A nucleus is in resonance when it absorbs radio frequency radiation and spin flips to a higher energy state. Thus two variables characterize NMR: 1. An applied magnetic field, Bo; and 2, the frequency of the radiation used for resonance (in MHz). The 2 frequency needed for resonance and the applied magnetic field strength are directly proportional. The stronger the applied magnetic field, the larger the energy difference between the two nuclear spin states, and the higher the frequency needed for resonance.

I can believe that NMR can be achieved in metals and ceramics.

Can you explain how NMR releases energy from these materials?
I thought that energy needs to be delivered to nuclei in order to polarize their spins and even more energy needs to be delivered in order to make these polarized nuclei precess at their Larmor frequency.

I also thought, that the only way, these precessing nuclei give back any energy is by thermalization or EM radiation in the RF range - with net-zero energy gain.

So how does the NMR help release the nuclear energy if NMR I/O efficiency is unity at best ?

(I'm not claiming to be a genius, I am just learning about NMR, EFNMR, EMR ect..)   But I'll try to shed some light on the subject... 
The Gyromagnetics of the Nuclear spin create a small oscillating magnetic field around the Nucleus. 

Basically correct but I'd prefer to write, that it is the precessing nucleus that is the source of these oscillations.

Now with a large enough sample,  you have all the nuclei in the sample rotating at the same time.

Basically correct but I'd prefer to write, that in homogeneous static polarizing magnetic field many of the nuclei in the sample are precessing in phase.

In beat with the RF pulse sequence, the TPU produces large amounts of voltage. 

I heard that too.  It allegedly produces strong output pulses that are synchronized with the input RF pulse sequence.
Strong pulses mean high voltage and current together.  Voltage alone is not power nor energy. If it were not so, I could rub my cat's fur and power my fridge.

If you can prove where the TPU and TK device get their reactive process that generates the energy that they produce,  please let us know.  But this process creates an oscillating voltage, in the form of a signal. 

I can't prove a thesis that has not been formulated yet, but if the energy comes from the matter of the core, then it can be from the temperature of the mater, its ionization energy (electrons around the nucleus) or the nucleus itself.

Now the voltage is thought to be just RF energy, but it's not.  Thats a well known misconception. 

Lone NMR absorbs RF energy, stores it for a while in the precession and gives it back. 
I have never seen any evidence that NMR gives back more RF energy than it absorbs. ...there have been millions of experiments made and nobody ever has measured any excess RF.

The voltage and current pulse, you mentioned above, does not have to come from the precession of the nucleus at all.
If you think about the nature of voltage and current, you'll notice immediately that voltage and current cannot come from the precession of the nucleus, because voltage and current always require the movement of electric charges and the nucleus is practically stationary.  In other words you cannot have voltage and current without moving electric charges.

RF radiation is a bi-product that comes along with the energy that is produced.

You seem to imply that there are 2 types of energies being output from the SM TPU and TK devices.
- RF EM radiations (photons)
- Pulses of electric current (moving charges)

The RF radiation is the energy that is being re-radiated back after the process used to establish nuclear precession delivered it from outside of the system.
The pulse of electric current is an extra energy of unknown origin.

Now if you have a large enough sample, with good strong RF pulses that keep the Nuclei all spinning and flipping in the same orientation. creating an oscillating magnetic field.  Well all you need is a good copper collector to intersect at the right angles and you have your Voltage. 

Indeed, the RF radiation emitted by precessing nucleus has a magnetic and electric component, but those are low frequency photons, that do not constitute a strong voltage & current pulse, in fact photons do do not constitute voltage & current at all.
Yes, these radiated photons could be received by a copper antenna (a conservative process that converts the energy of photons into the movement of electric charges in conductors containing free charges - electrons) creating an AC current, but there is no energy gain here. We could discuss the difference between near-field antennas (antennas that affect the source) and far-field antennas (antennas that do not affect the source) but the bottom line will be that the RF radiation emitted by precessing nuclei is not greater that the energy inputted to get them precessing.

The high voltage current pulse is a different story.

How else could this energy be created. 

I don't think energy can be created. It can only be liberated, stored and converted.
But just because we do not know "how" does not mean that it cannot be done somehow "else".

NMR is used on organic compounds and other chemicals to discover the properties of whats in that sample.  When they do metals, they usually put shavings in a solution.    "You say that it only creates Milli volts", well yes that is very true.  Thats why they put metal into a solution.  The buildup on a large metal sample could  hurt someone.  Also you have to think that they use NMR on organic molecules and those of course wouldn't put off much energy at all..

The reason NMR is not attempted on bulk metals is: eddy currents induced by time varying magnetic fields and the associated skin-effect.  The safety of bulk ferromagnetic materials in strong magnetic fields is also an issue.

The bottom line is:  NMR alone is incapable of generating strong pulses of electric current.
But NMR together with some other phenomenon, could be capable.

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.

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
 

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

Please do.
It is not a waste of your time to pick holes in somebody's theory. It is peer review.

You are sharing your knowledge with less educated users of this forum, protecting them from going down the wrong path, possibly saving a lot of money on somebody's futile replication attempt.

The author of this theory might also benefit from your criticism and if he is scientifically honest he might withdraw or correct or refine his concepts.

I agree with Verpies..  That is very interesting.  Cause there are many different NMR fascicles..  I won't begrudge smart talk anywhere..

...
I’m sorry but it’s nothing personal.
...

Of course, it's nothing personal.
 
It's for the sake of truth.

When somebody comes and calls other people's work "crap", uses expressions like
"Now things are indeed getting into avalanche into his mind" or
" It seems to me Mr. McFreey is not clear on such elementary issue" or
" It is obviously he departed completely from physics and science and he does not even understand the huge errors he makes…"
and poses as an expert on things that he has no clue about, has to be exposed as an imposter.

You admit yourself that you are not an expert:
" I’m not expert in NMR (only I had it studied years ago) and clearly I’m far from the position of writing about beta-NMR.".
So, do not pretend to be one.

I am a physicist and I do these things everyday, this includes beta-NMR.  I do not base my expertise on a single paper.
I know that the samples to be used for beta-NMR have to be prepared by irradiation only to get a certain desired sensitivity. To get beta-NMR signal, this is not necessary. In this case it is enough to rely on natural isotope composition of elements. But you, of course, are not aware of such details.

McFreey is not writing about conduction electrons at all and, unlike you,  he knows that the nucleus is capable of emitting electrons.

Be aware that there are other experts on this forum. I will make sure that your "expertise" will not be taken for granted and will expose any ignorant claims.