Bacteria Used To Reduce Radioactivity

[kowalskil]

A claim: radioactivity can be reduced by bacteria. See this link:

 

http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/402vysotskii.html

 

Radioactive Cs-137 is mostly responsible for meltdowns of spent reactor fuel.

 

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)

.

[Qfwfq]

A truly incredible claim. How do you reckon it could be explained?

[Jorge1907]

This is garbage - this is merely removal of cesium from solution. An unpublished article the terminology and reported experimental design of which show the authors' bias to support rather than test their hypothesis. Their uninoculated "control" for cesium precipitationl indicates the element was measured in supernatant. The literature and current application includes many reports and applications of microbes for removal of such metals from water, for example:

 

HTML] The key microbial processes in the removal of toxic metals and radionuclides from the environment

 from omfi.huLG Gazsó - CENTRAL EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF …, 2001 - omfi.hu

... Metals contained within these wastes include the fission product strontium and caesium. ... to remove

toxic metals and radionuclides, eg, ion exchange and precipitation, lack specificity ... Microbial

transformation of toxic metals and radionuclides may affect their solubility, mobility ...

Cited by 15 - Related articles - Cached - BL Direct - All 3 versions

[Rade]

Read about research by Dr. Louis Kervran on Biological Transformation.

 

http://www.rexresearch.com/kervran/kervran.htm

 

===

 

See this article below by US Army research center.

 

====

 

Energy Development From Elemental Transmutations In Biological Systems by Solomon Goldfein

 

U.S. Army Mobility Equipment Research & Development Command, Ft. Belvoir, VA

Report 2247 (May 1978)

 

http://www.rexresearch.com/goldfein/goldfein.htm

 

Abstract ~ The purpose of the study was to determine whether recent disclosures of elemental transmutations occurring in biological entities have revealed new possible sources of energy. The works of Kervran, Komaki, and others were surveyed; and it was concluded that, granted the existence of such transmutations (Na to Mg, K to Ca, and Mn to Fe), then a net surplus of energy was also produced. A proposed mechanism was described in which Mg-Adenosine Triphosphate (MgATP), located in the mitochondrion of the cell, played a double role as an energy producer. In addition to the widely accepted biochemical role of MgATP in which it produces energy as it disintegrated part by part, MgATP can also be considered to be a cyclotron on a molecular scale. The MgATP when placed in layers one atop the other has all the attributes of a cyclotron in accordance with the requirements set forth by E.O. Lawrence, inventor of the cyclotron. It was concluded that elemental transmutations were indeed occurring in life organisms and were probably accompanied by a net energy gain.

 

Preface ~

 

The work described in this report was authorized and funded by the U.S> Army Mobility Equipment Research & Development Command, Material Technology Laboratory, under Project MTL-01901, PMMR-26

 

Solomon Goldfein was the principal investigator for the effort. The work was under the direction of Emil J. York, Material Technology Laboratory.

 

Robert C. McMillan, Chief, Radiation Research Group, provided guidance with regard to matters relating to physics and nuclear physics aspects.

 

 

Conclusions ~ It is concluded that elemental transmutations occurring in life organisms are accompanied by losses in mass representing conversion to thermal energy and that such energy probably is a net gain when compared to the amount required to effect the transmutation.

 

===

 

See this book:

 

===

Nuclear Fusion and Transmutation of Isotopes in Biological Systems by Vladimir I. Vysotskii and Alla A. Kornilova, Moscow, Peace, 2003

 

Contains results of experiments on performing controlled nuclear synthesis of isotopes in growing microbiological cultures. Theoretical models which explain the possibility of highly efficient nuclear reactions in growing biological systems are presented.

 

The book presents the results of combined (Mössbauer and mass-spectroscopy) examinations of stable isotope transmutation processes in growing microbiological cultures. In this book the processes of transmutation of different stable isotopes in growing biological systems are examined from three different points of view — as the totality of experimental facts of low temperature isotopes transmutation, as a nuclear science based process, and as a process studied from of biochemistry of live systems. For the first time the experimental observation and study of low-energy nuclear transmutation of light (p 1, d 2), intermediate (Na 23, P 31, Mn 55, Fe 54, Fe 57) and heavy (Sc 133, Ba 134) mass isotopes were carried out in growing microbiological cultures Bacillus subtilis, Escherichia coli and yeast culture Saccharomyces cerevisiae with controlled conditions of growth. The rate of these isotopes transmutation equals 10 -8 s -1.

 

The physical mechanism of non-barrier nuclear interaction in optimal non-stationary microcavities in growing biological objects is discussed. The biological reasons of nuclear fusion in growing systems are also investigated in details. A lot of possible applications of the phenomenon of isotope transmutation (including the problems of obtaining of rare light and heavy stable isotopes and the possibility of radioactive waste utilization) are discussed.

 

------

 

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH of Prof. V.I. Vysotskii

 

 

Prof. V.I. Vysotskii received his PhD (theoretical Physics) from Kiev Institute of theoretical physics of Ukrainian Academy of Science in 1975. He has also received the additional Habilitus degree in Theoretical Physics, and Solid State physics from Kiev National Shevchenko University in 1992. Since 1992 he has been a Full Professor in the Kiev National Shevchenko University. His research interest include topics in laser Physics (including X-Ray and Gamma-Ray lasers), Nuclear Physics - creation of abnormal nuclei, stability of nuclear matter, nuclear fusion, Nuclear Astrophysics - neutron and proton stars, Supernova gravitation collapse, biophysics. Prof. Vysotskii has published more than 150 articles in referred journals, including three books: 1-Gamma-Ray Lasers (1989), 2- Nuclear Fusion and transmutation of Isotopes in Biological Systems, (2003), 3- Introduction to Biophysics of Activated Water, (2005).

[JMJones0424]

Wow, Jorge declares garbage, and Rade brings in a whole new level of excrement. I had extreme doubts that any living cell could maintain the pressures and temperatures necessary for fusion, so a brief google search confirmed my suspicions. As the author is the winner of the 1993 Ig Nobel prize in Physics (Louis Kervran of France, ardent admirer of alchemy, for his conclusion that the calcium in chickens' eggshells is created by a process of cold fusion), I hereby declare as complete and utter bullshit any unreproduced claims that elements are fused inside the mitochondria. This brings the whole cold fusion debacle to a new laughable low.

 

Or maybe the fires in Bastrop are caused by a runaway fusion reaction of potassium into calcium in the pine trees...

 

Guess I need to start supplementing my laying hen's diet with potassium rather than calcium. Or, more likely, this quack is insane.

[Rade]

..I hereby declare as complete and utter bullshit any unreproduced claims that elements are fused inside the mitochondria.

 

http://www.rexresearch.com/goldfein/goldfein.htm

http://www.papimi.gr/inf-energy1.htm

 

How about someone provide some logical reasons why the claims cited above by the US Army is poor science.

[JMJones0424]

Certainly. While I am not qualified to perform peer review on this quackery, the fact that none of this is published in peer reviewed journals is the first red flag.

 

As proof of "transmutation", these people determined changes in weight and surmised that elements had been fused. It is trivially easy to precisely monitor in repeatable experiments the exact ratios of particular elements in plants using radioisotopes. These methods predate the 1978 publishing date of the article. That they were not used and instead guesses were made based on differences in weight is telling. In short, every Ag school in the country has the capability of confirming the results claimed in this article, yet none have.

 

Any claims of cold fusion should immediately raise questions of legitimacy, as cold fusion would be one of the greatest discoveries in the history of mankind, and yet no repeatable demonstration yet exists.

 

Of Vladimir I. Vysotskii's three published books, according to your posted biographical sketch, one is on what amounts to cold fusion, and another is on "activated water", both of which are firmly in the pseudoscience realm.

 

Have any of the authors of this crap published experimental evidence in peer reviewed journals? It is not my interest to debunk pseudoscience, I have neither the qualifications nor the time.

Edited September 9, 2011 by JMJones0424

[Qfwfq]

How about someone provide some logical reasons why the claims cited above by the US Army is poor science.

Do you have more reliable sources which confirm the U. S. army's support of those claims? Stripping those two links down to the bare URLs I get the rather unconvincing pages:

 

http://www.rexresearch.com

http://www.papimi.gr

 

Despite this I must say those papers give an answer to my question of a few days ago, a proposed explanation which although not highly plausible at least makes sense.

 

Any claims of cold fusion should immediately raise questions of legitimacy, as cold fusion would be one of the greatest discoveries in the history of mankind, and yet no repeatable demonstration yet exists.

 

Of Vladimir I. Vysotskii's three published books, according to your posted biographical sketch, one is on what amounts to cold fusion, and another is on "activated water", both of which are firmly in the pseudoscience realm.

Actually, not quite correct concerning cold fusion.

 

Muon catalyzed fusion is a fact. The only reason you haven't heard much about it over the past few decades is that it fails to reach breakeven and hence has earned no commercial interest.

 

A claim of commercially viable cold fusion, too recent to be fully judged given its details being as yet undisclosed (as an industrial secret), has already received a bit of support from a few respectable physicists despite the unfortunate iter of the Pons-Fleischmann story (as well as the inventor's own terrible past botches). Next month we shall start to see how much difficulty Defkalion encounters in setting up the planned 1MW electric generation plant... Meantime doubts roll around, queries are raised about how demonstrations were conducted but are addressed by the claimants in a reasonably serious manner.

 

From what I currently know, it appears that this most recent claim is the first indicating feasibility and reliability on a large scale, but not the first case of competent people having judged a small but positive result along the lines of Pons and Fleischmann's work. There are indications that the problem may essentially have been in finding the right methodology for repeatability and reliability. One thing is sure: Pons and Fleischmann made a great hash which definitely had an adverse effect. They are chemists and hence weren't competent in how to assess the validity of their claim before giving it such resonance and, by ending up in ridicule and despisal, they threw a very dark shroud over the whole thing; this has been a great hinderance to chances of anything coming of it.

 

My current take is to consider it as simply a highly controversial, unsolved and somewhat mysterious topic but not pseudoscience.

 

One interesting link, I chose to make it directly on the "A Hoax?" section:

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/37/3705report3.shtml#hoax

Edited September 10, 2011 by Qfwfq
corrections - post scriptum

[Rade]

Do you have more reliable sources which confirm the U. S. army's support of those claims?

Here is the US Army paper published in Infinite Energy magazine:

 

http://www.papimi.gr/inf-energy1.htm

 

==

 

Concerning the Rossi experiment. It is my understanding that Rossi claims that only the very rare NI-62 and NI-64 isotopes react with hydrogen [P] in his E-Cat device to produce excess energy, even though he puts in a powder of nickel that contains all possible isotopes. This is interesting because it would mean that the most common Nickel isotope in the powder, Ni-58, at ~68.077% abundance, does not react in the E-Cat. How could this be explained by the Standard Model of physics ?

 

It would be very interesting (and good science) for someone to put pure Ni-58 isotope into an E-Cat device, react with pure hydrogen [P] and analyze the ash for isotopes. Here I make a prediction, easy to falsify. I predict that this experiment would produce in the ash (1) Cu-59 which has half life of 81.5 sec and beta+ decay to Ni-59 (half life 76,000 years), and (2) Cu-60 with half life of 23.7 min that beta+ decays to stable Ni-60. As far as I understand, my prediction cannot be explained by the Standard Model of physics--perhaps I error ?

[CraigD]

http://www.rexresearch.com/goldfein/goldfein.htm

http://www.papimi.gr/inf-energy1.htm

To the best of my recollection, I’ve not encountered a reference to Louis Kervran’s ideas and work since reading about them around 1980, in Tompkins and Bird’s famous (at least among folk of my age and educational background) 1973 book The Secret Life of Plants. This book, and the people with whom I discussed it, were credulous of its many ideas by Kervan and other fringe scientists. As I never encountered references to “the Kervan effect” in classes, textbooks, or physiology literature, and was cautioned by professors and fellow students to be cautious of it and other claims in TSLOP, I’d come to consider it not accepted science, and given it little thought until reading this thread.

 

How about someone provide some logical reasons why the claims cited above by the US Army is poor science.

The wikipedia article on Kervan I linked to above (although it could benefit from improved citations – perhaps some of us from this thread can help with that) outlines the major objections to Kervan’s and similar claims that nuclear fusion occurs at significant rates in biological organisms.

 

A major objection to the Kervan effect is that it requires the transmutation of elements from lower to higher atomic numbers (for example, 19 potasium to 20 calcium) without the production of energy required by the reduction in atomic mass. To the best of my knowledge, no credible physical explanation of the lost mass/energy requires by Kervan’s claims has been published, while the energy produced by fusion predicted by mainstream nuclear chemistry has been experimentally confirmed without exception and with high precision in many papers.

 

As best I can tell, Kervan’s conclusions were based on faulty experimental data. In short, he concluded that, when fed foods rich in potassium and poor in calcium, chickens laid eggs with hard shells containing calcium that had been created by the transmutation of potassium. He appears not to have carefully measured the amount of calcium in the bones and other tissues of the chickens, ignoring the more conventional explanation that the egg shell calcium was from these sources.

 

Conclusion based on accepting Kervan’s explanation as having been experimentally confirmed, such as Solomon Goldfein’s in his 1978, non-peer reviewed article Energy development from elemental transmutations in biological systems (full text here, and more readably, here) , are therefore unsupported.

 

I find it ironic that Kervan argued that biological organisms (most famously, chickens) could transmute lower atomic number elements into higher without releasing much energy, while Goldfein and others argue that his work shows, quoting Goldfein:

The relatively available huge supplies of the elements which have been reported to have been transmuted and the probable large accompanying energy surplus indicate a new source of energy in the offing --- one whose supply would be unlimited.

Kervan sought to explain how nuclear fusion transmutation could occur without producing much energy, while Goldfein concludes that he showed that it must.

Edited September 13, 2011 by CraigD
Fixed mispelled name causing broken wiki link

[Rade]

A major objection to the Kervran effect is that it requires the transmutation of elements from lower to higher atomic numbers (for example, 19 potasium to 20 calcium) without the production of energy required by the reduction in atomic mass. To the best of my knowledge, no credible physical explanation of the lost mass/energy requires by Kervran’s claims has been published, while the energy produced by fusion predicted by mainstream nuclear chemistry has been experimentally confirmed without exception and with high precision in many papers.

Thank you for the nice post. Let me take a stab at one possible explanation for the "lost" excess energy required that you discuss here.

 

From biochemistry of ATP molecules and energy cycle in cells, it is known that their is a class of molecules that have evolved, from simple to complex organisms, with function to store excess energy called phosphagens. See these reviews:

 

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:Na-IXxvaJnMJ:mit.biology.au.dk/zoophysiology/news/rikkes_del_a.pdf+phosphagens&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESh6nuMyYo12d1wELM47clRjxb_bqNv4Ci7yI95tpsDSgz6NGMMx8ZO542tB3xpt8ehhTMawPOM41zJgseCZ8pKQqx2Kl42raP3ai76tj1gmKjJ7g87DgVpP3ybOio0ePf5d7VYJ&sig=AHIEtbRM-cJqwJlYY_D4sstulf3ObfjIsQ

 

http://www.microbialcellfactories.com/content/10/1/63 for bacteria energy stoage

 

 

Well, production of excess energy in biological cells is what Kervran claims. Here are the main phosphagen molecules involved in ATP cycle in cells in evolutionary context (1) polymetaphosphate - bacteria (2) phosphoarginine - invertebrates (3) phosphocreatine - vertebrates. It would be the claim of Kervran that biological transformations such as 19K --> 20O produce excess energy that is not lost from the cell, but stored as phosphagens. Imo, what S. Goldfein from US Army claims is that such molecules could be put to good use if the claims of Kervran were put to the process of experimentation. Imo it is a weak argument to say that those involved in agricultural research do not do this type of experiment, so it must not have any value. How about some grants to study production of energy storage phosphagens in cells within the context of Kervran claims of elemental transformations, of which there are many, 19K --> 20Ca being only one presented by Kervran. Keep in mind, the transformation itself is a type of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR), it may or may not involve nuclear fusion (some claim it is a weak force interaction transformation, not strong force). Perhaps a type of muon enhanced fusion, as discussed by Qfwfq.

 

The reason Kervran and others address the topic is because there are usually not conventional explanations of the many experiments discussed by Kervran and others (going back > 100 years)..the biological transformation explanation is one that makes sense. The problem is that the physical mechanism at the level of the atomic nucleus is unknown, but there are hypotheses such as those presented by Kervran on "neutral currents" and ATP argument S. Goldfein at US Army. What this suggests is that the Standard Model of nuclear physics is incomplete and/or has a rather uncommon interpretation that meets the facts of reality. You have to understand that Kervran proposed a cluster model for the atomic nucleus (similar but different from the alpha cluster model)...Kervran rejected the idea that protons and neutrons move independently within nuclear shells as have many others [here I refer to the information provided in book by Dr. Norman D. Cook. Models of the Atomic Nucleus, Springer, 2006].

 

I find it ironic that Kervan argued that biological organisms (most famously' date=' chickens) could transmute lower atomic number elements into higher without releasing much energy, while Goldfein and others argue that his work shows, quoting Goldfein: [indent']The relatively available huge supplies of the elements which have been reported to have been transmuted and the probable large accompanying energy surplus indicate a new source of energy in the offing --- one whose supply would be unlimited. [/indent]Kervan sought to explain how nuclear fusion transmutation could occur without producing much energy, while Goldfein concludes that he showed that it must.

As I stated above, they are both correct if my hypothesis is valid that the excess energy from biological transformations is stored within cells as phosphagen molecules at different stages of ATP cycle during evolution. Kervran did not claim that there was not a release of energy during the elemental transformation, only that the amount produced could be processed by the cell. Goldfein argument is that the stored energy (he did not mention phospagen molecules) could be isolated and put to use if numbers could be mass produced.

 

My thinking on this is that there is much valid science that can be falsified working within the context of claims by Kervran and Goldfein and others. That such research is NOT conducted has to do with grant $$ that drive research..who will give a grant for such outside-box research ? Let us not forget the OP author Ludwik Lowalski post research claiming biological transformation by bacteria to transform a radioactive isotope...my reason for comment was to notify that the model of Kervran-Goldfein provides one explanation, true, outside current understanding of the Standard Model. But, if bacteria can reduce radioactive isotopes, I can see many applications of value to society if we learn the process.

[CraigD]

Thank you for the nice post. Let me take a stab at one possible explanation for the "lost" excess energy required that you discuss here.

 

From biochemistry of ATP molecules and energy cycle in cells, it is known that their is a class of molecules that have evolved, from simple to complex organisms, with function to store excess energy called phosphagens. ...

Before considering detailed explanations, let’s start by calculating an approximate quantity for the missing energy that troubles Kervran’s theory that chickens can transmute several grams of potassium into calcium each day.

 

The atomic masses of ³⁹K and ⁴⁰Ca are 38.96370668(20) and 39.96259098(22), so their mass difference/mass is about .000027919. The energy of fusion of 1 g (0.001 kg), then, is about 2.7919e-8 kg c² = 2.5092e9 J, so its power is about 2.5092e9 J / 86400 s = 29042 W. (The energy of fusion is about 3 times higher for ⁴¹K and ⁴²Ca, but as 93% of K is ³⁹K, and we’re interested in estimating a minimum energy, we can ignore this)

 

This is a lot of power, about enough to vaporize a chicken in about 30 seconds (imagine a chicken in a microwave oven with about 25 times the usual power) - though not what I’d characterize, as the wikipedia article does (without citation – naughty wikipedia contributors!), as “turning them [chickens] into atom bombs”.

 

We can determine the total chemical energy of a substance with simple calorimetry (that is, burn it, and see how much heat it produces). For chickens and or most any other animal cells, this is about 2000 kCal/kg = 8.4e6 J/kg, or about 1.68e7 J for a 2 kg chicken.

 

So all the metabolic mechanism in a chicken can store about 1/150 of the energy of fusion of 1 g of K to Ca. A biochemical explanation for the missing energy (recall that Kervran believed a chicken transmuted several grams a day) is at least a couple of orders of magnitude too small.

 

My thinking on this is that there is much valid science that can be falsified working within the context of claims by Kervran and Goldfein and others. That such research is NOT conducted has to do with grant $$ that drive research..who will give a grant for such outside-box research ?

I don’t know that such research has not been done. After all, validating Kervran’s chicken claim isn’t very difficult or expensive – measure the mass of calcium in a normal chicken (messy, but not expensive), and a calcium poor, potasium rich feed, feed a chicken that for a year or so (or until it dies), then measure the mass of calcium in it (including, of course, the eggs it laid). Kervran’s claim is that this accounting would show an excess of calcium.

 

A problem here is that Kervran and the people most interested in his idea, and thus those who write about it, want it to be true, not false, so are not motivated to do and publish results of experiments that could disprove it. The majority of scientists, who conclude, from conventional theory and the absence of published experiments showing otherwise, that it’s false, aren’t much motivated to do and publish results of experiments specifically to disprove it, either.

[Qfwfq]

Here is the US Army paper published in Infinite Energy magazine:

 

http://www.papimi.gr/inf-energy1.htm

Really, Rade, that is one of the two site which I already pointed out inspire absolutely no confidence at all. If you want to convince folks that the U. S. army supports those claims then give us a link in which the top level domain is .gov because this would ensure it is a U. S. governmental entity.

 

How could this be explained by the Standard Model of physics ?

There is so far no theoretical explanation at all, even Focardi who knows the ins and outs says so, though he's an experimental nuclear physicist and not a theorist.

 

As far as I understand, my prediction cannot be explained by the Standard Model of physics--perhaps I error ?

If we grant that the reaction occurs at all, with that isotope, then your prediction follows trivially. Still, nobody currently has an explanation for the reaction occuring.

 

Not that it's on topic, but the only inkling is that interatomic bonds might somehow cause a configuration in which a significant portion of the proton's position distribution is very near to the nickel nucleus, though this would provide no idea as to why it might occur with a high isotopical selectivity. Considering the very short Yukawa range of nuclear interactions, I strain to reckon how it could be highly selective. However, these things are complicated and the details of nuclei are definitely not understood in great detail, so I have no reason to outright disbelieve these claims; what amazes me the most is why Focardi never supplied more tangible evidence of what he had long reported about isotopically anomalous copper appearing in his nickel rods. Perhaps people were just not willing to look, due to the stigmatized topic.

[Rade]

If you want to convince folks that the U. S. army supports those claims then give us a link in which the top level domain is .gov because this would ensure it is a U. S. governmental entity.

OK, fair enough. He is the "government" document you request. The US Army report is listed by the US Department of Energy. You can order a copy of the government report from NTIS.gov [see how nice I am that I include the .gov in the main domain as you request :)]

 

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=6591888

 

If we grant that the reaction occurs at all' date=' with that isotope, then your prediction follows trivially. Still, nobody currently has an explanation for the reaction occurring.[/quote']I know. My problem (or curse) is that I do have an explanation that predicts all the isotopes found in the ash of the Rossi E-Cat device. I cannot discuss in detail because the model of the atomic nucleus I study is outside current understanding of nuclear physics (not published in major journals), e.g., it is a nucleon cluster model that predicts possible isotope interactions between matter and antimatter nucleon clusters involving the light isotopes of hydrogen and helium. The model predicts multiple quantum possibilities at the macroscopic level of the nucleon for any "isotope" including (most importantly) the isotopes of hydrogen. It is completely consistent at the finer level of quarks, just a pain to work with at that level. If you have questions or want details about the model as to how it explains the Rossi E-Cat device you will have to PM me. For me to explain the details of the model would violate Forum rules. But, perhaps there is a place in the Forum where I could begin a new thread about the model, present how the model explains the Rossi E-Cat reactions...let me know if yes.

 

Not that it's on topic' date=' but the only inkling is that interatomic bonds might somehow cause a configuration in which a significant portion of the proton's position distribution is very near to the nickel nucleus, though this would provide no idea as to why it might occur with a high isotopical selectivity. Considering the very short Yukawa range of nuclear interactions, I strain to reckon how it could be highly selective.[/quote']The model I study would agree that the two isotopes in the Rossi E-Cat device, Ni and H, must come in close contact...however...it is not that the wavefuntion of the entire nucleus of either must contact, only very specific nucleon cluster wavefunctions must superpose to allow for the required matter + antimatter interaction. Rossi would get similar excess energy results if he used Palladium to hold the hydrogen in place then injected Ni isotopes into the lattice structure. Also, consider the possibility that many different isotopes could be used in the Rossi E-Cat other than Ni...why did Rossi select Ni ? Pure luck..., however, the model I study predicts exactly which isotopes will produce excess energy, which will not. For example, I posted above that Ni-58 isotope if placed in pure form in the Rossi E-Cat it WILL NOT undergo any nuclear reaction with hydrogen [P], not given the types of decay isotopes Rossi reports in the ash. How can ANY current model of physics explain this prediction ? All I can say is that the model I study does explain, and when a model can explain experimental facts that no other model can explain, seems to me someone with training in nuclear physics should have an interest to falsify the model.

[Rade]

Before considering detailed explanations, let’s start by calculating an approximate quantity for the missing energy that troubles Kervran’s theory that chickens can transmute several grams of potassium into calcium each day.

Thank you for the time to present the energy calculations. Does Kervran suggests that grams/day of isotopes are transmuted ? Suppose that only 0.0001 grams/day of K-39 is transposed to Ca-40 in biological cells, suppose there is a regulator that adjusts the reaction rate. Could not the minimal energy produced/day by 0.0001 grams/day of K-39 transmuted be captured by ATP energy storage molecules within cells ?

 

The fusion reaction that Kervran cites to be involved in biological cells is K-39 + H-1 --> Ca-40

 

What Kervran is saying is that the type of elemental transmutation that occurs in living cells is not what we find at CERN when they conduct fusion experiments, there are biological regulations involved in the process. Kervran views all isotopes as being composed of nucleon clusters. So, for Kervran, K-39 comes in two cluster configurations: (1) { C6+C6+N7} = K-39 and (2) { B5+N7+N7 } = K-39. For each, the transmutation to Ca-40 involves a transmutation of a N7 cluster in K-39 to O8 cluster in Ca-40. Thus, {C6+C6+N7} has transmutation to {C6+C6+O8}=Ca-40, and {B5+N7+N7} transmutation to {B5+N7+O8}=Ca40. But, to say that N7 has transmutation to O8 is to say that N7 = {B5+H1+H1} and O8 = {B5+H1+H1+H1}. This is how Kervran explains the fusion that results in the biological transmutation, the H-1 is added to a N7 nucleon cluster found within the K-39 isotope. This is the exact fusion action that produces energy, according to Kervran.

 

We can determine the total chemical energy of a substance with simple calorimetry (that is' date=' burn it, and see how much heat it produces). For chickens and or most any other animal cells, this is about 2000 kCal/kg = 8.4e6 J/kg, or about 1.68e7 J for a 2 kg chicken.[/quote']Would you not also have to consider the energy in the waste products/day by each chicken? I mean, if excess energy is produced via elemental transmutations each second, would it not make sense that some of this excess energy would be immediately released from the chicken...they do produce lots of waste on a daily basis. Also, how much of the excess energy could be released from the chicken by neutrinos that would be involved in any fusion involving H-1 ? I think we need a more comprehensive energy budget that just burn the chicken to calculate energy released.

 

I don’t know that such research has not been done. After all' date=' validating Kervran’s chicken claim isn’t very difficult or expensive – measure the mass of calcium in a normal chicken (messy, but not expensive), and a calcium poor, potassium rich feed, feed a chicken that for a year or so (or until it dies), then measure the mass of calcium in it (including, of course, the eggs it laid). Kervran’s claim is that this accounting would show an excess of calcium.[/quote']Yes, this is exactly the experiment that has been replicated many times, chickens produce excess Ca when there is no Ca in any form in the food and water. Given that no theory of physics or chemistry can explain this, Kervran proposed that the excess Ca comes from biological transmutation of K-39 + H-1 --> Ca-40 as a type of nuclear fusion reaction THAT ONLY CAN OCCUR IN BIOLOGICAL CELLS (this is very important point raised by Kervran, imo).

 

A problem here is that Kervran and the people most interested in his idea' date=' and thus those who write about it, want it to be true, not false, so are not motivated to do and publish results of experiments that could disprove it. The majority of scientists, who conclude, from conventional theory and the absence of published experiments showing otherwise, that it’s false, aren’t much motivated to do and publish results of experiments specifically to disprove it, either.[/quote']Yes, I agree. But, it would be so easy to falsify this claim that I cannot understand why it has not been done by someone sick and tired of hearing about Kervran. Perhaps his claim impossible to falsify, and many have tried, but fear to let anyone know they work on psuedoscience ?

[fahrquad]

I read the linked articles, but have difficulty believing the data. Radiation is reduced by radioactive decay. Bacteria may ingest and concentrate radioactive material, but I know of no biological mechanism where a living organism could derive energy from radiation. We have seen life metabolize hydrogen sulfide at underseas "Black Smokers", and seen bacteria metabolize crude oil, but this claim seems too far fetched for belief.