EINSTEIN AND THE ALCHEMIST: LENR’s LONG BEFORE COLD FUSION

EINSTEIN AND THE ALCHEMIST: LENR’s LONG BEFORE COLD FUSION ...

Every now and then I get a really intriguing article about science and physics that I just have to pass along. In this case, A. I. passed along a very interesting article from 2013 about a little known exchange between a relatively unknown scientist,Ernst Sternglass, and Albert Einstein, that began in the late 1940s and carried on through the 1950s.

The subject?

Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, or LENRs, one of the more popular models advanced to explain "cold fusion." But in this case, there's more implications locked up in those details:

Einstein’s Lost Hypothesis

Now what has me intrigued here is the similarity of the experiment that first raised the possibility of low energy neutrons creating nuclear reactions, to what subsequently would fuel the cold fusion debate; Ernst Sternglass, a comparative unknown at the time, had performed experiments in the photo-electric effect, for which Einstein had won his Nobel Prize (not, as many people assume, for his relativity theories). Sternglass's strange results won him a meeting with the world's most famous physicist:

Sternglass had contacted Einstein because his lab in Washington was investigating how electrons are ejected from a metal when hit by a beam of electrons. The Navy wanted to understand this process better so they could develop night vision cameras, photography, and video that would be sensitive to the infrared light given off by body heat.

The reason why the science was overlooked is plain enough: It was at least a generation ahead of its time.

At first blush, Sternglass’ findings might seem like just a military curiosity, hardly worthy of reaching out to the architect of space-time itself. But Einstein had won his Nobel Prize for a theory explaining a phenomenon related to the Navy research: the ejection of electrons from a metal illuminated by a beam of ultraviolet light, a process called the photoelectric effect. Sternglass had begun to suspect that the theory that explained his process—called secondary electron emission—was simply wrong.

According to the article, what was wrong, in this instance, concerned neutrons:

Sternglass’ neutron experiment consisted of an evacuated glass tube less than a foot long filled with hydrogen gas. He fired an electron gun, not unlike the type found in old tube TV sets, through the gas and at thin foils of silver and indium at the end of the tube. There was no known way that an electron beam of the energies he was studying (about 35,000 electron Volts) could have induced any radioactivity in the foils. Nevertheless, time and again, that is what he observed. When he ran a control experiment with the beam passing through regular air, the foils did not become radioactive.

The radioactive signature suggested that the two stable isotopes that make up silver (silver-107 with 60 neutrons and silver-109 with 62 neutrons) were undergoing transmutation. Adding a neutron to each would produce silver-108 and silver-110 isotopes, which are unstable. When silver-108 decays, it gives off an electron (or beta particle) in, on average, 2.3 minutes. The leftover atom becomes the stable isotope cadmium-108. Silver-110 is more short-lived, beta decaying into cadmium-110 in just 24 seconds. “I should expect to observe a decay lasting of the order of 3-4 minutes,” Sternglass wrote in his lab notebook. He’d seen just that. His silver foil was acting precisely as if it’d been bombarded by low-energy neutrons.

But this flew in the face of conventional models of particle and nuclear physics. Electron beams may glance off silver atoms in a metal foil. They may, as Sternglass himself had studied, knock other electrons out of a silver atom. However, the electrons in Sternglass’ tube, propelled by just 35,000 Volts, were moving far too slowly to yield any nuclear reactions. Einstein pointed out to Sternglass in a letter dated just four days later, “In order to form a neutron, an electron is needed that has passed through 780,000 Volts.”

In other words, Sternglass had discovered a Low Energy Nuclear Reaction using slow neutrons, and these were causing the unusual effects, not to mention some odd low energy transmutations, and this long before Pons and Fleischmann announced their cold fusion findings:

But, in an unexpected convergence, a completely independent line of research begun 25 years ago has resurrected interest in Sternglass’ low-energy neutrons. In 1989, two chemists at the University of Utah caused a worldwide media storm when they announced at a press conference that they’d invented a method of sparking nuclear fusion in a simple, tabletop apparatus. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann had found that running electric current through a specially prepared palladium electrode immersed in heavy water produced copious amounts of heat, more than what would be expected from a chemical reaction. “Cold fusion,” the headlines blared.

But physicists then responded much as they do today: Cold fusion is simply a non-starter. There was none of the radioactivity, gamma rays, or high-energy neutrons that are expected to accompany a fusion reaction. What, then, could explain the data? As cold fusion became a pariah field, a few made the connection to low-energy neutrons. In May of 1989, just one month after Pons and Fleischmann published their data, someone named Larry A. Hull wrote a letter to the editor of Chemical & Engineering News speculating that they may have been observing not fusion but transmutation, brought about by the same low-energy neutrons that Sternglass had claimed to observe.

And this brings me at last to the fascinating bit:

This interpretation lay on the periphery of the cold fusion research community (which was itself on the periphery of the broader scientific community) for more than a decade. It was only in 2006, with the publication of a landmark paper in the European Journal of Physics C, that neutron-induced transmutations, as something distinct from cold fusion, began to emerge as a viable theory. The paper predicts that electrons on a metal surface coated with hydrogen, deuterium, or tritium atoms can behave collectively (as Einstein had predicted) when driven by an oscillating electromagnetic field at a particular frequency. This collective behavior can give them enough energy to combine with the hydrogen, deuterium, or tritium to make neutrons.

The paper goes on to say that the resulting neutrons travel very slowly—slow enough, in fact, to get gobbled up by a nearby atom before they can even leave the microscopic vicinity of their birthplace. The atom then becomes unstable and might burp out radioactive decay byproducts like a gamma ray or energetic electron. A separate paper by the same authors calculates that microscopic surfaces of electrodes, like those that tend to produce low-energy neutrons, are efficient absorbers of radioactive gamma rays. So radioactive decay can be transformed into a bath of innocuous heat. And of course heat energy can readily be converted into electricity.

The above picture does not involve fusion, which would require blazing energies on the scale of the so-called “strong force” which holds together neutrons and protons. Instead, it requires lower energies on the scale of the nuclear weak force, which mediates the capture of an electron by a proton.

In other words, the "cold fusion" phenomenon might have been completely misunderstood all along, because it was not fusion of any sort that was being observed, but rather, interactions involving not the strong force but the weak nuclear force, which at one level looked like or could mimic fusion reactions, but which really were interactions between protons and electrons to produce slow neutrons. One was looking at particle interactions and creation, rather than at atomic interactions; one was looking at transmutations at very low energies.

With that, we arrive an at intriguing implication in today's high octane speculation, for one of the main complaints against alchemy was that it's claims involving transmutations could not possibly be true because its experiments operated at energies far too low. But might the growing pile of evidence for reactions of this type (coupled with observations of biological systems able to transmute - another topic for another day I'm afraid) perhaps be a basis for explaining those experiments? Might they, by accident, have created some of these effects, but, lacking the science of modern times, been unable to explain why they sometimes did, and some times did not, obtain the results which they sought?

It's a fascinating hypothesis, one which would require a careful examination of various alchemical experiments and their apparatus to see if they might indeed have accidentally configured something similar.

And while we're at it, I might as well take a flying leap off the end of the twig of speculation, and recall a few more oddities of history that have no adequate explanation. Alchemy is, of course, from "Al Khem," the ancient name for Egypt, a place where there is indication that their gold jewelry may have been electroplated, and where there's a massive structure of granite and limestone which can produce photons and phonons under stress, which structure, if one follows engineer Christopher Dunn's Giza Power Plant hypothesis, was filled with hydrogen gas, and has a structure - the so-called coffer - which in his opinion might have been the optical cavity for a maser...

Just a thought.

See you on the flip side...

 

14 thoughts on “ EINSTEIN AND THE ALCHEMIST: LENR’s LONG BEFORE COLD FUSION ...”

  1. From cited article:
    “In a letter dated Aug. 30, 1951, Einstein wrote two sentences… ‘Perhaps reactions occur in which multiple electrons simultaneously transfer energy to one proton,’ Einstein wrote (his emphasis). ‘According to quantum theory, this is somewhat conceivable, although not probable.’ What Einstein had suggested to Sternglass involved ensembles of electrons behaving collectively as one entity with shared attributes.”

    These sentences seem to be the heart of the process. The quandary is how multiple, slow-moving (low-energy) electrons can ‘transfer’ energy equivalent to a single, fast-moving (high-energy) electron to cause the proton to absorb one electron and become a neutron. (In addition, the capture has to be low-momentum enough that the resultant neutron can be captured into another nucleus.)

    If this is possible, it will be like (locally) reducing entropy. Distributed energy (high entropy) becomes concentrated energy (low entropy). In our universe, that means it must be paid-back with higher-entropy somewhere else. Perhaps, that might be a way of backing-into the physics. Look for something more ‘disordered’ nearby…

    1. Hm. Had an instructor in another life who dealt with two attackers by shifting center of balance of all three parties. Instead of two on the one in the middle, it became the one in the middle combined with the one of the left against the one on the right. It felt weird to be either of the attackers. Like one second working with someone to give another person a bad day and suddenly working against each other trying to find that almost victim. And then having the weight of all three come down on each of us. Wonder if the electrons had the same instructor.

    1. And the river ran right up to the base at that time, too, right? And if memory serves, they had all sorts of channels built under and around and in the foundation to connect the structure to the grounding source of the planet maximally, right? Maybe they time travelled and copied Wardencliffe?

  2. Microcosm – Mesocosm – Macrocosm.

    Solar system is mirror image of flesh tent, in transcendent transmutation.

    Black Sun flower is gravity source of time, in vortex standstill.

    Hakenkreuz is whirligig.

  3. Fascinating. One important clue (per article if true) is that the navy was interested – “The Navy wanted to understand this process better so they could develop night vision cameras, photography, and video that would be sensitive to the infrared light given off by body heat.” It suggests that the military might have known something about that Cape Girardeau recovery in the spring of 1941, to say little about what came after the spring of 1947. Lt Col Corso might have been working for the Army but that doesn’t negate the Navy’s interest in items classified above the Manhattan Project.

    1. While we’re on the subject of phonons and pyramids, let’s add in this little ditty, hot off the presses at Phys.org:

      “The way electrons interact with phonons—which are essentially vibrations passing through a crystalline material—determines the physical processes that take place inside many electronic devices. These interactions affect the way metals resist electric current, the temperature at which some materials suddenly become superconductors, and the very low temperature requirements for quantum computers, among many other processes.

      But electron-phonon interactions have been difficult to study in detail because they are generally very weak. The new study has found a new, stronger kind of unusual electron-phonon interaction: The researchers induced a Kohn anomaly, which was previously thought to exist only in metals, in an exotic material called a topological Weyl semimetal. The finding could help shed light on important aspects of the complex interplay between electrons and phonons, they say.

      These anomalies have been observed before in certain metals and in other highly electrically conductive materials such as graphene, but had never been seen or predicted before in a “topological material,” whose electrical behaviors are robust against perturbation. In this case, a kind of topological material called a Weyl semimetal, specifically tantalum phosphide, was found to be capable of exhibiting this unusual anomaly. Unlike in conventional metals, where a property called the Fermi surface drives the formation of the Kohn anomaly, in this material, the Weyl points serve as the driving force.”

      https://phys.org/news/2020-06-newly-phenomenon-quantum-devices.html

  4. Many breakthrough in real science happened by accident.
    Yet, the scientist should know by know; there is a scientific reason that it happens consistently[when preformed as before]. Until that reason is uncovered; is it simply a magical accident.

    Totally off subject; but, on a gamma ray tangent.
    What’s w/all those gamma rays coming out from Atlantis/Antarctica?[Ancient Aliens, Season 12, Volume 1, “Return To Antarctica”].

    1. Also a good episode that focused on possible alien seas animals; especially the octopus as a good candidate for a species that came to Earth, and near perfect candidate for interstellar travel.
      Of course, the producers biases play on a transhumanism script beneficial to mankind agenda.

  5. If you throw-out the stupid ‘tomb’ hypothesis, then you start to wonder why the Egyptians invested such a tremendous amount of labor and materials in the Pyramids. The Egyptians were not stupid; they knew what ‘return on investment’ meant. And they had an ethical side; look up what the word Ma’at meant.

    It is possible that the Great Pyramid was a weapon, à la Joseph’s early books (Enlil/Enki disputes). But now include the recent muon tomography of the Pyramids:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon_tomography
    In that research, cosmic rays (mostly hydrogen nuclei) rain-down from space, generate muons, and penetrate the structure more deeply than x-rays can. Muons have the same charge as the electron, but are 207 times heavier. So, they would have a much greater ‘punch’ when they collide with another particle. Could they produce low-energy neutrons?

    (Also, note that the low-resolution muon tomography of the Great Pyramid has indicated a vast ‘space’ above the so-called Grand Gallery. No one knows what it might be for. Focusing lens?)

    Combining all the above with the cited article and Joseph’s observations, could the various chambers in the Great Pyramid be transmutation areas ? Only muons (and neutrinos) would get through to them, so you would only have known reactions. A ‘highly constrained environment’, so to speak. Put in a chunk of something, wait a decade or several for the results of muon ‘processing’, and come back to something different.

    Jumping further-out on the speculative twig, remember that Anunnaki lifetimes were recorded as being ultra-long. Waiting a hundred years for ‘processing’ would be trivial. Being ultra-egotists, they would invest a tremendous amount of labor and materials to produce something that was vital for them…

    (Also, John Anthony West noted that the stones in the Great Pyramid exhibited a two-tier look; like it was built-up to one level, and then later built-up to the pyramid-shape we know today. This might project their working-age further-back than agreed-upon today.)

    1. Speaking of Edfu, Ralph Ellis has some great articles concerning the pyramids. They were on his main Edfu-Books site, but are not there now. They are ‘reprinted’ at:
      old.world-mysteries . com/gw_rellis.htm

      On much greater ages for most of the original Egyptian pyramids:
      https://old.world-mysteries.com/gw_rellis9.htm

      On ‘something’ being spirited out of the Great Pyramid:
      https://old.world-mysteries.com/gw_rellis8.htm
      (If you read the article, think of ‘something’ having rested in the transmutation areas for a few thousand years. And ‘somebody’ may have known of this situation…)

Comments are closed.