>Jim don't take a dump without a plan
no disrespect to anyone, but JW ain't a russian sub commander.
>such as the coupling of hyper-frequency axial spin with hyper-frequency vibrations of electrically charged systems
back in the late 1980's i attended a demonstration of a device that converted thorium (half-life Th-232 = 14b yrs) into a mixture of scandium and copper in a matter of about 1hr. i still have the samples that were given to me to take back to my university lab. what i witnessed was aneutronic radiationless cold fission. while the inventor was a garage tinkerer who had no clue as to how the device did what it did, after a bit of reflection, several plausible mechanisms occurred to me. the most likely of which i would describe as a "nuclear Zeeman Effect," which would permit the radioactive nucleus to make an otherwise symmetry-forbidden transition to an excited state which was then able to rapidly decay by spontaneous fission. the quotation above sounds like a clumsy way of saying the same thing using maximum verbiage and jargon. i wrote a paper on it, but it was roundly rejected as "too theoretical." funny, 'cause they have no problem publishing sci-fi about superstring theory or dark energy.
anyway, this is my way of saying the story about the navy patent is plausible. i first came across it a couple yrs ago, 2018 or 2019 IIRC… i might have even posted it on 4chan.
no effort was made to measure ∆H, but from what i witnessed i would estimate it was essentially thermoneutral.
the "stimulus" which induced the transmutation was an electrolytic cell using high frequency AC rather than DC.
as i said, a garage tinkerer… because educated scientists would be "too smart" to waste time experimenting with AC electrolysis.
>are you describing an exothermic, non-nuclear reaction?
thermoneutral, but definitely a nuclear reaction. Th, Sc, and Cu are elements. no chemical reaction can accomplish such a transformation (transmutation).
several papers have appeared in the intervening years challenging the universally accepted dogma that nuclear decay rates are invariant. careful monitoring of radioactive samples suggest decay rates DO vary in direct proportion to the earth's distance from the sun, possibly suggesting ambient neutrino flux may be involved. personally, i never liked the "random" explanation for nuclear decay. i'm a BIG fan of cause and effect.
*IT, not I