TK device, TPU.. Only enter if you seek truth. Cause here it is...

[elementSix]

Here is an excerpt from an article that slappy  sent me..
Following his review of the scientific literature, Rasa states:

    "Now we've gone ahead, and we have several variations of how to capture this quantum tunneling effect, just by using copper and some type of magnetic material. Usually, we prefer sintered iron, which, when it melts back together, the atomic lattices are aligned magnetically. We make a special kind of sintered iron.

    "This is a way to channelize the two magnets at a 90-degree angle from each other. Basically, what it comes down to is, the larger the sintered iron magnet is, and the larger the copper windings are that you have around that thing, the more energy you can create from it.

    "You have to tune your system in. You have to get a high frequency digital oscilloscope -- up to 2 GHz range -- to find these huge spikes that come when the quantum tunneling effect happens. And then it's just a matter of catching it in a series of batteries and capacitors."

  http://pesn.com/2012/06/11/9602107_Rasas_Zero_Point_Institute_Announces_Emerging_Generators_Galore/

[verpies]

@tinu
Please refrain from making Ad Hominem remarks (personal comments about persons or their minds).

However you are free to rebut McFreey's concepts and scientific statements or evidence.
You are welcomed to rebut element6's, yfree's or anybody else's concepts, statements and evidence, just do not attack their persons.

I am a physicist and I do these things everyday, this includes beta-NMR.  I do not base my expertise on a single paper.

This is also an example of personal remark, albeit self-directed, because it does not address a concept or scientific evidence but is aimed at personal credibility.

I can confirm that I have never known yfree to write anything illogical on these forums and his statements indicate that he has a solid scientific background.  I also noticed that he is receptible to credible evidence and to arguments contrary to his position, which makes him a good partner for discussion.

Personally, I have never done beta-NMR but I have constructed one low field NMR device and multiple flux-gates (water magnetometers).

[verpies]

Please consider these facts listed below as relevant to the McFreey paper:

1) Some nuclear reactions can be influenced by charged particles external to the nucleus.
    a) The rate of those nuclear reactions can be influenced:
        i) Experimental evidence: Betatron emissions are successfully used to initiate fission in some nuclear weapons
        ii) Experimental evidence: Ionization (electronic configuration) of the Rhenium¹⁸⁷ atoms
            increases its bound-state β^- decay rate by a factor of 1.26*10⁹.
    b) The isotropy/directionality of those nuclear reactions can be influenced:
        i) Experimental evidence: The direction of beta decay byproducts, emitted from nuclei implanted in βNMR,
            is dependent on the magnetic spin polarization of these nuclei.
            (μSR exibits similar decay anisotropy but muons do not qualify as nuclei, unless one wants to consider muonium)

2) The motion of fast charged particles (e.g. byproducts of β decay) inside solid matter can be affected by external factors:
     a) Experimental evidence: External magnetic field can curve the paths of positrons emitted by beta decay in solid matter
         in the same manner as Lorentz deflection as is illustrated by the decreased Positron Range in IMRI
         (see the attached illustration and this video)

[tinu]

@ verpies,

Ok. I can do a peer review for saving appearances once it is noted that in my view such papers will never get published as it would fail the most elementary and minimal editorial review. Having said that, my overreaction was due to the fact the two papers I considered misleading and largely erroneous I saw, to my stupefaction, were being taken as good literature.

Now, onto the good theoretical points you've raised:

1."Some nuclear reactions can be influenced by charged particles external to the nucleus."
Yes, I agree and it goes against the accepted paradigm. But then the paper should have said exactly that: TK's device is supposed to have a hidden Re-187 (or Be-7 for that matter) source that needs to meet certain constrains (i.e to have a degree of ionization / particular chemical bonds etc), eventually explaining what those constraints mean. It would then have been clear to everyone (even to the layman – the targeted reader) that TK's low complexity of the device is excluding such assumption. Moreover, it should be made clear that the charged particles intended to influence the decay rate are necessarily sub-atomic particles (electrons - explicitly) and their wave function will also essentially give a sufficient non-zero probability in the immediate vicinity of nucleus so as the influence upon decay rate be exerted. Instead, it is implied that beta decay can be influenced by the mere application of external electric and/or magnetic fields, which is false.
According to the above your point is valid but I think it is beyond the scope of Mr. McFreey's paper(s).

2. The motion of fast charged particles (e.g. byproducts of β decay) inside solid matter can be affected by external factors.
Yes, obviously the motion can be affected, a fact that is known since the early discovery of radioactivity. But not according to the equations given in the paper. Those simple equations are grossly misused. It is not even mentioned the validity conditions of those equations, nor it is discussed if they can or can not be used at all. Nevertheless, the numerical results are taken as "crude estimations" further on in the paper and used for other considerations but the fact is the said equations are not applicable at all for metals! That's because conduction electrons in metals obey Fermi-Dirac distribution, having for Copper a Fermi energy of about 7eV corresponding to a Fermi velocity of about 1.5km/s and a mean free path of only about 40nm. Can 40nm be favorably compared with "a circular path with radius r = 3 cm" as given in the paper? Of course not!

In opposition to the above, in your example video the matter is non-metallic: it is a tissue. But according to the paper "It is believed that copper or an alloy of copper or iron are Kapanadze's materials of choice and that material is used as fuel ..." Paper explicitly speaks of metallic and conductive solids only: "However, this statement also applies to Zinc, Iron and many other metallic elements. Thus these elements and alloys of these elements, such as brass, can also be used as fuel." and "The main secret of the Kapanadze coil is the conductive disc or ring placed within the coil.
Again, according to the above I think your point is valid but it not applicable to the device specifically described in Mr. McFreey's paper(s).


At this stage, I think it may be better to discuss possible meanings of the following excerpts and maybe to hear from the author his own reasoning/explanation behind them, in close conjunction with TK's device and McFreey's papers and not with other far-off theoretical considerations:
"avalanche particle multiplication (induced transmutation)"
"it undergoes stimulated transmutation"
"pulsating multiplication current" – emphasis on possible OU mechanism; multiplication of current is used in many devices on the expense of an external power source.
"The lateral confinement of charged particles in this arrangement was also noticed by other prominent physicists active in the field of alternative energy." – also references, if possible
"This way, modulating the magnetic field which penetrates the disc, while under nuclear magnetic resonance, in effect creates very strong pulses of multiplication current within the disc..."
"If not grounded, the voltage on the disc would get very high"
"There are other methods of achieving pulsed multiplication current in a conductive ring..." – again, emphasis on possible OU mechanism
" It should be noted that the multiplication current is different from regular current as it is composed of fast-moving charged particles rather than a large number of slow-moving conduction electrons."
"The charged particles are held in orbit by the Lorentz force generated by the modulated magnetic field permeating the material which is normally in the form of a disc, ring or tube." – not in metals! but again maybe part of the phenomenon is not sufficiently detailed to be properly understood by the reader.
"It must be stressed that no laws of physics, as we know them today, are violated here." – what is the energy source and what is the energy balance, then?
The following analysis shows that Tariel's device is in fact, a dual, solid-state isochronous cyclotron-like device (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclotron)..." – emphasis on the vacuum chamber needed for cyclotron or alternatives to it, if any.

There is more to clear but I'd be happy starting with the above for now.

Best regards,
Tinu

[tinu]

Indeed, there was one Ad hominem remark in one of my post.
I apologize to Mr. McFreey and to members for that!

Best regards,
Tinu