That makes no sense.
It does make a lot of sense to me and it is basic physics.
Firstly, causing shaking and vigorous precession requires inelastic collisions or energy absorption from EM or acoustic sources (why else would the nuclei want to shake & precess ?).
1. Shaking of nuclei can be invoked by vibration, phonons in general. No external magnetic field is necessary here.
2. It is not true that precession requires inelastic collisions or energy absorption from EM or acoustic sources. Precession of nuclei can also be invoked by inserting a body in a magnetic field. This is what McFreey is writing about, and this is the beauty of this approach.
Namely, when a magnetic moment u is placed in a magnetic field B, it experiences a torque which can be expressed in the form of a vector product t=u x B. But in the case of some nuclei, in which the magnetic moment is the result of their spin property, the torque exerted then produces a change in angular momentum which has a component perpendicular to that angular momentum, causing the magnetic moment to precess around the direction of the magnetic field rather than settle down in the direction of the magnetic field. This is called Larmor precession. The angular frequency is then given by w = gB.
Thus here, precession is caused not by resonant absorption of EM or acoustic field it is caused by energy of the rising magnetic field.
The difference is that, for instance, the resonant EM method is virtually not capable of causing nuclear precession in bulk metals. The (relatively slowly) rising magnetic field is capable.
All this is nicely described here.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/larmor.htmlVigorous precession can only be caused by application of Larmor frequency components, so it is a form of nuclear resonance, despite different phrasing.
Larmor precession is very much related to NMR and NAR, but it is not NMR or NAR in itself.
Yes, Larmor precession can be induced by NMR or NAR, but as shown above these are not the only methods. The difference may be subtle, but the consequences are far reaching.
Secondly, spin polarization and magnetic confinement of fast particles are still an issue, without it the beta current would be isotropic and could not be coupled inductively.
Magnetic field is present in everything that McFreey describes, so, there is no problem with spin polarization and particle confinement.
Thirdly, even if I believed in the reality of atomic orbitals and grinding, then causing K-electron capture would require some absorption/input of energy and the subsequently released energy would have to be greater than energy absorbed to cause the precession...
...
McFreey writes about "grinding" not grinding and energy from the nucleus. However, both "grinding" and grinding involve interaction between waves of matter. Thus, no believing in the reality of atomic orbitals is necessary here.
Author
Topic: Comments on the McFreey paper (Read 118015 times)
