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

[verpies]

To obtain a proof of NMR in TK's devices, you would need access to his devices.
AFAIK TK never allowed anyone to closely inspect his devices (e.g. with an oscilloscope).  Why do you think he'd allow you?

The gyromagnetic ratio of copper and iron has been determined a long time ago.  The conclusion was, that some isotopes of these elements can support NMR.
However, NMR alone, is not an energy releasing process (millions of experiments support this conclusion).

Answering your question: A parametric resonance is a form of LC resonance in which the inductance (L) or capacitance (C) is varied.  On the other hand, the paramagnetic resonance is the resonance of atomic electron spins happening in GHz range.  See here.

[yfree]

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.

After reading this preamble one cannot doubt that the review will be unfair and biased.
Yet, the papers were peer reviewed and published, and amazingly, they are taken as good literature by many, including many physicists.
McFreey introduces some novel ideas and concepts and addresses them to a wide audience. He simplifies things and decides not to go into details in some cases. Almost every publication assumes certain degree of knowledge from the reader, this one is no different. It is difficult though, to satisfy all and be concise.
Innovators are almost always ridiculed, especially when they depart from conventional ways. This is annoying, but not new.
It appears that this review is based on a suspicious version of the papers. Versions appearing outside the PJKbook may not be up-to-date or genuine.

1."Some nuclear reactions can be influenced by charged particles external to the nucleus."
Yes, I agree and it goes against the accepted paradigm.

I fully agree.

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.

This is not McFreey's idea, so it is irrelevant here.

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.

Wave function will be helpful to " the layman – the targeted reader "?
A physicist does not need this, it is standard thinking.
McFreey mentions electrons and beta particles quite often. Are these not sub-atomic when McFreey mentions them?

Instead, it is implied that beta decay can be influenced by the mere application of external electric and/or magnetic fields, which is false.

Beta decay can be influenced by the mere application of external magnetic fields, at least in the standard beta-NMR, and there is no evidence that it is false in the case described by McFreey.

According to the above your point is valid but I think it is beyond the scope of Mr. McFreey's paper(s).

I my opinion, this is a biased conclusion.

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!

Not in general. "However, between collisions, these particles are still subject to the Lorentz force."
This is why McFreey is talking about approximations and crude estimations. But it is not true that he does not mention the validity conditions of those equations.

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.

Assuming that in metals only conduction electrons exist, is a major error.
McFreey does not write about conduction electrons. Thus, invoking here the Fermi-Dirac distribution, Fermi energy and Fermi velocity of about 1.5km/s and a mean free path of only about 40nm, is completely out of touch.

Can 40nm be favorably compared with "a circular path with radius r = 3 cm" as given in the paper? Of course not!

Of course yes!
Beta particles do exist in metals! The path between interactions of fast electrons in metal may be short, but their motion may still, on average, be governed by the equations and depending on the value of the magnetic field and speed of the particle, the local radius of that short path can easily be 3 cm or larger. This is still a circular path, though partial. This, combined with absorption and re-emission of charged particles, under certain conditions, as proposed by McFreey, may easily produce a full circular path. McFreey explains this thoroughly: "Thus, the circulating particles are not the same in the orbit as it is in a normal cyclotron. On the contrary, a charged particle's life-time in the disc is very short, and they are constantly being absorbed and regenerated at the expense of element transmutation within the material.  However, between collisions, these particles are still subject to the Lorentz force."
Time will tell how good or crude these estimates are.

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).

The problem is, that the quotations here are outdated. The most up-to-date version of the paper can be found here. In view of the discussion above, one cannot exclude a possibility of McFreey's phenomenon happening in metals or conductive media. However, it is not true that the paper explicitly speaks of metallic and conductive solids only: "In principle, the multiplication disc does not have to be conductive. The multiplication phenomenon does not rely on conduction electrons, but on fast-moving beta particles.  All that is needed, are the initial fast, charged particles and the transmutation material embedded in the magnetic field.  In this respect a ferrite ring may also serve the purpose..."
Thus, the argument presented by verpies is valid and one cannot exclude it's applicability to the device specifically described in Mr. McFreey's papers.

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.

So far, I did not hear complaints about these terms... only now. I hope McFreey will take this into consideration, although I can clarify some of them as they appear elementary to me.
One problem though, McFreey does not claim overunity.

"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?

This is explained in the papers.

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.

Interesting. Somehow Kapanadze or Mark do not seem to be using vacuum cyclotrons.

[elementSix]

Good stuff. yfree.  I need help with suggestions.  I have put my name on a waiting list to us a Terranova EFNMR device.  I have a good relative that works at a big University near me in Cincinnati and he got me on the list.  It will be after the holidays, but I don't think that i'll get any real high voltages off of this device because the rf pulse goes into the Oscillating magnetic field coil and it isn't hitting the sample directly.  I need suggestions from everyone and I know I need a ground to the sample and a good coil wrapped around it to get the signal.  I need info on what to use as a sample i.e.. Copper, iron, copper covered iron, ceramics ect..  So take some time and let me know.  What do I need to bring and I'll have about 3 inch diameter.  What I need to ground, diodes ect.. everything really.

[verpies]

@yfree

Wow, what a exhaustive reply!

I understand that nuclear spin polarization changes the spatial distribution of β decay products without affecting the rate of β decay, as illustrated by the principles of βNMR spectroscopy.

Thus, spin polarization might be useful in increasing the probability of emitting β particles within a single plane.
Furthermore, the Lorentz' deflection can affect paths of β particles in the interatomic spaces of solid matter.
While β particles are in this interatomic space, they are a subject to the Lorentz force which makes them follow arced paths of  large radii.
For example, according to the ICRU Report 37 an average beta particle in copper traverses 1 million interatomic spaces, before it annihilates or its energy dissipates.

But spin polarization is not the same as NMR, since NMR includes an additional component, namely the RF induced precession of nuclei.

I don't understand why McFreey insists that this precession of nuclei is essential and does not stop at nuclear spin polarization, alone. 

Does anyone understand the purpose of this nuclear precession ?

[elementSix]

To obtain a proof of NMR in TK's devices, you would need access to his devices.
AFAIK TK never allowed anyone to closely inspect his devices (e.g. with an oscilloscope).  Why do you think he'd allow you?

The gyromagnetic ratio of copper and iron has been determined a long time ago.  The conclusion was, that some isotopes of these elements can support NMR.
However, NMR alone, is not an energy releasing process (millions of experiments support this conclusion).

Answering your question: A parametric resonance is a form of LC resonance in which the inductance (L) or capacitance (C) is varied.  On the other hand, the paramagnetic resonance is the resonance of atomic electron spins happening in GHz range.  See here.

Thanks for that verpies.  I know that the newer SM TPU video.  The secrets that the Aus. guy talks about, says that the TPU uses the earth's Magnetic field for the stable magnetic field and they just use the RF pulses to create the excess energy.  I believe that they use the copper or aluminum wire are the source for the synthetic energy produced.  Have you done anything recently with Paramagnetic Resonace??  Any help will be appreciated.  I know that NMR can't produce the voltage we need because it uses the RF pulses with the magnetic field coils and doesn't hit the sample directly.  Wich is what I think needs to be done..

So what we believe so far is that NMR or EFMNR is not the exact source but a for of EFNMR which is Electron Paramagnetic Resonance is more likely what we need to use which is very similar.  The problem I have is I am broke at the moment and till I get a new job, then I can afford to get a great RF signal generator.  Do you think that TK's device uses CW (continuous wave) function in his device or wide band RF pulses or CW?