@IobseRvable it is an endless argument between who says that QM is nonsense and those who don't.
I guess we already agreed that an experiment trumps any theory. The problem with FP experiment only partially was due to lack of explanation. Main problem is that it wasn't 100% reproduceable.
If you propose to wait for a scientific explanation for anything before it is widely used think what would happen to an oxidation reaction commonly know as fire.
Right, but also because it was proven by measurement that was not mastered, thus not trusted, by the people in charge of the explanations.
LENR was a nuclear phenomenon that could be trusted only by people very competent in chemistry measurements (calorimetry).
On the opposite the radiation measurement that those people in charge of explanations, were mastering, were clearly not supporting LENR reality.
Moreover it was breaking,not the theory, but the usual assumptions used with the theory (no nuclear reaction without radiations...), and if it cannot be said impossible by a conservation law, there were no known family of process know to physicist able to approach LENR way.
The result of that situation is that the physicists just claim calorimetry cannot be trusted, which is as stupid as when a chemists says that you cannot measure&separate various radiations clearly (F&P indeed did basic mistakes in their radiation results, like did Hansen and Lewis with calorimetry - they just admitted it).
If the people in charge of the explanation had been material physicists, and not nuclear physicists, it would have been just considered as a great subject of research, and not a risk for hot fusion budgets.
AlainCo measuring rafiation, all of it, is rarely done. One example is Milld, who first predicted hydrino spectrum and then started looking in the literature if it was ever measured before and couldn't find anything.
More recent example is how Kornilova and Vysotskiy discovered their 'thermal waves'.
They were looking why 30kw motor spinning cavitating pump wasn't generating expected heat.
Display MoreRight, but also because it was proven by measurement that was not mastered, thus not trusted, by the people in charge of the explanations.
LENR was a nuclear phenomenon that could be trusted only by people very competent in chemistry measurements (calorimetry).
On the opposite the radiation measurement that those people in charge of explanations, were mastering, were clearly not supporting LENR reality.
Moreover it was breaking,not the theory, but the usual assumptions used with the theory (no nuclear reaction without radiations...), and if it cannot be said impossible by a conservation law, there were no known family of process know to physicist able to approach LENR way.
The result of that situation is that the physicists just claim calorimetry cannot be trusted, which is as stupid as when a chemists says that you cannot measure&separate various radiations clearly (F&P indeed did basic mistakes in their radiation results, like did Hansen and Lewis with calorimetry - they just admitted it).
If the people in charge of the explanation had been material physicists, and not nuclear physicists, it would have been just considered as a great subject of research, and not a risk for hot fusion budgets.
This nuclear decay rate has now been shown experimentally to either increase or decrease by a factor up to 50 times.
https://physics.aps.org/synops…03/PhysRevLett.120.122501
Controlling the Rate of Nuclear Decay
The maximum effect is achieved when a dark mode of light emissions from the optical cavity is achieved. This mode is when light is maintained inside the cavity and does not radiate out. An important condition that must exist in both the LENR reaction and the Purcell effect is that this effect exists in nano-cavities in metal.
But what is more disconcerting is that the nuclear decay rate can either increase or decrease by a factor of 50.
There is something that exists in an optical cavity that can affect nuclear processes. What can it be and how does it do it.
Well it is our old LENR friend, the Surface Plasmon Polariton (SPP). The SPP can produce nuclear effects and does it best when it is in dark mode in its optical cavity. But how can the SPP stop a radioactive isotope from decaying?
The SPP is formed by two counter rotating currents of polariton spins. These currents are polarized in terms of handedness. Right-handed particles never decay, only left-handed particles can decay.
If you don't understand the above statement see:
https://www.nature.com/articles/524008b
Particle physics: Only left-handed particles decay
When a radioactive nucleus is converted by the SPP into a right handed particle, it cannot decay. But when the nucleus is converted by the SPP into a left handed particle, it decays so fast that the radioactive nucleus stabilizes immediately.
The chirality of particles explains how LENR can instantly stabilize radioactive waste. LENR is all about the handedness (chirality) of particles.
The problem with FP experiment only partially was due to lack of explanation.
There is ample prove for P&F like LENR. In fact
it is non-refutable, just published by Biberian who analyzed a
Fleischmann cathode with high resolution ms.
People that ignore LENR are the jokes in a pale history that soon will turn bright!
Mills paper was peer reviewed exposing a lot of nonsense and wrong calculations, IIRC.
So basically, non studied people trying to dig into topics like quantum mechanics are more likely to troll than those people, who studied.
@lobseRvable: You should try to dig deeper. I Agree that hydrinos are partially nonsense, but this is not the important part of Mills work. Mills calculus is superior of QM by at least two digits for orbits below -1eV.
I verified a large junk of Mills calculations, may be you should try it too.
Measuring radiation it not often done extensively (often there is safety measurement to protect experimenters), but I suspect it is because the results are as you say quite low... LENR signature is lack of energetic outcome, even more than low initiation energy.
It is a low violence love story.
This is why it is hard to swallow for a high energy physicists...
as if you explained romantic love to a psychopath.
@ Alain Smith: Can You please move post #24 to the proper place ? Axil is again answering questions, which no one had asked.
IIRC he alrfeady has his "Particle insights" trashbin for this kind of posts.... THX in advance.
@ lobseRvable
There is a procedure for making a complaint. The little triangular symbol in each text box initiates it. Click on it in the text box that bothers you.
ok. will remember that...
