these reasons, models that assume that nuclei are independent particles can’t fully explain what is observed experimentally, for example, the energy levels of the nuclei. Conversely, the consequences of correlations in nuclear many-particle systems are very difficult to measure experimentally and to interpret theoretically. From a theoretical standpoint, a proper understanding of such many-body forces and correlations is crucial in order to provide a predictive many-body theory. Furthermore, it is central to understand which components of the nuclear forces and correlations are responsible for a particular spectroscopic observable.
http://physics.aps.org/articles/v4/38
————————————————-
COMMENT:
So, it seems to be the proof that excited 12C with spin 2 has indeed magnetic moment zero, and this is the reason why it is not quoted in the nuclear tables
regards
wlad
And the mystery of excited 12C continues…
Dear Jr.
I spite of I made a wrong prediction concerning the excited 36Ar, however the mystery on the excited 12C continues
Look at the paper published in 2011 (!!!!!)
Ab Initio Calculation of the Hoyle State
http://physics.aps.org/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.192501.pdf
In the Abstract it is said:
“This excited state of the carbon-12 nucleus
was postulated by Hoyle as a necessary ingredient for the fusion of three alpha particles to produce carbon
at stellar temperatures. Although the Hoyle state was seen experimentally more than a half century ago
nuclear theorists have not yet uncovered the nature of this state from first principles“
And in the page 3:
“We note the 17 MeV reduction in the ground state binding energy and 12 MeV reduction for the Hoyle state while less than half as much binding correction for the
spin-2 state. This degree of freedom in the energy spectrum suggests that at least some fine-tuning of parameters is needed to set the Hoyle state energy near the 8Be-alpha threshold. It would be very interesting to understand which fundamental parameters in nature control this fine-tuning. At the most fundamental level there are only a few such parameters, one of the most interesting being the masses of the up and down quarks [23,24].”
And in the end of the paper:
“Much more work is needed and planned, including
calculations at smaller lattice spacings. But these lattice calculations provide a new opening towards understanding the physics of this unique state and may also prove useful for the study of other nuclear reactions relevant to the element synthesis in stars.”
I have read several papers about g-factor for even-even excited light nuclei.
In no one of them 12C with spin 2 is considered
By considering the importance of the excited state 2+ for 12C for the understanding the Hoyle and the nuclear reactions in the Sun, of course that it makes no sense to suppose that the magnetic moment of excited 12C with spin 2 had naver been measured.
I will continue to investigate more on the subject.
regards
wlad
Dear Dr. Rossi,
Did you get the email I sent last week (Thursday).
Kind regards,
Martyn Aubrey
End of the magic: Shell model for beryllium isotopes invalidated
Dance of the nucleons: Theoretically, the beryllium-12 nucleus can be seen as a con-glomeration of two helium-4 nuclei with four additional neutrons. Assuming a magic neutron number of N=8, the shell model predicts that, in the beryllium-12 nucleus, all four of these neutrons should be located between the helium-4 nuclei (left). However, the research findings contradict this hypothesis and indicate that two of the neutrons are located outside the helium-4 nuclei. This structure, which more closely resembles the combination of a helium-8 nucleus and a helium-4 nucleus, means that the beryllium nucleus is significantly larger and indicates that the shell-model prediction of N=8 being magic is incorrect for the beryllium-12 nucleus.
http://phys.org/news/2012-04-magic-shell-beryllium-isotopes-invalidated.html
COMMENT:
And here we go again, Mr. Jr…
Look at the prediction of the shell model:
the shell model predicts that, in the beryllium-12 nucleus, all four of these neutrons should be located between the helium-4 nuclei
And the question:
why the shell model predicts four neutrons between the hellium-4 nuclei?
Well,
it is because from the current nuclear models we have to expect a symmetric structure, because there is not any physical cause which could break the symmetry.
But the structure formed by the combination of helium-8 nucleus and a helium-4 nucleus is IMPOSSIBLE by considering the principles of the standard Nuclear Physics.
In order to justify such a structure imagined by Dr. Nortershäuser , we have to consider the phantasmagoric method proposed by Heisenberg, because the structure formed by hellium-8 and hellium-4 requires a physical cause, which we cannot find in the current nuclear models.
Then we have to consider, again, that phantasmagoric forces are actuating in the nucleus, obliguing them to take positions IMPOSSIBLE to be taking according to the current nuclear models.
Then now we have to wait Dr. Wilfried Nortershäuser to propose a crazy theory, so that to justify the impossible, as he did so that to explain the halo neutron of 11Be…
regards
wlad
End of the magic: Shell model for beryllium isotopes invalidated/b>
“The researchers were surprised to find that the nuclear charge radius increases in comparison to that of the halo nucleus of beryllium-11, although the neutrons are more tightly bound in beryllium-12. This clearly contradicts the shell model prediction, in terms of which the charge radius should have decreased
http://phys.org/news/2012-04-magic-shell-beryllium-isotopes-invalidated.html
The reason why 4Be12 has larger distribution of charge than 4B311 (in spite of in 4Be12 the nêutrons are tightly bound) can be explained by the nuclear model proposed in Quantum Ring Theory.
The charge radii of 4Be11, 4Be10, and 4Be12 are compared according to the nuclear model proposed in QRT.
The structures of 4Be11 and 4Be10 had already been published in the paper Stability of Light Nuclei, in Rossi’s blog:
Pages 69 and 72:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Stability%20of%20light%20nuclei.pdf
The figures ahead compare the radius of charge distribution of the those 3 beryllium isotopes:
4Be11 :
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=174283042768688&set=pcb.174283122768680&type=1&theater
4Be10 :
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=174283076102018&set=pcb.174283122768680&type=1&theater
4Be12 :
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=174283096102016&set=pcb.174283122768680&type=1&theater
Perhaps what Dr. Wilfried Nortershäuser is interpreting as the combination of a helium-8 nucleus and a helium-4 nucleus, is actually a central 2He4 surrounded by two deuterons bound each one of them to two nêutrons
End of the magic: Shell model for beryllium isotopes invalidated/b>
B. Joshi had posted in October 10 2013 a comment in my paper Stability of Light Nuclei, where the last comment had been posted in 1 July 2013.
So, because of the delay, I did not see his comment, which I play ahead:
—————————————————
Bhagirath Joshi
October 10th, 2013 at 6:00 AM
Dear WG:
This may be late to comment, but I had sent email to Mr. Wilfried in July this year. He never replied.
here is the excerpt.
Dear Professor Dr. Wilfried Nortershäuser:
I was wondering if you have Charge distribution study on Be-9. I saw the
http://phys.org/news/2012-04-magic-shell-beryllium-isotopes-invalidated.html and the picture there of.
Do you have data on stable isotopes of elements e.g Gold – 197.
The picture looks like it is a snapshot of Be-12 , ‘t – few nano seconds’ before forming B-12 by Beta – emission.
I will appreciate this greatly.
Bhagirath Joshi
————————————————-
Dear Andrea Rossi
please cancell the submission of my paper On the Mystery of the magnetic moment for excited 12C, 32Si , 36Ar, because there are in the paper wrong assumptions concerning the nucleus 36Ar.
regards
wlad
JR wrote in November 10th, 2013 at 8:42 AM
————————————————
Wow, It’s my day to make embarrassing mistakes today. Looking back, I see that “Erik” pointed out updated data tables which DID include 36Ar back on July 17th:
http://www-nds.iaea.org/nsdd/indc-nds-0594.pdf
At the time, Wladimir dismissed this, claiming that Eric was just misreading the Q=0.11 measurement from the 2005 table. When Erik clarified this point, Wladimir changed the topic and decided to spend some time being wrong about 8Be rather than being wrong about magnetic moments.
So clearly, both Erik and Wladimir deserve significant credit for finally and completely disproving QRT. Erik found the key measurement, and Wladimir demonstrated how critical it was to disproving QRT before finding it again.
————————————————-
COMMENT
You are right, JR.
in July 18th, 2013 at 3:20 AM Erik wrote:
————————————————–
No. You are either looking in the 2005 table or in the wrong row. In the 2011 version on
http://www-nds.iaea.org/nsdd/indc-nds-0594.pdf
page 24 you will find two rows for the 2+ state of 36Ar. The first row gives the value of µ=+1.0(4), the second Q=0.11(6). This violates your prediction regarding the magnetic moment and seems to disprove your theory as such
———————————————–
However, I did not see what Erik wrote, because in 17 July I had travelled to the beach, where I have no internet.
Actually I am tired to discuss Physics, and I trying to abandon the discussions, and I am changing the way of my life to dedicate it to painting (that’s why I am going to the beach).
So, concerning 36Ar what I had interpreted is wrong.
I supposed that 36Ar has null magnetic moment (because it was missing in the tables), and tried to understand it by considering my nuclear model.
However,
the Fig. 14.41 points out that the magnetic moments for several nuclei have wrong prediction by the current nuclear models.
So, something is very wrong with the current nuclear models.
I suppose that the missing of the flux n(o) in those models is one of the causes why they fail.
But concerning 36Ar I was wrong, and it means that I did not discover yet the true mechanism (if the flux n(o) indeed sometimes changes the spin of the nucleons without to change their magnetic moment).
Unfortunatelly we have not data of magnetic moments for 6C12, 14Si32, 30Zn60 , and 42Mo84.
I dont understand why they did not measure yet the g-factor and the magnetic moment for excited 6C12 with spin 2.
The task to discover what is wrong is very hard. The theorist are trying to discover it along 100 years.
regards
wlad
Dear Andrea,
in this website i saw people mention your hot-cat as possible reactor of a future USS Enterprise.
http://www.buildtheenterprise.org/nuclear-reactors
Best Regards, lavoLaLe lavoLaLe
Enrico Billi
Franco:
We are testing all the possible configurations and making comparative analysis.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear dr. Rossi,
during this long term validation period, are You testing the “Mouse-Cat” system or some other new configuration?
Best Regards
Wow, It’s my day to make embarrassing mistakes today. Looking back, I see that “Erik” pointed out updated data tables which DID include 36Ar back on July 17th:
http://www-nds.iaea.org/nsdd/indc-nds-0594.pdf
At the time, Wladimir dismissed this, claiming that Eric was just misreading the Q=0.11 measurement from the 2005 table. When Erik clarified this point, Wladimir changed the topic and decided to spend some time being wrong about 8Be rather than being wrong about magnetic moments.
So clearly, both Erik and Wladimir deserve significant credit for finally and completely disproving QRT. Erik found the key measurement, and Wladimir demonstrated how critical it was to disproving QRT before finding it again.
WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI PROVES QUANTUM RING THEORY AND IS WRONG
1- Quantum Ring Theory (QRT) predicts that that magnetic moment of 36Ar is zero.
2- Wladimir assures us that traditional theory cannot give a small value for the magnetic moment of 36Ar
3- The paper Wladimir quotes in his last entry gives g=0.52, IN VERY GOOD AGREEMENT WITH THE SHELL MODEL CALCULATION OF g=0.49. This corresponds to a value of the magnetic moment close to 1 nuclear magneton.
Therefore, the undeniable conclusion is that QRT is wrong, as it requires mu=0 and cannot possibly be compatible with traditional calculations.
As Wladimir said (quoting Einstein): “all the experiments made along years cannot prove that a theory is correct, but only one experiment is capable to prove that a theory is wrong.” Congratulations to Wladimir for searching so diligently for an experiment that would finally completely disprove QRT. Anyone who continues to promote QRT is clearly an ENEMY OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, as explained in detail by Wladimir.
p.s. To be honest, I’m surprised that he didn’t admit it was wrong when the Higgs was found, as he insisted that it would not be found and that the fact it wasn’t found instantly at the LHC showed that QRT was correct. But maybe this was only his prediction, not a requirement of QRT, so it only proved that Wladimir was wrong, not QRT. But now we now for sure on both front.
This should also end Wladimir’s conspiracy theory for the 36Ar measurement: the reason the value doesn’t appear in the 2005 table is that the measurement was performed in 2006 (it’s ref. [6] in the arXiv paper Wladimir pointed to). Maybe QRT allows for results to travel backwards in time, but now that we know it’ wrong, we shouldn’t be surprised that the result published in 2006 didn’t show up in a 2005 compilation.
First a couple of minor points. Figure 14.41 still doesn’t show ANY value for 36Ar, thought it has one near zero for 40Ar. You argue that -0.2 isn’t near zero, but the figure has bins showing values near -1, 0, 0.5, 1, 1.5, and 2. The value of -0.2 is closer to zero than any other value, and so it ends up in the zero bin. In fact, the figure shows a ratio of mu to the expected value (2Z/A), but 2Z/A is close to one for 40Ar (making the ratio 0.18 instead of 0.2). So you are still lying when you claim that this table shows a measurement for 36Ar, and your flimsy argument for lying – thinking that there must be an error because 40Ar isn’t near zero – is obvious nonsense.
Second, there’s no mystery to the fact that Stone doesn’t email you back. It doesn’t prove a conspiracy, it only prove that he’s figured out that you’re going to keep emailing him with questions and then calling him a liar when he answers, and he’s decided that he has better things to do than be abused by someone who makes nonsensical claims about data the don’t exist.
As to your question “How can I give you a definitive proof when the experimentalists are hiding the true?”. I’ll start by saying that you cannot prove it by making up non-existent measurements and claiming that some paper says that they exist.
Duke Nukem:
It is Saturday evening and I have some minute to answer better to your comment regarding the production and safety derivatives.
The opportunity to bring LENR to market has long been a dream. The more I work with my US Partners, the more I learn about the diverse needs and plans needed to achieve success. As I’ve said previously, my focus, in my position of chief scientist, continues to be on the testing and development work. I do not know when my work will be completed, but when we will have consolidated results, they will be shared with the scientific community by means of publications, whatever the score, positive or negative as it might be.
It is vital all testing be done throughly and in consideration of the requirements of the market. This process continues and we utilize the results to inform our ability to bring the different features of our technology to the market. There is a significant number of factors to consider in this process, so we remain focused on the task. Such task encompasses also the extremely important issues concerning safety: safety is an essential requirement and any product can be put in market only after the safety certification has been reached.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
And the mystery of magnetic moment for excited 36Ar grows
Dear Jr.
The g-factor for excited 36Ar with spin i=2 had been measured by groups – those of Speidel and Koller – and they found g= 0,52.
See Table II in the paper:
Isoscalar g Factors of Even-Even and Odd-Odd N=Z Nuclei
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.0458.pdf
For those ones who do not know what is the g-factor:
————————————————–
“A g-factor (also called g value or dimensionless magnetic moment) is a dimensionless quantity which characterizes the magnetic moment and gyromagnetic ratio of a particle or nucleus. It is essentially a proportionality constant that relates the observed magnetic moment μ of a particle to the appropriate angular momentum quantum number and the appropriate fundamental quantum unit of magnetism, usually the Bohr magneton or nuclear magneton.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-factor_(physics)
————————————————-
Conclusion:
1- as the g-factor for excited 36Ar with spin 2 had been measured
2- then of course that the magnetic moment for excited 36Ar with spin 2 had been measured too
3- but the nuclear tables do not quote the value of the magnetic moment for the excited 36Ar with spin 2
4- Therefore we conclude that the experiments had measuered a value zero for the magnetic moment for excited 36Ar with spin 2
Interestingly, in 5-Nov-2013 I sent an email to Dr. N. J. Stone, editor of the nuclear table published by Clarendon Laboratory, asking him if he knows the reason why excited 12C, 32Si, 36Ar are not quoted in his nuclear table:
—————————————————
From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
To: n.stone1@physics.ox.ac.uk
Subject: magnetic moment of excited 6C12, 14Si28, 18Ar36
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 00:19:51 -0200
Dear Dr. Stone,
all the magnetic moments of excited light nuclei with nuclear spin i=2 are quoted in your nuclear table, except the nuclei 6C12, 14Si28, and 18Ar36.
Do you know why ?
regards
Wladimir Guglinski
Ahead are all the magnetic moments according to the nuclear table:
————————————————-
NOTE: in my email I put all the values already published here by me in a previous comment (November 4th, 2013 at 9:08 PM ).
Dr. Stone did not send me any reply, in spite of some weeks before 5-Nov-2013 he had sent me those several replies concerning the quadrupole moment for 4Be7.
Interestingly Dr. Stone had worked in the measurements of the g-factor for 58Cu:
See bellow the Table II, in the paper quoted above:
” The result for the T = 0 ground state of 58Cu was obtained in 2008 by Stone et al. [10] “
[10] N. J. Stone, U. K¨oster, J. Rikovska Stone, D. V. Fedorov, V. N. Fedoseyev, K. T. Flanagan, M. Hass, S. Lakshmi. Phys Rev C, 77:067302, 2008.
Therefore Dr. Stone of course knows why the magnetic moment for 36Ar is not quoted in his nuclear table.
But intriguingly he did NOT send me any reply concerning the magnetic moments for excited 12C, 32Si, 36Ar.
Dear Jr,
dont you find it very strange ?
You are asking me to give you a definitive proof that the magnetic moment for excited 36Ar with spin 2 had been measured, and the experiments found a value zero.
However it seems that those experimentalists who made the experiments are trying to hide the value measured in the experiments.
How can I give you a definitive proof, if the experimentalists are trying to hide the true?
regards
wlad
JR wrote in November 9th, 2013 at 10:48 AM
———————————————–
The 40Ar value of mu=-0.2 is close to zero, so it ends up color coded in the mu=0 bin.
———————————————-
COMMENT:
No, the value µ=-0.2 is NOT close to zero
Its measurement had been made by the method TF.
Look for instance the magnetic moment for 28Ni58, by the same method TF:
µ = +0,076
The magnetic moment for 40Ar would be close to zero if it had for instance µ = +0,001 (200 times closer to zero than 0,2)
regards
wlad
Wladimir said:
” I had noted that when I had analysed the Fig. 14.41.
I suspect that the figure is wrong, because it makes no sense, because as 40Ar has μ= -0,2 , it cannot be quoted by a black square in the Fig. 14.41.”
The magnetic moment is not an integer variable, it can have any value. So the color coding quite obviously indicates *ranges* of values, not values exactly equal to 0, 1, 2. The 40Ar value of mu=-0.2 is close to zero, so it ends up color coded in the mu=0 bin.
Up till now, I’ve been assuming that you were honestly confused when you kept misunderstanding figures, tables, or answers to questions you were given, but obviously I was being too generous. You now admit that you *knew* what the table meant, and since the result confused you, you made a conscious decision to lie to us about what it said and claim that it said something else.
When confused by a sentence, table, or figure, it is completely unacceptable to simply make up your own interpretation and then claim that’s what the original source said to begin with. It was bad enough when you were simply assuming the measurements must exist when you couldn’t find any evidence, but to deliberately and knowingly lie about the results presented in a table or paper it too much.
For what it’s worth, I *did* provide an answer to your question about the 11Be decay. You keep going back to the same issues that you raise and people have already explained. I’ve been assuming that this was sloppiness or poor memory on your part. But now it’s pretty clear that you are at best claiming that I didn’t reply because you didn’t accept the answer (which is already extremely dishonest) or perhaps simply lying and hoping that people haven’t been paying enough attention to see this obvious lie.
Until you start approaching this with at least minimal levels on honesty and integrity, I don’t see the need to reply to your repeated demands for answers to questions which I and others have already given you. I will, however, continue to point out to the readers of this blog when you are provide incorrect or dishonest information.
Dear JR
you did not give yet a satisfactory explanation for the following point:
1- In the halo neutron 11Be, the neutron is 7fm far away of the central cluster.
As I already had pointed, that neutron could not be orbiting in that distance, because it would be expelled by the centripetal force.
However, let us forget it, and suppose that the neutron is orbiting the central cluster in that distance.
2- In 97% of the decays the 11Be becomes a stable 11B, and therefore the neutron in 11Be decays in a proton.
3- When the decay occurs, the proton in a distance of 7fm from the cluster in 11B is submitted to a strong Coulomb force, and the centripetal force too (in the case of the neutron, it was not submitted to the Coulomb force).
4- Therefore the proton cannot go back to the cluster of 11B, because there is not strong nuclear force on it in the distance of 7fm, while there are two forces trying to expell it: the Coulomb and the centripetal force.
The proton would have to be expelled, and the stable could not be formed.
5- If the halo neutron does not decay in a proton (other neutron of the cluster decays), then the 11B would have to exhibit a halo neutron. But it has not halo neutron.
6- The hypothesis in item 5 actually makes no sense, because as the halo neutron is weakly bound to the cluster, it must decay (and not any neutron in cluster, strongly bound to the cluster).
You did not explain this question yet.
regards
wlad
Steven N. Karels wrote in November 7th, 2013 at 4:53 AM
1) ———————————–
Wladimir and JR,
So my question to Wladimir — You are proposing a different theory than “classical nuclear theory”. Given all the results, does your theory correctly predict all of the experimental outcomes?
————————————-
COMMENT
Dear Steven
In my paper Stability of Light Nuclei published in Rossi’s blog it is calculated the magnetic moments of several light nuclei.
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Stability%20of%20light%20nuclei.pdf
However my theory is not complete.
I have proposed the structure of the new nuclear model, the laws which rule its working, but it is yet missing to put it in equations. This requires to make experiments, so that to find some parameters. This is a work to be donne by experimentalists.
2) ————————————
As I read the exchange, it appears that “current nuclear theory” adequately explains all or nearly all measured events.
—————————————
COMMENT
As I said to Mr. JR, I had submitted yesterday a paper to Rossi’s blog.
In the item 7.3 it is written the following:
======================================
7.3. Is there need a new theory on the nucleus?
The fine structures (qualitative experimental finding) gave a final verdict against the Bohr corpuscular model of the atom. And taking such lesson given by the History of Science, we cannot avoid the question: is there some qualitative experimental finding giving us a final verdict against the current nuclear models?
Here we have analysed the null magnetic moments of excited nuclei with nuclear spin 2, and we have to consider it from what we have learnt from the History of the Physics: we are facing a situation similar to that faced by scientists in other ages, when qualitative experiments were disproving the prevailing theories of their time, and showed to those scientists that they were in front of the need of looking for a new paradigm.
The green points in the Fig. 14.41 represent the nuclei where the equations established from the current nuclear models for the calculation of the magnetic moment get quantitative results agree to the experimental results. Those green points can be compared with the quantitative spectacular successes of the Bohr corpuscular model. And as the History of Science had taught us, in spite of his spectacular quantitative successes, his theory was wrong: it was disproved by qualitative experiments, the existence of fine structures, incompatible with a corpuscular model of atom.
The black points in the Fig. 14.41 represent the excited nuclei with spin i=2 and magnetic moment zero. The existence of those nuclei is incompatible with the principles of the current nuclear models. Using the word “impossible”, we can say that it is impossible to have spin i=2 and magnetic moment zero by considering the current nuclear models. What the black points in the Fig. 14.41 represent for the current nuclear models must be compared with the fine structures accounted for the corpuscular Bohr’s model. The black points in the Fig. 14.41 give the final verdict against the nuclear models: a new paradigm is required, there is need a new nuclear model.
==========================================
regards
wlad
JR wrote in November 6th, 2013 at 5:00 PM
——————————————–
Wladimir,
There’s one slight problem with your argument: there is no measurement of the magnetic moment of 36Ar. It’s not in the data tables, and it’s not in the paper you pointed to. I see the dark square you mention, but it is for the 2+ state in 40Ar (it’s ABOVE the N=20 line, making it N=22). 40Ar does appear in the data tables with a value of mu=0.2+/-0.2 and Q(b)=0.01+/-0.04. 36Ar does not.
So first of all, your argument is still based entirely on non-existent data.
——————————————
COMMENT
Dear JR
I had noted that when I had analysed the Fig. 14.41.
I suspect that the figure is wrong, because it makes no sense, because as 40Ar has μ= -0,2 , it cannot be quoted by a black square in the Fig. 14.41.
There is need another 18Ar so that to fit to the black square , with μ= 0, and the unique 18Ar which magnetic moment is missing in the nuclear table is 18Ar36 .
I submietted yesterday to Rossi’s JNP the paper On the Mystery of the magnetic moment for excited 12C, 32Si , 36Ar
regards
wlad
Daniel De Caluwe, I enjoyed reading your excellent post.
I don’t know if a Pebble Bed Reactor has a future, but you may want to read
this Article in Wired Magazine.
Google:
wired magazine pebble bed reactor
Click on:
Wired 12.09 Let a Thousand Reactors Bloom
Robert Curto
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
USA
@Robert Curto,
Nuclear fission of uranium-233, starting from thorium-232 (that caches a neutron and becomes uranium-233 via two beta-decays), certainly would be much better than the uranium-235(enriched)/238 (remains the main isotope) reactors we have now, and this for several reasons. The most important reason is that waste treatment is less complex, because, compared with U-235/U-238, only a very tiny fraction of actinides (like plutonium) are formed, and therefore the high radioactive waste (HR-waste) only must be safely stored for only a few hundred years, and not for a few hundred-thousands of years, which is the case for U-235/U-238 reactors. (The reason for this is the presence of U-238, via which Pu-239 is formed, by neutron capture and two beta decay’s).
So yes, reactors based on thorium-232 would be a big improvement. Unfortunately, this path was not choosen in the beginning of the nuclear age, and this for military reasons. (The development of nuclear weapons).
So, as a civil engineer, I immediately say yes, but as a theosofist, I still have a problem with all fission reactors:
The Invisible peril (by a master, through Benjamin Creme) :
See also here :
And, of course, this is not yet proven by science, and therefore it still cannot be an argument in a scientific discussion, but I personaly consider the source of this information very reliable. So, as a theosofist, I have doubts about any form of nuclear fission.
So I still prefer LENR, and I hope it will be made available soon.
Kind Regards,
Daniel.
Herb Gills:
We are working on all these items.
I can’t give specific answers now.
Warm Regards,
A.
Dr. Rossi:
Do you think is would be possible to construct an LENR device such as an Ecat with an optically transparent reactor housing (such as a glass, or transparent ceramic material)? If so; this might facilitate use of the device for the direct production of electromagnetic radiation (for example, by use of a phosphor inside the reactor). If “light” could be produced directly it might be useful in a number of ways: For example:
1) Electricity production via photovoltaic conversion, possibly at low temperatures;
2) To conduct photochemical reactions;
3) Illumination; and
4) To pump a laser.
It would be interesting to hear your thinking on the potential for such applications.
Kind Regards; HRG.
Robert Curto:
Thank you for the information,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr. Rossi and Readers, you may be interested in Aim High.
Google:
AIM HIGH NUCLEAR POWER
Click on:
aim high-rethinkingnuclearpower-Google S
Robert Curto
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
USA
Duke Nukem:
1- I do not decide the commercial strategy, which anyway is not changed substantially, as far as I know.
2- The Hot Cats are not yet for sale
3- The domestic E-Cats did not obtain the safety certification, which is necessary to put them for sale.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi:
You wrote many times that your job now is to complete a long and rigorous plan of validation and R&D of the E-Cat. Does this plan affect your commercial strategy? Are still the 1 MWE-Cats for sale? And the Hot Cats ? What about the domestic E-Cats?
Regards,
Duke
Dr Peter Forsberg:
Yes, magnetism could be a player in the game of the Universe motion. It is true it is puny, but it the quantity could make up for the lack of quality.
Very interesting, anyway.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
For information:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029420.700-forgotten-force-the-other-great-cosmic-attractor.html
Regards
Peter
Wladimir and JR,
An interestng dialog and exchange. And mostly very polite — my compliments to both of you.
Even if “current nuclear theory” could be proven to be “wrong”, this does not mean that Wladimir’s theory is correct.
As I read the exchange, it appears that “current nuclear theory” adequately explains all or nearly all measured events. If Wladimir is correct that one or a few experiments may have produced results which are not consistent with “current nuclear theory”, then I would ask if the experiments were repeatable, accurate and had a high degree of confidence in their results. If such an experiment occured, I suspect scientists would “jump on it like a dog to a bone”.
So my question to Wladimir — You are proposing a different theory than “classical nuclear theory”. Given all the results, does your theory correctly predict all of the experimental outcomes?
Dear dr. Rossi,
You wrote: I respect all the points of view, but I do not think any alchemist issue can be taken seriously in consideration in a scientific context.
My answer: I agree, but although I was inspired by and interested in theosofy, I’m not at all an adherent of alchemy, because the symbolic language they use always appeared too mysterious and too materialistic for me. And on this forum, I just made two references to it, and in the first reference, I just joked a little bit about it, because of the role that (the missing) Mercury also played in alchemy, but this was just playing with words.
And in the second reference, I just mentioned that only something like ‘dark matter’ (and not Mercury) could play the mysterious role of ‘the primary matter’ of the alchemists, but this was just a side-remark, and due to my first reference to it.
Nevertheless, I agree and I do understand that in the world of LENR, where scientists have to fight for scientific recognition, you can miss any reference to alchemy. So, if my messages gave the impression, I apoligize for it.
Kind Regards,
Daniel.
Wladimir,
There’s one slight problem with your argument: there is no measurement of the magnetic moment of 36Ar. It’s not in the data tables, and it’s not in the paper you pointed to. I see the dark square you mention, but it is for the 2+ state in 40Ar (it’s ABOVE the N=20 line, making it N=22). 40Ar does appear in the data tables with a value of mu=0.2+/-0.2 and Q(b)=0.01+/-0.04. 36Ar does not.
So first of all, your argument is still based entirely on non-existent data.
It is, however, a nice demonstration of the point I’ve made a couple times now. When people make these measurements, they publish the result whether their result is large, small, or consistent with zero. 40Ar quotes measurements for both magnetic moment and quadrupole moment, even though both are consistent with zero. Lots of other entries like this exist, or in some cases, they simply quote an upper limit. So there is no reason to think that lack of a measurement means that a measurement exists and found zero. That’s just not how it works.
I completely agree with the idea that a single experiment can disprove a theory. But so far, I’m still waiting for you to point to a single experiment which (a) exists and (b) contradicts conventional nuclear theory. That’s the main weakness in your arguments so far, lack of any actual evidence.
For what it’s worth, I spend much of my time working on things that we’ve been trying to understand for many many years, and am generally extremely excited when I come across something that defies expectation or conventional wisdom. No scientist in their right mind would suppress results because they disagree with conventional calculations; there wouldn’t be much point in making measurements if we weren’t trying to critically test or improve on our picture of the universe.
Andrea Rossi wrote in November 6th, 2013 at 9:46 AM
—————————–
Wladimir Guglinski:
Wa are waiting for your paper.
Warm Regards,
JoNP
—————————–
Dear Andrea,
thank you.
I am writing the paper, and as soon as it is ready I will submit it.
regards
wlad
JR wrote in November 6th, 2013 at 10:01 AM
1) ———————————-
Wladimir,
Even if I accept your assertion that conventional models can’t give mu=0 for 36Ar (it may well be true, I just don’t know for certain), that fact is only relevant if its magnetic moment is measured to be zero.
—————————————
COMMENT
Dear JR, we have the following situation:
1- the nuclear tables do not quote the magnetic moment for 18Ar36.
2- experimentalist tried to measure it along more than 40years
3- the paper posted by me here shows that experimentally it had been measured to be zero (Fig. 14.41).
5- as you yourself said (concerning the measurement of the quadrupole moment Q for 4Be7), if the experiments had detected a value near to zero it would be quoted in the nuclear tables.
Therefore, as any value near to zero is not quoted, we conclude that it is indeed zero.
2) ————————————-
The fact that you don’t know why the measurements have been done doesn’t prove that they have been done and give zero (and I’d say it doesn’t prove much of anything, since you don’t seem to understand even basic understanding of how these measurements are performed). In any case, you can’t test models by saying that they disagree with what you want the answer to be. You can make up all the models you want, but you can’t support them with fictitious data.
——————————————–
COMMENT
Even if magnetic moment for 18Ar36 should be only near to zero, however the theoretical value calculated by any current nuclear model cannot be near to zero, as you have seen in the Fig. 14.41
3) ————————————-
You can claim that I’m unwilling to disbelieve anything which contradicts conventional models all you want, but that doesn’t make it true. I simply refuse to take your word that there are huge failings in the models if you can’t provide a reasonable argument.
——————————————
COMMENT
Dear JR,
I understand that it is very hard for you to face the fact that current nuclear models are wrong, because along all your life you believed they are correct, and now it is very hard to accept the proofs exhibited by me.
So, I dont expect you accept it, because I am sure you will die (I hope many years in the future) believing that current nuclear models are correct.
No matter how many proofs I can get, you will never accept them.
Lord Kelvin never accepted quantum mechanics.
He faced the birth and development of quantum mechanics,
But he refused himself to accept that new theory replacing the Classic Physics he loved.
He died believing in the Classic Physics of the 19th Century.
Physicists like you and Dr. Nortershauser will die believing in the current theories.
But I hope a new generation of physicists will recognize that current nuclear models are all they wrong, because some physical causes are missing in them.
And I hope they will realize that there is need a new nuclear model, working with some principles missing in the current models
4) ——————————–
About 2/3 of your examples are cases where I know enough of the subject for it to be obvious that you are factually incorrect.
———————————–
COMMENT
As said Einstein: all the experiments made along years cannot prove that a theory is correct, but only one experiment is capable to prove that a theory is wrong.
It is just the case of magnetic moments for 12C, 32Si, and 36Ar.
5) ———————————-
In most of the other cases (such as this one), you don’t actually give any argument, you just assume that non-existent measurements give the value you want and therefore support your ideas.
—————————————
COMMENT
At least my ideas are agree to the experimental data, as we realize by looking at the Fig. 14.41 of the paper quoted here, for the 18Ar36.
So, do you want I have to accept the current nuclear models, which are disproved by the experimental data ?
regards
wlad
Wladimir,
Even if I accept your assertion that conventional models can’t give mu=0 for 36Ar (it may well be true, I just don’t know for certain), that fact is only relevant if its magnetic moment is measured to be zero. The fact that you don’t know why the measurements have been done doesn’t prove that they have been done and give zero (and I’d say it doesn’t prove much of anything, since you don’t seem to understand even basic understanding of how these measurements are performed). In any case, you can’t test models by saying that they disagree with what you want the answer to be. You can make up all the models you want, but you can’t support them with fictitious data.
You can claim that I’m unwilling to disbelieve anything which contradicts conventional models all you want, but that doesn’t make it true. I simply refuse to take your word that there are huge failings in the models if you can’t provide a reasonable argument. About 2/3 of your examples are cases where I know enough of the subject for it to be obvious that you are factually incorrect. In most of the other cases (such as this one), you don’t actually give any argument, you just assume that non-existent measurements give the value you want and therefore support your ideas.
Daniel De Caluwè:
I respect all the points of view, but I do not think any alchemist issue can be taken seriously in consideration in a scientific context.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Koem Vandewalle:
I think the energies to find out the dark energy ( assuming it exists) are too high for a practical application of it even in a far future.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Wladimir Guglinski:
Wa are waiting for your paper.
Warm Regards,
JoNP
Nixter:
The complete information will be published at the end of this validation- R&D period. It will contain all the positive and the negative considerations.
Warm Regards,
A.R.