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

[yfree]

Those two papers are full of crap, imho.
...

I do not believe you. Could you give some examples, please.
Have you done any experiments to support your claim?

[yfree]

In this article, It says that when a Nucli emits the energy from the RF pulse.  The RF pulse it can absorb changes.  If I read it right, this experimenter used a wide range of frequency's all at once, so the nucli will absorb the certain frequency out of that wide range of signals and then emit the return energy pulse.  But it creates chaos, but we are not after the signal itself, we are after the energy in the signal.  So if anyone is trying to figure out the best way.  Try using a good strong wide band pulses.
http://chemlab.truman.edu/chemlab_backup/CHEM131Labs/Electronegativity.htm

This paper describes the most common version of NMR: excitation of the nuclei with a burst of RF which is followed by a reception of the spin echo. The spin echo is very weak. There will be no gain of energy from the spin echo alone, only huge loss.
Read McFreey's papers carefully, both papers.

[verpies]

Those two papers are full of crap, imho.

What errors have you noticed in those papers?

[tinu]

What errors have you noticed in those papers?

"Enhanced β-decay" – fantasy

"This configuration of magnetic field confines charged particles in the disc both radially and laterally." – it confines nothing; particles are not in vacuum but are electrons in the conduction band in metal.

"charged-particle-multiplication disc" – well, it is supposed there is a charge-particle-multiplication but actually the reader is served an idea without any foundation.

"This ensures that the radius of the cyclotron resonance condition oscillates cyclically beyond the outer radius and back to a position inside the brass disc. Because of this, the cyclotron resonance condition is cyclically satisfied." – What cyclotron resonance?!!! Again, we are dealing with electrons in metal, not in vacuum!

"The NMR stimulation of the brass disc generates enough fast-moving radioactive particles, as described below (Beta-NMR), and this starts an avalanche of particle multiplication provided that the cyclotron condition is also fulfilled." – Now things are indeed getting into avalanche into his mind; note that beta-NMR is something else and it is never "described bellow" as promised.

"...different frequencies of radio frequency magnetic modulation will induce NMR resonance in the disc and as a result, cause the generation of fast particles." – I'd say it will cause the generation of slow particles only. So slow that they will stay exactly where they were. Now seriously, why would someone buy such enormity?! NMR (or NM resonance) will cause spin resonance. Period. Oh, something else: it's about nuclear spin; it has nothing to do with electrons – It seems to me Mr. McFreey is not clear on such elementary issue.

"When the value of "B" is small, causing the cyclotron resonance radius to become greater than the outer radius of the disc, then the avalanche multiplication of particles ceases." – Again, what avalanche multiplication?!!!

"This is because the transmutation reactions produce a lot of waste charge."  Transmutation?! Hmmm - now we are talking! but ... "waste charge"? What the heck is that?!

"Let us estimate the magnetic field strength needed to confine multiplication electron current assuming the
effective speed of emitted electrons (q = 1.602E-19 C , m0 = 9.11E-31 kg) at v = 200,000 km/s which are following a circular path with radius r = 3 cm." – It is obviously he departed completely from physics and science and he does not even understand the huge errors he makes...

I can go on and on but it's not worthy wasting time on it, really.

Best regards,
Tinu

[yfree]

"Enhanced β-decay" – fantasy
...
"Let us estimate the magnetic field strength needed to confine multiplication electron current assuming the
effective speed of emitted electrons (q = 1.602E-19 C , m0 = 9.11E-31 kg) at v = 200,000 km/s which are following a circular path with radius r = 3 cm." – It is obviously he departed completely from physics and science and he does not even understand the huge errors he makes...

I can go on and on but it's not worthy wasting time on it, really.

Best regards,
Tinu

You are absolutely right,  it's not worthy wasting time reading the above, really.
Nevertheless, I would love to see your scientific explanation of the phenomenon in question, not just criticism.
Please go on and on and put things in order.