Re: [Vo]:New SWOT analysis of the E-cat
Axil-- Your comments about zero spin means zero quadrupole spin seems founded relative to Daniel’s comment. I am not sure what you mean by quadrupole spin? Daniel was talking about quadrupole and octapole moments of a nucleus. I would argue that a nucleus with a nominal ground state with 0 spin could be excited to a higher spin state as Daniel has suggested. What leads you to consider that such ground states cannot be excited to higher and potentially unstable spin states. I would say that in the presence of a magnetic field of high strength and an appropriate resonant frequency, that such ground state nuclei with 0 spin could be excited to higher spin energy states. I think the standard theory which includes quarks with various intrinsic spins could respond to such energy inputs and result in a unstable nuclei. Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: Axil Axil Sent: Thursday, August 7, 2014 6:04 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com You should also check out the quadrupole and octopole moments. The nucleus can also bounces in more complicated ways and emit RF. http://www.easyspin.org/documentation/isotopetable.html Zero spin also means zero quadrupole spin. On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 6:43 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: You should also check out the quadrupole and octopole moments. The nucleus can also bounces in more complicated ways and emit RF. 2014-08-06 17:29 GMT-03:00 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com: The reason why zero spins work and non zero spins don't in LENR is that NMR active (non zero spin) nuclei wastes energy by converting that magnetic power into RF. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:An good analogy for nanomagnetism
Interesting comparisons. Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: Jones Beene Sent: Friday, August 8, 2014 5:54 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com In automotive engineering, there are several idealized energy transfer cycles which involve four clearly segmented stages of engine operation. For instance, the Otto cycle consists of: 1) Intake, Compression, Expansion, Exhaust which are further arranged as 2) Two isentropic processes - adiabatic and reversible and 3) Two isochoric processes - constant volume 4) As an idealized cycle, this never happens completely in practice, but it permits substantial gain in a ratchet-like way and substantial understanding of the process. 5) There are many other idealized cycles for combustion, such as the Stirling which is probably closer, as an analogy, to nanomagnetism In nanomagnetism, there is a corresponding strong metaphor involving a similar kind of 4 legged hysteresis curve, where we find 1) Antiferromagnetism, superparamagnetism, ferrimagnetism and superferromagnetism working in a repeating cycle 2) The remainder of the analogy is under development but there are two reversible processes involving field alignment, requiring two operative classes of reactants - one mobile and one stationary 3) Nanomagnetism requires a ferromagnetic nucleus which is nominally stationary. (yes, palladium and titanium alloy can be ferromagnetic) 4) Nanomagnetism requires a mobile medium, loaded or absorbed into the ferromagnet which has variable magnetic properties. 5) Hydrogen and its isotopes appears to be the exclusive mobile medium, which can oscillate between diamagnetic (as a molecule) and strongly paramagnetic (as an absorbed atom) 6) Spin coupling provides the transfer of energy from the ferromagnetic nucleus to the mobile nucleus in a method similar to induction. 7) Inverse square permits very strong effective fields for transfer of spin energy from nickel-62, for instance. 8) Nanomagnetism seems to boosted by the presence of an oxide of the ferromagnet - i.e. nickel with a small percentage of nickel oxide but the oxide is not required. This is an emerging hypothesis, the details of which are fluid, but... shall we say... attractive :-)
Re: [Vo]:An good analogy for nanomagnetism
Well done, Jones! Creativity works with bisociations (see Kostler) Peter On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: In automotive engineering, there are several idealized energy transfer cycles which involve four clearly segmented stages of engine operation. For instance, the Otto cycle consists of: 1) Intake, Compression, Expansion, Exhaust which are further arranged as 2) Two isentropic processes - adiabatic and reversible and 3) Two isochoric processes - constant volume 4) As an idealized cycle, this never happens completely in practice, but it permits substantial gain in a ratchet-like way and substantial understanding of the process. 5) There are many other idealized cycles for combustion, such as the Stirling which is probably closer, as an analogy, to nanomagnetism In nanomagnetism, there is a corresponding strong metaphor involving a similar kind of 4 legged hysteresis curve, where we find 1) Antiferromagnetism, superparamagnetism, ferrimagnetism and superferromagnetism working in a repeating cycle 2) The remainder of the analogy is under development but there are two reversible processes involving field alignment, requiring two operative classes of reactants - one mobile and one stationary 3) Nanomagnetism requires a ferromagnetic nucleus which is nominally stationary. (yes, palladium and titanium alloy can be ferromagnetic) 4) Nanomagnetism requires a mobile medium, loaded or absorbed into the ferromagnet which has variable magnetic properties. 5) Hydrogen and its isotopes appears to be the exclusive mobile medium, which can oscillate between diamagnetic (as a molecule) and strongly paramagnetic (as an absorbed atom) 6) Spin coupling provides the transfer of energy from the ferromagnetic nucleus to the mobile nucleus in a method similar to induction. 7) Inverse square permits very strong effective fields for transfer of spin energy from nickel-62, for instance. 8) Nanomagnetism seems to boosted by the presence of an oxide of the ferromagnet - i.e. nickel with a small percentage of nickel oxide but the oxide is not required. This is an emerging hypothesis, the details of which are fluid, but... shall we say... attractive :-) -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:Fwd: LENR-Cities SA was established today in Neuchatel, Switzerland.
just to say that things about LENR-Cities get more and more precise (and even more if you have insider data). http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/546-LENR-Cities-SA-was-established-today-in-Neuchatel-Switzerland/?postID=1035#post1035 Today, on Linked-in, Michel Vandenberghe announced the creation of his company https://www.linkedin.com/groups/After-working-2-years-half-4132340.S.5897767421581750273, dedicated to supporting an LENR Ecosystem. LENR-Cities SA was established today in Neuchatel, Switzerland. ...
RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
Thanks Peter and Bob. Here are a couple of additional thoughts on an emerging nanomagnetism hypothesis. Nanomagnetism can be operational parallel to other processes in any experiment, even a novel form of “fusion” if that exists. Nanomagnetism can be part of a dynamical Casimir effect as well. However, the thermal gain of nanomagnetism results from a direct conversion of mass-to-energy, where the mass lost is in the form of nuclear spin – possibly quark spin. There is no transmutation and no nuclear radiation. It is likely that there are two (or three) distinct temperature regimes for Ni-H. Nanomagnetism is involved most strongly in the lower regime which is seen in the Cravens demo. In this regime the Neel temperature is critical. We can note that Cravens adds samarium-cobalt to his active mix. This material is permanently magnetized. In a higher temperature version of nanomagnetism, the Curie point is critical. This would explain the noticeable threshold mentioned in several papers around 350 C. In the highest temperature regime (HotCat) permanent magnetism is not possible as an inherent feature, and an external field must be implemented. Thus, resistance wiring itself can be supplying the needed magnetic field alignment in the HotCat. Only a few hundred Gauss is required and it can be intermittent. At the core of the hot version, and possibly all versions, is a new kind of HTSC or high-temperature superconductivity which is local and happens only in quantum particles (quantum dots, or excitons). This form of “local HTSC” seen at the nanoscale only, is entering the mainstream as we speak, see: “Physicists unlock nature of high-temperature superconductivity” http://phys.org/news/2014-07-physicists-nature-high-temperature-superconductivity.html Summary: Magnetism is highly directional. Knowing the directional dependence … we were able, for the first time, to quantitatively predict the material's superconducting properties using a series of mathematical equations… calculations showed that the gap possesses d-wave symmetry, implying that for certain directions the electrons were bound together very strongly, while they were not bound at all for other directions, This in effect is the spin-flip seen in the transition from superparamagnetism to superferromagnetism working in a repeating cycle with intermediate stages which are antiferromagnetic or ferrimagnetic around the Neel temperature, in one version - so in effect what we have in nanomagnetism is a “heat driven electrical transformer” where the heat is self-generated. __ In automotive engineering, there are several idealized energy transfer cycles which involve four clearly segmented stages of engine operation. For instance, the Otto cycle consists of: 1) Intake, Compression, Expansion, Exhaust which are further arranged as 2) Two isentropic processes - adiabatic and reversible and 3) Two isochoric processes - constant volume 4) As an idealized cycle, this never happens completely in practice, but it permits substantial gain in a ratchet-like way and substantial understanding of the process. 5) There are many other idealized cycles for combustion, such as the Stirling which is probably closer, as an analogy, to nanomagnetism In nanomagnetism, there is a corresponding strong metaphor involving a similar kind of 4 legged hysteresis curve, where we find 1) Antiferromagnetism, superparamagnetism, ferrimagnetism and superferromagnetism working in a repeating cycle 2) The remainder of the analogy is under development but there are two reversible processes involving field alignment, requiring two operative classes of reactants - one mobile and one stationary 3) Nanomagnetism requires a ferromagnetic nucleus which is nominally stationary. (yes, palladium and titanium alloy can be ferromagnetic) 4) Nanomagnetism requires a mobile medium, loaded or absorbed into the ferromagnet which has variable magnetic properties. 5) Hydrogen and its isotopes appears to be the exclusive mobile medium, which can oscillate between diamagnetic (as a molecule) and strongly paramagnetic (as an absorbed atom) 6) Spin coupling provides the transfer of energy from the ferromagnetic nucleus to the mobile nucleus in a method similar to induction. 7) Inverse square permits very strong effective fields for transfer of spin energy from nickel-62, for instance. 8) Nanomagnetism seems to boosted by the presence of an oxide of the ferromagnet - i.e. nickel with a small percentage of nickel oxide but the oxide is not required. This is an emerging hypothesis, the details of which are fluid, but... shall we say... attractive :-)
Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter
Axil, I feel it is counterproductive to the advancement of science for people to be proposing ideas willy nilly - ideas that have no bearing in reality and cleary violates known physical principles. Attempts at theory of these kinds are not helpful and adds a significant amount of noise that needs to be sifted thru and vetted. I think this is what Ed storms is lamenting from ideas coming in this forum. Take your ideas of exotic substances (BEC soltions) shielding nanostructures from melting in high temps. Such metaphasic shielding ideas are counterproductive. Instead of cleary admitting that your ideas has a big hole - a clear violation of a known physical property; you propose this even more preposterous idea of metaphasic shielding for high temps to try to explain another created miracle. Each miracle requires a dozen more miracles to explain it. This is getting ridiculous. Tell me my friend; would you be so bold in proposing such ludricous ideas if people knew who you really are? Being anonymous affords you the opportunity to be as outrageous and senseless as you like without consequence. I am trying to say this without any attempt at a personal attack, but people has got to admit - this is part of the problem, and IMO, part of why Ed left this forum. Jojo - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2014 3:44 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter The whole discussion about different theories is way too adament in my opinion. It seems like if evry theory is having problems to be accepted by a wide group of scientists. Whenever there is a mystery in science, many theories are proposed to explain that mystery. Take for an example dark matter, there are hundreds of theories that have been put forth to explain that mystery. There is even a dozen categories in which these theories can be grouped. The debate that weighs each new piece of evidence against all those theories is very healthy. Over time, and with many iterations, one of the many will pull away in the theory sweepstakes.
Re: [Vo]:New SWOT analysis of the E-cat
Bob: In the reference that I sited, the last column in the list is titled as follows: electric quadrupole moment in bar' You notice that for a zero spin element, the quadrupole moment is zero. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 2:37 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Axil-- Your comments about zero spin means zero quadrupole spin seems founded relative to Daniel’s comment. I am not sure what you mean by quadrupole spin? Daniel was talking about quadrupole and octapole moments of a nucleus. I would argue that a nucleus with a nominal ground state with 0 spin could be excited to a higher spin state as Daniel has suggested. What leads you to consider that such ground states cannot be excited to higher and potentially unstable spin states. I would say that in the presence of a magnetic field of high strength and an appropriate resonant frequency, that such ground state nuclei with 0 spin could be excited to higher spin energy states. I think the standard theory which includes quarks with various intrinsic spins could respond to such energy inputs and result in a unstable nuclei. Bob Sent from Windows Mail *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *Sent:* Thursday, August 7, 2014 6:04 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *You should also check out the quadrupole and octopole moments. The nucleus can also bounces in more complicated ways and emit RF. * http://www.easyspin.org/documentation/isotopetable.html Zero spin also means zero quadrupole spin. On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 6:43 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: You should also check out the quadrupole and octopole moments. The nucleus can also bounces in more complicated ways and emit RF. 2014-08-06 17:29 GMT-03:00 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com: The reason why zero spins work and non zero spins don't in LENR is that NMR active (non zero spin) nuclei wastes energy by converting that magnetic power into RF. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter
Dear Jojo, I want to answer you in part, prior to Axil. We have to take great care with naming ideas willy nilly,,nanoplasmonics, nanomagnetism, BEC are not so have a growing literature - see Google Scholar please and do a lighting fast search. What sacrosnct rules they contradict how when this has to be shown for any case in detail. Thermodynamics is first candidate and it is much invoked- great care! I think that the field is in such a deep trouble- not understood, desired process not controlled, no possibilities of intensification and scale-up visible- that really new ideas, principles, theories are needed. The old ones have no connection to the experimental reality- Ed Storms is right in not liking theories; he still has to demonstrate that his new theory has problem solving power. I would advise to welcome ideas that are new here- but have domains of validity outside LENR. You also can come with new ideas, the old ones have not been productive at all, right?. Peter On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: Axil, I feel it is counterproductive to the advancement of science for people to be proposing ideas willy nilly - ideas that have no bearing in reality and cleary violates known physical principles. Attempts at theory of these kinds are not helpful and adds a significant amount of noise that needs to be sifted thru and vetted. I think this is what Ed storms is lamenting from ideas coming in this forum. Take your ideas of exotic substances (BEC soltions) shielding nanostructures from melting in high temps. Such metaphasic shielding ideas are counterproductive. Instead of cleary admitting that your ideas has a big hole - a clear violation of a known physical property; you propose this even more preposterous idea of metaphasic shielding for high temps to try to explain another created miracle. Each miracle requires a dozen more miracles to explain it. This is getting ridiculous. Tell me my friend; would you be so bold in proposing such ludricous ideas if people knew who you really are? Being anonymous affords you the opportunity to be as outrageous and senseless as you like without consequence. I am trying to say this without any attempt at a personal attack, but people has got to admit - this is part of the problem, and IMO, part of why Ed left this forum. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Thursday, August 07, 2014 3:44 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter *The whole discussion about different theories is way too adament in my opinion. It seems like if evry theory is having problems to be accepted by a wide group of scientists.* Whenever there is a mystery in science, many theories are proposed to explain that mystery. Take for an example dark matter, there are hundreds of theories that have been put forth to explain that mystery. There is even a dozen categories in which these theories can be grouped. The debate that weighs each new piece of evidence against all those theories is very healthy. Over time, and with many iterations, one of the many will pull away in the theory sweepstakes. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
RE: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
From Daniel, Their theory doesn't make sense, not even as a classical approximation. I cannot make heads or tails of anything there. For example, any wave function, time independent, must be a standing wave. If it is a fraction, and you want to enforce this, it will be a sum of many waves, possibly infinite. This violates the exclusion principle, since each orbital can only have one spin of each electron. I have a suggestion to make, one that applies to anyone who may have serious questions and/or doubts about certain aspects pertaining to Mills' audacious classical approach to physics. Directly ask the doctor over at Yahoo SoCP. Sign up, get accepted via through the moderator, and start posting your questions. Preferably, that's how all questions of this nature should best be addressed. To put it bluntly, trying to get one's questions answered via 2nd and 3rd hand interpretation is a monumentally stupid way to lean about a controversial subject of this nature. Don't let the fact that SoCP is a moderated group turn anyone off. The moderator, John Farrell, is a reasonable individual. I only had one of my numerous posts returned, and I got a reasonable private reply as to why he rejected it. In that particular case John still sent my comments to Dr. Mills privately (upon my request), bypassing the group. That was good enuf for me. If you are reasonable and courteous in the manner of how you assemble your questions it's likely that you can get your questions posted. It's been my experience that often, Mills seems to like answering these kinds of CP questions, particularly if he doesn't think he trying to communicate with a stalwart skeptic/debunker or a crank. However, he often tends to be terse in his responses. I don't blame him for being terse. He does have the serious issue of a business to run. Personal gripe of mine: I realize I'm not a physicist. I don't possess sufficient math in my background to make heads or tails out of much of CP. Nevertheless, I get really tired hearing about all the mathematical and/or experimental evidence complaints coming out of Vortex-L about what someone perceives as a critical and/or fatal flaw concerning Mills' CP, but they never make a concerted effort to directly ask the doctor to respond to such concerns. Instead many just continue complain about their misgivings here, and never do anything more than that: They just complain. And then, soon enough, their complaints turn into irrefutable fact. Self fulfilling prophecy. Granted I do believe some posters here have actually attempted to get some of their questions asked over at SoCP, and maybe some of those questions were rejected. I don't know. But have you, Daniel? Have you tried? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
dear Jones This was your second remarkable and citable idea during recent days- the first being your Mizuno D/Ni review/synthesis. ONLY NEW IDEAS CAN SAVE LENR! Peter On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 4:55 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Thanks Peter and Bob. Here are a couple of additional thoughts on an emerging nanomagnetism hypothesis. Nanomagnetism can be operational parallel to other processes in any experiment, even a novel form of “fusion” if that exists. Nanomagnetism can be part of a dynamical Casimir effect as well. However, the thermal gain of nanomagnetism results from a direct conversion of mass-to-energy, where the mass lost is in the form of nuclear spin – possibly quark spin. There is no transmutation and no nuclear radiation. It is likely that there are two (or three) distinct temperature regimes for Ni-H. Nanomagnetism is involved most strongly in the lower regime which is seen in the Cravens demo. In this regime the Neel temperature is critical. We can note that Cravens adds samarium-cobalt to his active mix. This material is permanently magnetized. In a higher temperature version of nanomagnetism, the Curie point is critical. This would explain the noticeable threshold mentioned in several papers around 350 C. In the highest temperature regime (HotCat) permanent magnetism is not possible as an inherent feature, and an external field must be implemented. Thus, resistance wiring itself can be supplying the needed magnetic field alignment in the HotCat. Only a few hundred Gauss is required and it can be intermittent. At the core of the hot version, and possibly all versions, is a new kind of HTSC or high-temperature superconductivity which is local and happens only in quantum particles (quantum dots, or excitons). This form of “local HTSC” seen at the nanoscale only, is entering the mainstream as we speak, see: “Physicists unlock nature of high-temperature superconductivity” http://phys.org/news/2014-07-physicists-nature-high-temperature-superconductivity.html Summary: Magnetism is highly directional. Knowing the directional dependence … we were able, for the first time, to quantitatively predict the material's superconducting properties using a series of mathematical equations… calculations showed that the gap possesses d-wave symmetry, implying that for certain directions the electrons were bound together very strongly, while they were not bound at all for other directions, This in effect is the spin-flip seen in the transition from superparamagnetism to superferromagnetism working in a repeating cycle with intermediate stages which are antiferromagnetic or ferrimagnetic around the Neel temperature, in one version - so in effect what we have in nanomagnetism is a “heat driven electrical transformer” where the heat is self-generated. __ In automotive engineering, there are several idealized energy transfer cycles which involve four clearly segmented stages of engine operation. For instance, the Otto cycle consists of: 1) Intake, Compression, Expansion, Exhaust which are further arranged as 2) Two isentropic processes - adiabatic and reversible and 3) Two isochoric processes - constant volume 4) As an idealized cycle, this never happens completely in practice, but it permits substantial gain in a ratchet-like way and substantial understanding of the process. 5) There are many other idealized cycles for combustion, such as the Stirling which is probably closer, as an analogy, to nanomagnetism In nanomagnetism, there is a corresponding strong metaphor involving a similar kind of 4 legged hysteresis curve, where we find 1) Antiferromagnetism, superparamagnetism, ferrimagnetism and superferromagnetism working in a repeating cycle 2) The remainder of the analogy is under development but there are two reversible processes involving field alignment, requiring two operative classes of reactants - one mobile and one stationary 3) Nanomagnetism requires a ferromagnetic nucleus which is nominally stationary. (yes, palladium and titanium alloy can be ferromagnetic) 4) Nanomagnetism requires a mobile medium, loaded or absorbed into the ferromagnet which has variable magnetic properties. 5) Hydrogen and its isotopes appears to be the exclusive mobile medium, which can oscillate between diamagnetic (as a molecule) and strongly paramagnetic (as an absorbed atom) 6) Spin coupling provides the transfer of energy from the ferromagnetic nucleus to the mobile nucleus in a method similar to induction. 7) Inverse square permits very strong effective fields for transfer of spin energy from nickel-62, for instance. 8) Nanomagnetism seems to boosted by the presence of an oxide of the ferromagnet - i.e. nickel with a small percentage of nickel oxide but the oxide is not required. This is an emerging
RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
The most important unsolved problem in physics is arguably proton/quark spin dynamics. The superset of this problem is underappreciated – variability of proton mass. It is a surprise to many scientists that quark mass is highly variable and apparently has been for billions of years … meaning that there could be gradual shifts over time. Quark mass cannot be accurately quantized; and because of that systemic problem in fundamental physics - proton mass is itself variable as a logical deduction. Protons, or at least a fraction on the distribution tail of any population, can therefore supply a great deal of energy without the need to fuse or undergo any change in identity. Quark spin and proton spin are, in one viewpoint, independent of each other, but they must be linked (as a logical deduction) which is another form of wave-particle duality. This is part of the larger so-called “proton spin crisis”. There are dozens if not hundreds of papers and scholarly articles trying to rationalize problems with the standard model of physics, based on quark mass variation going all the way back to Big Bang nucleosynthesis. Quark mass variation is a fact, and quark spin is a major feature of that mass. This is why any new model for LENR – based on mass depletion of reactants (mass-to-energy conversion) via spin coupling is on much firmer theoretical ground than a silly attempt to invent a way to completely hide gamma rays. Gamma rays are known to always be emitted when deuterium fuses to helium. It is almost brain-dead to suggest that they can be hidden with 100% success in any experiment where they should be seen. It is an embarrassment to the field of LENR when a scientist of the caliber of Ed Storms, goes on record as saying that nanomagnetism is “a distraction”. Distraction to what? one must ask: is it a distraction to promotion of a book, or a distraction to an erroneous suggestion that helium is found commensurate with excess heat in LENR? Or a distraction to the bogus idea that gamma rays can be hidden 100% of the time? That is the kind of distraction which is poised to become the new norm. Thanks Peter and Bob. Here are a couple of additional thoughts on an emerging nanomagnetism hypothesis. Nanomagnetism can be operational parallel to other processes in any experiment, even a novel form of “fusion” if that exists. Nanomagnetism can be part of a dynamical Casimir effect as well. However, the thermal gain of nanomagnetism results from a direct conversion of mass-to-energy, where the mass lost is in the form of nuclear spin – possibly quark spin. There is no transmutation and no nuclear radiation. It is likely that there are two (or three) distinct temperature regimes for Ni-H. Nanomagnetism is involved most strongly in the lower regime which is seen in the Cravens demo. In this regime the Neel temperature is critical. We can note that Cravens adds samarium-cobalt to his active mix. This material is permanently magnetized. In a higher temperature version of nanomagnetism, the Curie point is critical. This would explain the noticeable threshold mentioned in several papers around 350 C. In the highest temperature regime (HotCat) permanent magnetism is not possible as an inherent feature, and an external field must be implemented. Thus, resistance wiring itself can be supplying the needed magnetic field alignment in the HotCat. Only a few hundred Gauss is required and it can be intermittent. At the core of the hot version, and possibly all versions, is a new kind of HTSC or high-temperature superconductivity which is local and happens only in quantum particles (quantum dots, or excitons). This form of “local HTSC” seen at the nanoscale only, is entering the mainstream as we speak, see: “Physicists unlock nature of high-temperature superconductivity” http://phys.org/news/2014-07-physicists-nature-high-temperature-superconductivity.html Summary: Magnetism is highly directional. Knowing the directional dependence … we were able, for the first time, to quantitatively predict the material's superconducting properties using a series of mathematical equations… calculations showed that the gap possesses d-wave symmetry, implying that for certain directions the electrons were bound together very strongly, while they were not bound at all for other directions, This in effect is the spin-flip seen in the transition from superparamagnetism to superferromagnetism working in a repeating cycle with intermediate stages which are antiferromagnetic or ferrimagnetic around the Neel temperature, in one version - so in effect what we have in nanomagnetism is a “heat driven electrical transformer” where the heat is self-generated. __ In automotive engineering, there are several idealized energy transfer cycles which involve four clearly segmented
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
Very interesting, creates a greater context of our problems, but we have specific problems too. I have just started to write a paper about the roots (more local) of LENR 's problems. Storms considers my air poisoning hypothesis also a silly distraction but we are unable to get reproducible results- even of low level reproducibility in the FP Cell type wet systems. Why? Peter On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 6:20 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: The most important unsolved problem in physics is arguably proton/quark spin dynamics. The superset of this problem is underappreciated – variability of proton mass. It is a surprise to many scientists that quark mass is highly variable and apparently has been for billions of years … meaning that there could be gradual shifts over time. Quark mass cannot be accurately quantized; and because of that systemic problem in fundamental physics - proton mass is itself variable as a logical deduction. Protons, or at least a fraction on the distribution tail of any population, can therefore supply a great deal of energy without the need to fuse or undergo any change in identity. Quark spin and proton spin are, in one viewpoint, independent of each other, but they must be linked (as a logical deduction) which is another form of wave-particle duality. This is part of the larger so-called “proton spin crisis”. There are dozens if not hundreds of papers and scholarly articles trying to rationalize problems with the standard model of physics, based on quark mass variation going all the way back to Big Bang nucleosynthesis. Quark mass variation is a fact, and quark spin is a major feature of that mass. This is why any new model for LENR – based on mass depletion of reactants (mass-to-energy conversion) via spin coupling is on much firmer theoretical ground than a silly attempt to invent a way to completely hide gamma rays. Gamma rays are known to always be emitted when deuterium fuses to helium. It is almost brain-dead to suggest that they can be hidden with 100% success in any experiment where they should be seen. It is an embarrassment to the field of LENR when a scientist of the caliber of Ed Storms, goes on record as saying that nanomagnetism is “a distraction”. Distraction to what? one must ask: is it a distraction to promotion of a book, or a distraction to an erroneous suggestion that helium is found commensurate with excess heat in LENR? Or a distraction to the bogus idea that gamma rays can be hidden 100% of the time? That is the kind of distraction which is poised to become the new norm. Thanks Peter and Bob. Here are a couple of additional thoughts on an emerging nanomagnetism hypothesis. Nanomagnetism can be operational parallel to other processes in any experiment, even a novel form of “fusion” if that exists. Nanomagnetism can be part of a dynamical Casimir effect as well. However, the thermal gain of nanomagnetism results from a direct conversion of mass-to-energy, where the mass lost is in the form of nuclear spin – possibly quark spin. There is no transmutation and no nuclear radiation. It is likely that there are two (or three) distinct temperature regimes for Ni-H. Nanomagnetism is involved most strongly in the lower regime which is seen in the Cravens demo. In this regime the Neel temperature is critical. We can note that Cravens adds samarium-cobalt to his active mix. This material is permanently magnetized. In a higher temperature version of nanomagnetism, the Curie point is critical. This would explain the noticeable threshold mentioned in several papers around 350 C. In the highest temperature regime (HotCat) permanent magnetism is not possible as an inherent feature, and an external field must be implemented. Thus, resistance wiring itself can be supplying the needed magnetic field alignment in the HotCat. Only a few hundred Gauss is required and it can be intermittent. At the core of the hot version, and possibly all versions, is a new kind of HTSC or high-temperature superconductivity which is local and happens only in quantum particles (quantum dots, or excitons). This form of “local HTSC” seen at the nanoscale only, is entering the mainstream as we speak, see: “Physicists unlock nature of high-temperature superconductivity” http://phys.org/news/2014-07-physicists-nature-high-temperature-superconductivity.html Summary: Magnetism is highly directional. Knowing the directional dependence … we were able, for the first time, to quantitatively predict the material's superconducting properties using a series of mathematical equations… calculations showed that the gap possesses d-wave symmetry, implying that for certain directions the electrons were bound together very strongly, while they were not bound at all for other directions, This in effect is the spin-flip seen in the transition from
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
Jones, I want to ask you about your thougths about the variation in proton mass. Should the variation be measurable with high sensitivity mass spectrometers? I suppose that even a 1% variation would be more than enough to supply all of the nuclear energy that we are seeing since the energy content of the standard mass is so great. Also, are you aware of any super accurate mass measurements that have shown variation in this factor? Perhaps the best way to begin discussion of this question is to locate the basic standard variation curves that must have been generated for lone proton measurements to see if the uncertainty has enough range to be useful. If the standard deviation of mass uncertainty is adequate then this might be a productive concept. In that case, LENR is merely a process that leads to the release of the stored energy and methods to enhance that process must be available. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 11:20 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism The most importantunsolved problem in physics is arguably proton/quark spin dynamics. Thesuperset of this problem is underappreciated – variability of proton mass. It is a surprise to manyscientists that quark mass is highly variable and apparently has been forbillions of years … meaning that there could be gradual shifts over time. Quarkmass cannot be accurately quantized; and because of that systemic problem infundamental physics - proton mass is itself variable as a logical deduction. Protons,or at least a fraction on the distribution tail of any population, can thereforesupply a great deal of energy without the need to fuse or undergo any change inidentity. Quark spin and proton spin are, in one viewpoint, independent of eachother, but they must be linked (as a logical deduction) which is another formof wave-particle duality. This is part of the larger so-called “proton spin crisis”. There are dozens if nothundreds of papers and scholarly articles trying to rationalize problems withthe standard model of physics, based on quark mass variation going all the wayback to Big Bang nucleosynthesis. Quark mass variation is a fact, and quarkspin is a major feature of that mass. This is why any new modelfor LENR – based on mass depletion of reactants (mass-to-energy conversion) viaspin coupling is on much firmer theoretical ground than a silly attempt toinvent a way to completely hide gamma rays. Gamma rays are known to always beemitted when deuterium fuses to helium. It is almost brain-dead to suggest thatthey can be hidden with 100% success in any experiment where they should beseen. It is an embarrassment to thefield of LENR when a scientist of the caliber of Ed Storms, goes on record assaying that nanomagnetism is “a distraction”. Distraction to what? one must ask:is it a distraction to promotion of a book, or a distraction to an erroneous suggestionthat helium is found commensurate with excess heat in LENR? Or a distraction tothe bogus idea that gamma rays can be hidden 100% of the time? That is the kind ofdistraction which is poised to become the new norm. Thanks Peter and Bob. Here are a couple of additional thoughts onan emerging nanomagnetism hypothesis. Nanomagnetism can be operational parallel to other processes inany experiment, even a novel form of “fusion” if that exists. Nanomagnetism canbe part of a dynamical Casimir effect as well. However, the thermal gain ofnanomagnetism results from a direct conversion of mass-to-energy, where themass lost is in the form of nuclear spin – possibly quark spin. There is notransmutation and no nuclear radiation. It is likely that there are two (or three) distinct temperatureregimes for Ni-H. Nanomagnetism is involved most strongly in the lower regimewhich is seen in the Cravens demo. In this regime the Neel temperature iscritical. We can note that Cravens adds samarium-cobalt to his active mix. Thismaterial is permanently magnetized. In a higher temperature version of nanomagnetism, the Curie pointis critical. This would explain the noticeable threshold mentioned in severalpapers around 350 C. In the highest temperature regime (HotCat) permanent magnetism is notpossible as an inherent feature, and an external field must be implemented.Thus, resistance wiring itself can be supplying the needed magnetic fieldalignment in the HotCat. Only a few hundred Gauss is required and it can beintermittent. At the core of the hot version, and possibly all versions, is anew kind of HTSC or high-temperature superconductivity which is local andhappens only in quantum particles (quantum dots, or excitons). This form of“local HTSC” seen at the nanoscale only, is entering the mainstream as wespeak, see: “Physicists unlock nature of high-temperature superconductivity”
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
I don't have anything to ask. When I wrote I don't make heads or tails of their theory, it's not because I cannot understand because it is too hard or I missing something in the mumbo jumbo. In fact, what I mean is an euphemism for their theory being not even wrong. What they do is worse than WL theory, because at least these won't try to reformulate *all* physics with things that are known not to work. What they do is either naive or dishonest. But given that their experiments display a physical sign that it doesn't work (the fast oxidation of the electrodes) and the massive money they are always getting plus 20 years of over excuses, I am compelled to at least to not take them seriously. 2014-08-09 12:09 GMT-03:00 Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net: But have you, Daniel? Have you tried? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
Auburn University BLP Replication: http://beforeitsnews.com/energy/2014/08/blacklight-power-gets-2-more-validations-more-information-2454992.html Follow the links from the first sentence of the article. --On Saturday, August 09, 2014 12:38 PM -0300 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: I don't have anything to ask. When I wrote I don't make heads or tails of their theory, it's not because I cannot understand because it is too hard or I missing something in the mumbo jumbo. In fact, what I mean is an euphemism for their theory being not even wrong. What they do is worse than WL theory, because at least these won't try to reformulate *all* physics with things that are known not to work. What they do is either naive or dishonest. But given that their experiments display a physical sign that it doesn't work (the fast oxidation of the electrodes) and the massive money they are always getting plus 20 years of over excuses, I am compelled to at least to not take them seriously. 2014-08-09 12:09 GMT-03:00 Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net: But have you, Daniel? Have you tried? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
The spin of the proton is the big puzzle in particle physics. The quarks in the proton contribute less than half of the required proton spin. The gluons contribute the remainder of the spin. But theory says that gluons should not have spin. If gluons have spin then they must be magnetic and they can be effected by magnetic force. But the gluons are the force carriers of the strong force; the strong force is not magnetic. But the strong force must be magnetic if the gluons have spin. Something is not right about how theory defines the strong force and it will take LENR, IMHO, to solve this issue. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 11:37 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Jones, I want to ask you about your thougths about the variation in proton mass. Should the variation be measurable with high sensitivity mass spectrometers? I suppose that even a 1% variation would be more than enough to supply all of the nuclear energy that we are seeing since the energy content of the standard mass is so great. Also, are you aware of any super accurate mass measurements that have shown variation in this factor? Perhaps the best way to begin discussion of this question is to locate the basic standard variation curves that must have been generated for lone proton measurements to see if the uncertainty has enough range to be useful. If the standard deviation of mass uncertainty is adequate then this might be a productive concept. In that case, LENR is merely a process that leads to the release of the stored energy and methods to enhance that process must be available. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 11:20 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism The most important unsolved problem in physics is arguably proton/quark spin dynamics. The superset of this problem is underappreciated – variability of proton mass. It is a surprise to many scientists that quark mass is highly variable and apparently has been for billions of years … meaning that there could be gradual shifts over time. Quark mass cannot be accurately quantized; and because of that systemic problem in fundamental physics - proton mass is itself variable as a logical deduction. Protons, or at least a fraction on the distribution tail of any population, can therefore supply a great deal of energy without the need to fuse or undergo any change in identity. Quark spin and proton spin are, in one viewpoint, independent of each other, but they must be linked (as a logical deduction) which is another form of wave-particle duality. This is part of the larger so-called “proton spin crisis”. There are dozens if not hundreds of papers and scholarly articles trying to rationalize problems with the standard model of physics, based on quark mass variation going all the way back to Big Bang nucleosynthesis. Quark mass variation is a fact, and quark spin is a major feature of that mass. This is why any new model for LENR – based on mass depletion of reactants (mass-to-energy conversion) via spin coupling is on much firmer theoretical ground than a silly attempt to invent a way to completely hide gamma rays. Gamma rays are known to always be emitted when deuterium fuses to helium. It is almost brain-dead to suggest that they can be hidden with 100% success in any experiment where they should be seen. It is an embarrassment to the field of LENR when a scientist of the caliber of Ed Storms, goes on record as saying that nanomagnetism is “a distraction”. Distraction to what? one must ask: is it a distraction to promotion of a book, or a distraction to an erroneous suggestion that helium is found commensurate with excess heat in LENR? Or a distraction to the bogus idea that gamma rays can be hidden 100% of the time? That is the kind of distraction which is poised to become the new norm. Thanks Peter and Bob. Here are a couple of additional thoughts on an emerging nanomagnetism hypothesis. Nanomagnetism can be operational parallel to other processes in any experiment, even a novel form of “fusion” if that exists. Nanomagnetism can be part of a dynamical Casimir effect as well. However, the thermal gain of nanomagnetism results from a direct conversion of mass-to-energy, where the mass lost is in the form of nuclear spin – possibly quark spin. There is no transmutation and no nuclear radiation. It is likely that there are two (or three) distinct temperature regimes for Ni-H. Nanomagnetism is involved most strongly in the lower regime which is seen in the Cravens demo. In this regime the Neel temperature is critical. We can note that Cravens adds samarium-cobalt to his active mix. This material is permanently magnetized. In a higher temperature version of nanomagnetism, the Curie point is critical. This would explain the noticeable threshold
RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
From: David Roberson * *I want to ask you about your thougths about the variation in proton mass. Should the variation be measurable with high sensitivity mass spectrometers? Yes and no. This is not unlike the problem of mass-4 similarity between D2 and He but more demanding. There could be repeatable statistical variation over a large population within measurement error of the very top level specialty spectrometer, running for substantial time periods. But in an average lab – no way. Given Rossi’s claims, it might even be possible to actually weight the difference on a sensitive scale if the hydrogen sample was say 10 grams of H2 from a blue box which had given up say a gigawatt of heat over 6 months. There are nanogram scales using piezoelectric effects which could be modified. * I suppose that even a 1% variation would be more than enough to supply all of the nuclear energy that we are seeing since the energy content of the standard mass is so great. Not that large. The usable mass variation for protons appears to be about 70 ppm (part per million). If the distribution is a bell curve, then perhaps one third of the population can be further depleted. In short, the average gain possible can be calculated to be about 5,000-10,000 times more than chemical but about 1,000-2,000 times less than nuclear fusion. * Also, are you aware of any super accurate mass measurements that have shown variation in this factor? I have a collection of published measurements of proton mass (going back to the cold war era) where there were substantial reported variations, especially as seen in Russia. Different instrumentation. Nowadays, everyone automatically seems to use the same value. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter
I assert that the reactions seen by Nanospire and LeClair is LENR. It is the kind of LENR that can produces high levels of gammas and neutrons. The reason behind this strange type of LENR behavior is that the energy that produce the cavitation bubbles comes from a pump. The water pump does not produce nanoparticles like a spark does and nano particles are the carriers of the BEC that shield radiation. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: Axil, I feel it is counterproductive to the advancement of science for people to be proposing ideas willy nilly - ideas that have no bearing in reality and cleary violates known physical principles. Attempts at theory of these kinds are not helpful and adds a significant amount of noise that needs to be sifted thru and vetted. I think this is what Ed storms is lamenting from ideas coming in this forum. Take your ideas of exotic substances (BEC soltions) shielding nanostructures from melting in high temps. Such metaphasic shielding ideas are counterproductive. Instead of cleary admitting that your ideas has a big hole - a clear violation of a known physical property; you propose this even more preposterous idea of metaphasic shielding for high temps to try to explain another created miracle. Each miracle requires a dozen more miracles to explain it. This is getting ridiculous. Tell me my friend; would you be so bold in proposing such ludricous ideas if people knew who you really are? Being anonymous affords you the opportunity to be as outrageous and senseless as you like without consequence. I am trying to say this without any attempt at a personal attack, but people has got to admit - this is part of the problem, and IMO, part of why Ed left this forum. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Thursday, August 07, 2014 3:44 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter *The whole discussion about different theories is way too adament in my opinion. It seems like if evry theory is having problems to be accepted by a wide group of scientists.* Whenever there is a mystery in science, many theories are proposed to explain that mystery. Take for an example dark matter, there are hundreds of theories that have been put forth to explain that mystery. There is even a dozen categories in which these theories can be grouped. The debate that weighs each new piece of evidence against all those theories is very healthy. Over time, and with many iterations, one of the many will pull away in the theory sweepstakes.
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
The wiki article seems to tie down the proton mass quite accurately, but it may just be the accuracy of the calculation instead of actual measurements. I would be interested in seeing actual mass measurements by real instruments instead of super computer calculations. It is not too hard to visualize that the measurement accuracy is questionable. How can I go about finding those results? Spin variations among the various components of the proton might easily lead to interesting results. If this is indeed the source of LENR energy, then one might ask how it is shared among the total matter of the universe. Can it be passed between various protons freely by electromagnetic interaction? Does the normal trend exist that results in kinetic energy as the preferred outcome in which case the proton mass excess would want to find some way to be converted into heat ultimately? How long can the excess energy be trapped inside the proton before it finds it way out? You might want to know if the energy transfer is a two way process where spin can be given or taken away by other protons, etc. Here, our recent discussions about interaction with magnetic fields might yield fruitful results. A large external magnetic field could be the process that directs the energy exchange in a gainful manner as opposed to random exchange that is the norm. Of course all of these questions and suppositions are based upon pure speculation thus far. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 12:01 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism The spin of the proton is the big puzzle in particle physics. The quarks in the proton contribute less than half of the required proton spin. The gluons contribute the remainder of the spin. But theory says that gluons should not have spin. If gluons have spin then they must be magnetic and they can be effected by magnetic force. But the gluons are the force carriers of the strong force; the strong force is not magnetic. But the strong force must be magnetic if the gluons have spin. Something is not right about how theory defines the strong force and it will take LENR, IMHO, to solve this issue. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 11:37 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Jones, I want to ask you about your thougths about the variation in proton mass. Should the variation be measurable with high sensitivity mass spectrometers? I suppose that even a 1% variation would be more than enough to supply all of the nuclear energy that we are seeing since the energy content of the standard mass is so great. Also, are you aware of any super accurate mass measurements that have shown variation in this factor? Perhaps the best way to begin discussion of this question is to locate the basic standard variation curves that must have been generated for lone proton measurements to see if the uncertainty has enough range to be useful. If the standard deviation of mass uncertainty is adequate then this might be a productive concept. In that case, LENR is merely a process that leads to the release of the stored energy and methods to enhance that process must be available. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 11:20 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism The most importantunsolved problem in physics is arguably proton/quark spin dynamics. Thesuperset of this problem is underappreciated – variability of proton mass. It is a surprise to manyscientists that quark mass is highly variable and apparently has been forbillions of years … meaning that there could be gradual shifts over time. Quarkmass cannot be accurately quantized; and because of that systemic problem infundamental physics - proton mass is itself variable as a logical deduction. Protons,or at least a fraction on the distribution tail of any population, can thereforesupply a great deal of energy without the need to fuse or undergo any change inidentity. Quark spin and proton spin are, in one viewpoint, independent of eachother, but they must be linked (as a logical deduction) which is another formof wave-particle duality. This is part of the larger so-called “proton spin crisis”. There are dozens if nothundreds of papers and scholarly articles trying to rationalize problems withthe standard model of physics, based on quark mass variation going all the wayback to Big Bang nucleosynthesis. Quark mass variation is a fact, and quarkspin is a major feature of that mass. This is why any new modelfor LENR – based on mass depletion of reactants (mass-to-energy conversion) viaspin coupling is on much firmer theoretical ground than a silly attempt toinvent a way to completely hide gamma rays. Gamma rays are known to always beemitted when deuterium fuses to helium. It is almost
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
I assert that the magnetic component of matter as released by LENR is the source of dark energy. Dark energy is the resonance values picked up by josephson junction resonance effects instead of dark matter. http://arxiv.org/abs/1309.3790 Could it be that the bosenova that has been seen in the DGT Ni/H reactor as described by professor Kim is a microcosm of the expansion of the universe as a result of dark energy. Could it be that the universe is undergoing a bosenova? On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:18 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The wiki article seems to tie down the proton mass quite accurately, but it may just be the accuracy of the calculation instead of actual measurements. I would be interested in seeing actual mass measurements by real instruments instead of super computer calculations. It is not too hard to visualize that the measurement accuracy is questionable. How can I go about finding those results? Spin variations among the various components of the proton might easily lead to interesting results. If this is indeed the source of LENR energy, then one might ask how it is shared among the total matter of the universe. Can it be passed between various protons freely by electromagnetic interaction? Does the normal trend exist that results in kinetic energy as the preferred outcome in which case the proton mass excess would want to find some way to be converted into heat ultimately? How long can the excess energy be trapped inside the proton before it finds it way out? You might want to know if the energy transfer is a two way process where spin can be given or taken away by other protons, etc. Here, our recent discussions about interaction with magnetic fields might yield fruitful results. A large external magnetic field could be the process that directs the energy exchange in a gainful manner as opposed to random exchange that is the norm. Of course all of these questions and suppositions are based upon pure speculation thus far. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 12:01 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism The spin of the proton is the big puzzle in particle physics. The quarks in the proton contribute less than half of the required proton spin. The gluons contribute the remainder of the spin. But theory says that gluons should not have spin. If gluons have spin then they must be magnetic and they can be effected by magnetic force. But the gluons are the force carriers of the strong force; the strong force is not magnetic. But the strong force must be magnetic if the gluons have spin. Something is not right about how theory defines the strong force and it will take LENR, IMHO, to solve this issue. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 11:37 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Jones, I want to ask you about your thougths about the variation in proton mass. Should the variation be measurable with high sensitivity mass spectrometers? I suppose that even a 1% variation would be more than enough to supply all of the nuclear energy that we are seeing since the energy content of the standard mass is so great. Also, are you aware of any super accurate mass measurements that have shown variation in this factor? Perhaps the best way to begin discussion of this question is to locate the basic standard variation curves that must have been generated for lone proton measurements to see if the uncertainty has enough range to be useful. If the standard deviation of mass uncertainty is adequate then this might be a productive concept. In that case, LENR is merely a process that leads to the release of the stored energy and methods to enhance that process must be available. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 11:20 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism The most important unsolved problem in physics is arguably proton/quark spin dynamics. The superset of this problem is underappreciated – variability of proton mass. It is a surprise to many scientists that quark mass is highly variable and apparently has been for billions of years … meaning that there could be gradual shifts over time. Quark mass cannot be accurately quantized; and because of that systemic problem in fundamental physics - proton mass is itself variable as a logical deduction. Protons, or at least a fraction on the distribution tail of any population, can therefore supply a great deal of energy without the need to fuse or undergo any change in identity. Quark spin and proton spin are, in one viewpoint, independent of each other, but they must be linked (as a logical deduction) which is another form of wave-particle duality. This is part of the larger so-called “proton spin crisis”. There are dozens if not hundreds of
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
Thanks Jones. There might be something here that needs further research. Would it not seem logical that there should exist some ultimate minimum energy level for the proton mass? In other words, some mass below which additional energy can not be extracted. I can imagine that higher spin energy states would exist. These may even exchange total energy among the nearby protons such that most remain elevated about the zero additional energy state. Then I might ask about how unidirectional the effect should be. Would the tendency to achieve maximum disorder push the process of converting the stored excess energy into thermal motion? Can random thermal motion ever be converted into spin? I suppose I am reaching for a mechanism that would allow an exchange of the captured spin energy with random thermal energy. I guess that spin energy is strongly associated with angular momentum while thermal energy tends to be considered associated with linear momentum. The two might not mix very well. So far I have not been able to come up with a way to exchange the two types of momentum. Forgive me for rambling on, but this is the way my mind processes interactive ideas as I try to connect the dots. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 12:14 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism From: David Roberson * *I want to ask you about your thougths about the variation in proton mass. Should the variation be measurable with high sensitivity mass spectrometers? Yes and no. This is not unlike the problem of mass-4 similarity between D2 and He but more demanding. There could be repeatable statistical variation over a large population within measurement error of the very top level specialty spectrometer, running for substantial time periods. But in an average lab – no way. Given Rossi’s claims, it might even be possible to actually weight the difference on a sensitive scale if the hydrogen sample was say 10 grams of H2 from a blue box which had given up say a gigawatt of heat over 6 months. There are nanogram scales using piezoelectric effects which could be modified. * I suppose that even a 1% variation would be more than enough to supply all of the nuclear energy that we are seeing since the energy content of the standard mass is so great. Not that large. The usable mass variation for protons appears to be about 70 ppm (part per million). If the distribution is a bell curve, then perhaps one third of the population can be further depleted. In short, the average gain possible can be calculated to be about 5,000-10,000 times more than chemical but about 1,000-2,000 times less than nuclear fusion. * Also, are you aware of any super accurate mass measurements that have shown variation in this factor? I have a collection of published measurements of proton mass (going back to the cold war era) where there were substantial reported variations, especially as seen in Russia. Different instrumentation. Nowadays, everyone automatically seems to use the same value. Jones
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
*Can random thermal motion ever be converted into spin?* I assert that this is the underlying mechanism of LENR. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:40 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Thanks Jones. There might be something here that needs further research. Would it not seem logical that there should exist some ultimate minimum energy level for the proton mass? In other words, some mass below which additional energy can not be extracted. I can imagine that higher spin energy states would exist. These may even exchange total energy among the nearby protons such that most remain elevated about the zero additional energy state. Then I might ask about how unidirectional the effect should be. Would the tendency to achieve maximum disorder push the process of converting the stored excess energy into thermal motion? Can random thermal motion ever be converted into spin? I suppose I am reaching for a mechanism that would allow an exchange of the captured spin energy with random thermal energy. I guess that spin energy is strongly associated with angular momentum while thermal energy tends to be considered associated with linear momentum. The two might not mix very well. So far I have not been able to come up with a way to exchange the two types of momentum. Forgive me for rambling on, but this is the way my mind processes interactive ideas as I try to connect the dots. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 12:14 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism From: David Roberson * * I want to ask you about your thougths about the variation in proton mass. Should the variation be measurable with high sensitivity mass spectrometers? Yes and no. This is not unlike the problem of mass-4 similarity between D2 and He but more demanding. There could be repeatable statistical variation over a large population within measurement error of the very top level specialty spectrometer, running for substantial time periods. But in an average lab – no way. Given Rossi’s claims, it might even be possible to actually weight the difference on a sensitive scale if the hydrogen sample was say 10 grams of H2 from a blue box which had given up say a gigawatt of heat over 6 months. There are nanogram scales using piezoelectric effects which could be modified. * I suppose that even a 1% variation would be more than enough to supply all of the nuclear energy that we are seeing since the energy content of the standard mass is so great. Not that large. The usable mass variation for protons appears to be about 70 ppm (part per million). If the distribution is a bell curve, then perhaps one third of the population can be further depleted. In short, the average gain possible can be calculated to be about 5,000-10,000 times more than chemical but about 1,000-2,000 times less than nuclear fusion. * Also, are you aware of any super accurate mass measurements that have shown variation in this factor? I have a collection of published measurements of proton mass (going back to the cold war era) where there were substantial reported variations, especially as seen in Russia. Different instrumentation. Nowadays, everyone automatically seems to use the same value. Jones
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
Thermal motion produces infrared photons that are central to the LENT reaction. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: *Can random thermal motion ever be converted into spin?* I assert that this is the underlying mechanism of LENR. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:40 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Thanks Jones. There might be something here that needs further research. Would it not seem logical that there should exist some ultimate minimum energy level for the proton mass? In other words, some mass below which additional energy can not be extracted. I can imagine that higher spin energy states would exist. These may even exchange total energy among the nearby protons such that most remain elevated about the zero additional energy state. Then I might ask about how unidirectional the effect should be. Would the tendency to achieve maximum disorder push the process of converting the stored excess energy into thermal motion? Can random thermal motion ever be converted into spin? I suppose I am reaching for a mechanism that would allow an exchange of the captured spin energy with random thermal energy. I guess that spin energy is strongly associated with angular momentum while thermal energy tends to be considered associated with linear momentum. The two might not mix very well. So far I have not been able to come up with a way to exchange the two types of momentum. Forgive me for rambling on, but this is the way my mind processes interactive ideas as I try to connect the dots. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 12:14 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism From: David Roberson * * I want to ask you about your thougths about the variation in proton mass. Should the variation be measurable with high sensitivity mass spectrometers? Yes and no. This is not unlike the problem of mass-4 similarity between D2 and He but more demanding. There could be repeatable statistical variation over a large population within measurement error of the very top level specialty spectrometer, running for substantial time periods. But in an average lab – no way. Given Rossi’s claims, it might even be possible to actually weight the difference on a sensitive scale if the hydrogen sample was say 10 grams of H2 from a blue box which had given up say a gigawatt of heat over 6 months. There are nanogram scales using piezoelectric effects which could be modified. *I suppose that even a 1% variation would be more than enough to supply all of the nuclear energy that we are seeing since the energy content of the standard mass is so great. Not that large. The usable mass variation for protons appears to be about 70 ppm (part per million). If the distribution is a bell curve, then perhaps one third of the population can be further depleted. In short, the average gain possible can be calculated to be about 5,000-10,000 times more than chemical but about 1,000-2,000 times less than nuclear fusion. *Also, are you aware of any super accurate mass measurements that have shown variation in this factor? I have a collection of published measurements of proton mass (going back to the cold war era) where there were substantial reported variations, especially as seen in Russia. Different instrumentation. Nowadays, everyone automatically seems to use the same value. Jones
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
Thermal motion produces infrared photons that are central to the LENT reaction. should read Thermal motion produces infrared photons that are central to the LENR reaction. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Thermal motion produces infrared photons that are central to the LENT reaction. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: *Can random thermal motion ever be converted into spin?* I assert that this is the underlying mechanism of LENR. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:40 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Thanks Jones. There might be something here that needs further research. Would it not seem logical that there should exist some ultimate minimum energy level for the proton mass? In other words, some mass below which additional energy can not be extracted. I can imagine that higher spin energy states would exist. These may even exchange total energy among the nearby protons such that most remain elevated about the zero additional energy state. Then I might ask about how unidirectional the effect should be. Would the tendency to achieve maximum disorder push the process of converting the stored excess energy into thermal motion? Can random thermal motion ever be converted into spin? I suppose I am reaching for a mechanism that would allow an exchange of the captured spin energy with random thermal energy. I guess that spin energy is strongly associated with angular momentum while thermal energy tends to be considered associated with linear momentum. The two might not mix very well. So far I have not been able to come up with a way to exchange the two types of momentum. Forgive me for rambling on, but this is the way my mind processes interactive ideas as I try to connect the dots. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 12:14 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism From: David Roberson * *I want to ask you about your thougths about the variation in proton mass. Should the variation be measurable with high sensitivity mass spectrometers? Yes and no. This is not unlike the problem of mass-4 similarity between D2 and He but more demanding. There could be repeatable statistical variation over a large population within measurement error of the very top level specialty spectrometer, running for substantial time periods. But in an average lab – no way. Given Rossi’s claims, it might even be possible to actually weight the difference on a sensitive scale if the hydrogen sample was say 10 grams of H2 from a blue box which had given up say a gigawatt of heat over 6 months. There are nanogram scales using piezoelectric effects which could be modified. * I suppose that even a 1% variation would be more than enough to supply all of the nuclear energy that we are seeing since the energy content of the standard mass is so great. Not that large. The usable mass variation for protons appears to be about 70 ppm (part per million). If the distribution is a bell curve, then perhaps one third of the population can be further depleted. In short, the average gain possible can be calculated to be about 5,000-10,000 times more than chemical but about 1,000-2,000 times less than nuclear fusion. * Also, are you aware of any super accurate mass measurements that have shown variation in this factor? I have a collection of published measurements of proton mass (going back to the cold war era) where there were substantial reported variations, especially as seen in Russia. Different instrumentation. Nowadays, everyone automatically seems to use the same value. Jones
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
Perhaps so. Can spin energy be converted into linear kinetic energy? If spin is tied to angular momentum, one might expect it to be conserved overall. How do we prove or disprove this? If you look at the universe from a distance you observe large amounts of spin(angular momentum) that does not appear to be going away by conversion into thermal energy(linear momentum). Both processes appear to be conserved and is that true for spin among smaller units such as protons? Are these phenomena always orthogonal? Energy can be converted directly between angular and linear forms, but is the same true for momentum? I suspect not. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 12:34 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism I assert that the magnetic component of matter as released by LENR is the source of dark energy. Dark energy is the resonance values picked up by josephson junction resonance effects instead of dark matter. http://arxiv.org/abs/1309.3790 Could it be that the bosenova that has been seen in the DGT Ni/H reactor as described by professor Kim is a microcosm of the expansion of the universe as a result of dark energy. Could it be that the universe is undergoing a bosenova? On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:18 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The wiki article seems to tie down the proton mass quite accurately, but it may just be the accuracy of the calculation instead of actual measurements. I would be interested in seeing actual mass measurements by real instruments instead of super computer calculations. It is not too hard to visualize that the measurement accuracy is questionable. How can I go about finding those results? Spin variations among the various components of the proton might easily lead to interesting results. If this is indeed the source of LENR energy, then one might ask how it is shared among the total matter of the universe. Can it be passed between various protons freely by electromagnetic interaction? Does the normal trend exist that results in kinetic energy as the preferred outcome in which case the proton mass excess would want to find some way to be converted into heat ultimately? How long can the excess energy be trapped inside the proton before it finds it way out? You might want to know if the energy transfer is a two way process where spin can be given or taken away by other protons, etc. Here, our recent discussions about interaction with magnetic fields might yield fruitful results. A large external magnetic field could be the process that directs the energy exchange in a gainful manner as opposed to random exchange that is the norm. Of course all of these questions and suppositions are based upon pure speculation thus far. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 12:01 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism The spin of the proton is the big puzzle in particle physics. The quarks in the proton contribute less than half of the required proton spin. The gluons contribute the remainder of the spin. But theory says that gluons should not have spin. If gluons have spin then they must be magnetic and they can be effected by magnetic force. But the gluons are the force carriers of the strong force; the strong force is not magnetic. But the strong force must be magnetic if the gluons have spin. Something is not right about how theory defines the strong force and it will take LENR, IMHO, to solve this issue. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 11:37 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Jones, I want to ask you about your thougths about the variation in proton mass. Should the variation be measurable with high sensitivity mass spectrometers? I suppose that even a 1% variation would be more than enough to supply all of the nuclear energy that we are seeing since the energy content of the standard mass is so great. Also, are you aware of any super accurate mass measurements that have shown variation in this factor? Perhaps the best way to begin discussion of this question is to locate the basic standard variation curves that must have been generated for lone proton measurements to see if the uncertainty has enough range to be useful. If the standard deviation of mass uncertainty is adequate then this might be a productive concept. In that case, LENR is merely a process that leads to the release of the stored energy and methods to enhance that process must be available. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 11:20 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism The most importantunsolved problem in physics is arguably proton/quark spin dynamics. Thesuperset of this problem is
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
OK, but how does it happen? Should spin be conserved? I can picture two spins in opposite direction sharing net spin leaving heat energy on the table. And in this case, spin could be conserved. Is something like this required? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 12:42 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism Can random thermal motion ever be converted into spin? I assert that this is the underlying mechanism of LENR. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:40 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Thanks Jones. There might be something here that needs further research. Would it not seem logical that there should exist some ultimate minimum energy level for the proton mass? In other words, some mass below which additional energy can not be extracted. I can imagine that higher spin energy states would exist. These may even exchange total energy among the nearby protons such that most remain elevated about the zero additional energy state. Then I might ask about how unidirectional the effect should be. Would the tendency to achieve maximum disorder push the process of converting the stored excess energy into thermal motion? Can random thermal motion ever be converted into spin? I suppose I am reaching for a mechanism that would allow an exchange of the captured spin energy with random thermal energy. I guess that spin energy is strongly associated with angular momentum while thermal energy tends to be considered associated with linear momentum. The two might not mix very well. So far I have not been able to come up with a way to exchange the two types of momentum. Forgive me for rambling on, but this is the way my mind processes interactive ideas as I try to connect the dots. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 12:14 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism From: David Roberson * *I want to ask you about your thougths about the variation in proton mass. Should the variation be measurable with high sensitivity mass spectrometers? Yes and no. This is not unlike the problem of mass-4 similarity between D2 and He but more demanding. There could be repeatable statistical variation over a large population within measurement error of the very top level specialty spectrometer, running for substantial time periods. But in an average lab – no way. Given Rossi’s claims, it might even be possible to actually weight the difference on a sensitive scale if the hydrogen sample was say 10 grams of H2 from a blue box which had given up say a gigawatt of heat over 6 months. There are nanogram scales using piezoelectric effects which could be modified. * I suppose that even a 1% variation would be more than enough to supply all of the nuclear energy that we are seeing since the energy content of the standard mass is so great. Not that large. The usable mass variation for protons appears to be about 70 ppm (part per million). If the distribution is a bell curve, then perhaps one third of the population can be further depleted. In short, the average gain possible can be calculated to be about 5,000-10,000 times more than chemical but about 1,000-2,000 times less than nuclear fusion. * Also, are you aware of any super accurate mass measurements that have shown variation in this factor? I have a collection of published measurements of proton mass (going back to the cold war era) where there were substantial reported variations, especially as seen in Russia. Different instrumentation. Nowadays, everyone automatically seems to use the same value. Jones
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
*Energy can be converted directly between angular and linear forms, but is the same true for momentum? I suspect not.* What about a rail gun where magnetism is converted into linear momentum of the projectile. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:53 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Perhaps so. Can spin energy be converted into linear kinetic energy? If spin is tied to angular momentum, one might expect it to be conserved overall. How do we prove or disprove this? If you look at the universe from a distance you observe large amounts of spin(angular momentum) that does not appear to be going away by conversion into thermal energy(linear momentum). Both processes appear to be conserved and is that true for spin among smaller units such as protons? Are these phenomena always orthogonal? Energy can be converted directly between angular and linear forms, but is the same true for momentum? I suspect not. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 12:34 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism I assert that the magnetic component of matter as released by LENR is the source of dark energy. Dark energy is the resonance values picked up by josephson junction resonance effects instead of dark matter. http://arxiv.org/abs/1309.3790 Could it be that the bosenova that has been seen in the DGT Ni/H reactor as described by professor Kim is a microcosm of the expansion of the universe as a result of dark energy. Could it be that the universe is undergoing a bosenova? On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:18 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The wiki article seems to tie down the proton mass quite accurately, but it may just be the accuracy of the calculation instead of actual measurements. I would be interested in seeing actual mass measurements by real instruments instead of super computer calculations. It is not too hard to visualize that the measurement accuracy is questionable. How can I go about finding those results? Spin variations among the various components of the proton might easily lead to interesting results. If this is indeed the source of LENR energy, then one might ask how it is shared among the total matter of the universe. Can it be passed between various protons freely by electromagnetic interaction? Does the normal trend exist that results in kinetic energy as the preferred outcome in which case the proton mass excess would want to find some way to be converted into heat ultimately? How long can the excess energy be trapped inside the proton before it finds it way out? You might want to know if the energy transfer is a two way process where spin can be given or taken away by other protons, etc. Here, our recent discussions about interaction with magnetic fields might yield fruitful results. A large external magnetic field could be the process that directs the energy exchange in a gainful manner as opposed to random exchange that is the norm. Of course all of these questions and suppositions are based upon pure speculation thus far. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 12:01 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism The spin of the proton is the big puzzle in particle physics. The quarks in the proton contribute less than half of the required proton spin. The gluons contribute the remainder of the spin. But theory says that gluons should not have spin. If gluons have spin then they must be magnetic and they can be effected by magnetic force. But the gluons are the force carriers of the strong force; the strong force is not magnetic. But the strong force must be magnetic if the gluons have spin. Something is not right about how theory defines the strong force and it will take LENR, IMHO, to solve this issue. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 11:37 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Jones, I want to ask you about your thougths about the variation in proton mass. Should the variation be measurable with high sensitivity mass spectrometers? I suppose that even a 1% variation would be more than enough to supply all of the nuclear energy that we are seeing since the energy content of the standard mass is so great. Also, are you aware of any super accurate mass measurements that have shown variation in this factor? Perhaps the best way to begin discussion of this question is to locate the basic standard variation curves that must have been generated for lone proton measurements to see if the uncertainty has enough range to be useful. If the standard deviation of mass uncertainty is adequate then this might be a productive concept. In that case, LENR is merely a process that leads to the release of the stored energy and methods to enhance that process must be available. Dave
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
If energy comes from the strong force, and gluons, the force carrier of the strong force also carry spin, then magnetic energy can carry the energy derived from the strong force, that energy is nuclear energy, On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:58 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: OK, but how does it happen? Should spin be conserved? I can picture two spins in opposite direction sharing net spin leaving heat energy on the table. And in this case, spin could be conserved. Is something like this required? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 12:42 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism *Can random thermal motion ever be converted into spin?* I assert that this is the underlying mechanism of LENR. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:40 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Thanks Jones. There might be something here that needs further research. Would it not seem logical that there should exist some ultimate minimum energy level for the proton mass? In other words, some mass below which additional energy can not be extracted. I can imagine that higher spin energy states would exist. These may even exchange total energy among the nearby protons such that most remain elevated about the zero additional energy state. Then I might ask about how unidirectional the effect should be. Would the tendency to achieve maximum disorder push the process of converting the stored excess energy into thermal motion? Can random thermal motion ever be converted into spin? I suppose I am reaching for a mechanism that would allow an exchange of the captured spin energy with random thermal energy. I guess that spin energy is strongly associated with angular momentum while thermal energy tends to be considered associated with linear momentum. The two might not mix very well. So far I have not been able to come up with a way to exchange the two types of momentum. Forgive me for rambling on, but this is the way my mind processes interactive ideas as I try to connect the dots. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 12:14 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism From: David Roberson * * I want to ask you about your thougths about the variation in proton mass. Should the variation be measurable with high sensitivity mass spectrometers? Yes and no. This is not unlike the problem of mass-4 similarity between D2 and He but more demanding. There could be repeatable statistical variation over a large population within measurement error of the very top level specialty spectrometer, running for substantial time periods. But in an average lab – no way. Given Rossi’s claims, it might even be possible to actually weight the difference on a sensitive scale if the hydrogen sample was say 10 grams of H2 from a blue box which had given up say a gigawatt of heat over 6 months. There are nanogram scales using piezoelectric effects which could be modified. *I suppose that even a 1% variation would be more than enough to supply all of the nuclear energy that we are seeing since the energy content of the standard mass is so great. Not that large. The usable mass variation for protons appears to be about 70 ppm (part per million). If the distribution is a bell curve, then perhaps one third of the population can be further depleted. In short, the average gain possible can be calculated to be about 5,000-10,000 times more than chemical but about 1,000-2,000 times less than nuclear fusion. *Also, are you aware of any super accurate mass measurements that have shown variation in this factor? I have a collection of published measurements of proton mass (going back to the cold war era) where there were substantial reported variations, especially as seen in Russia. Different instrumentation. Nowadays, everyone automatically seems to use the same value. Jones
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
I also assert that if a magnetic force is strong enough, that force could inject so much energy into the proton in terms of spin coupling with the gluons that the proton will disintegrate into a quark/gluon plasma. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: If energy comes from the strong force, and gluons, the force carrier of the strong force also carry spin, then magnetic energy can carry the energy derived from the strong force, that energy is nuclear energy, On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:58 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: OK, but how does it happen? Should spin be conserved? I can picture two spins in opposite direction sharing net spin leaving heat energy on the table. And in this case, spin could be conserved. Is something like this required? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 12:42 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism *Can random thermal motion ever be converted into spin?* I assert that this is the underlying mechanism of LENR. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:40 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Thanks Jones. There might be something here that needs further research. Would it not seem logical that there should exist some ultimate minimum energy level for the proton mass? In other words, some mass below which additional energy can not be extracted. I can imagine that higher spin energy states would exist. These may even exchange total energy among the nearby protons such that most remain elevated about the zero additional energy state. Then I might ask about how unidirectional the effect should be. Would the tendency to achieve maximum disorder push the process of converting the stored excess energy into thermal motion? Can random thermal motion ever be converted into spin? I suppose I am reaching for a mechanism that would allow an exchange of the captured spin energy with random thermal energy. I guess that spin energy is strongly associated with angular momentum while thermal energy tends to be considered associated with linear momentum. The two might not mix very well. So far I have not been able to come up with a way to exchange the two types of momentum. Forgive me for rambling on, but this is the way my mind processes interactive ideas as I try to connect the dots. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 12:14 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism From: David Roberson * *I want to ask you about your thougths about the variation in proton mass. Should the variation be measurable with high sensitivity mass spectrometers? Yes and no. This is not unlike the problem of mass-4 similarity between D2 and He but more demanding. There could be repeatable statistical variation over a large population within measurement error of the very top level specialty spectrometer, running for substantial time periods. But in an average lab – no way. Given Rossi’s claims, it might even be possible to actually weight the difference on a sensitive scale if the hydrogen sample was say 10 grams of H2 from a blue box which had given up say a gigawatt of heat over 6 months. There are nanogram scales using piezoelectric effects which could be modified. * I suppose that even a 1% variation would be more than enough to supply all of the nuclear energy that we are seeing since the energy content of the standard mass is so great. Not that large. The usable mass variation for protons appears to be about 70 ppm (part per million). If the distribution is a bell curve, then perhaps one third of the population can be further depleted. In short, the average gain possible can be calculated to be about 5,000-10,000 times more than chemical but about 1,000-2,000 times less than nuclear fusion. * Also, are you aware of any super accurate mass measurements that have shown variation in this factor? I have a collection of published measurements of proton mass (going back to the cold war era) where there were substantial reported variations, especially as seen in Russia. Different instrumentation. Nowadays, everyone automatically seems to use the same value. Jones
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
That is the model that I try to understand Axil. But I do not believe that an isolated single moving particle can emit thermal energy directly. A free proton moving uniformly in space has a relative velocity to every observer except one at rest to it. It therefore can not emit thermal energy in the form of IR without the interaction of other particles around it. The infrared photons contain energy that once existed as kinetic energy(thermal) of the system of particles. Gravitational energy, of course, can end up as photon energy when a cloud of hydrogen gas and dust condenses. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 12:45 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism Thermal motion produces infrared photons that are central to the LENT reaction. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Can random thermal motion ever be converted into spin? I assert that this is the underlying mechanism of LENR. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:40 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Thanks Jones. There might be something here that needs further research. Would it not seem logical that there should exist some ultimate minimum energy level for the proton mass? In other words, some mass below which additional energy can not be extracted. I can imagine that higher spin energy states would exist. These may even exchange total energy among the nearby protons such that most remain elevated about the zero additional energy state. Then I might ask about how unidirectional the effect should be. Would the tendency to achieve maximum disorder push the process of converting the stored excess energy into thermal motion? Can random thermal motion ever be converted into spin? I suppose I am reaching for a mechanism that would allow an exchange of the captured spin energy with random thermal energy. I guess that spin energy is strongly associated with angular momentum while thermal energy tends to be considered associated with linear momentum. The two might not mix very well. So far I have not been able to come up with a way to exchange the two types of momentum. Forgive me for rambling on, but this is the way my mind processes interactive ideas as I try to connect the dots. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 12:14 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism From: David Roberson * *I want to ask you about your thougths about the variation in proton mass. Should the variation be measurable with high sensitivity mass spectrometers? Yes and no. This is not unlike the problem of mass-4 similarity between D2 and He but more demanding. There could be repeatable statistical variation over a large population within measurement error of the very top level specialty spectrometer, running for substantial time periods. But in an average lab – no way. Given Rossi’s claims, it might even be possible to actually weight the difference on a sensitive scale if the hydrogen sample was say 10 grams of H2 from a blue box which had given up say a gigawatt of heat over 6 months. There are nanogram scales using piezoelectric effects which could be modified. * I suppose that even a 1% variation would be more than enough to supply all of the nuclear energy that we are seeing since the energy content of the standard mass is so great. Not that large. The usable mass variation for protons appears to be about 70 ppm (part per million). If the distribution is a bell curve, then perhaps one third of the population can be further depleted. In short, the average gain possible can be calculated to be about 5,000-10,000 times more than chemical but about 1,000-2,000 times less than nuclear fusion. * Also, are you aware of any super accurate mass measurements that have shown variation in this factor? I have a collection of published measurements of proton mass (going back to the cold war era) where there were substantial reported variations, especially as seen in Russia. Different instrumentation. Nowadays, everyone automatically seems to use the same value. Jones
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
*But I do not believe that an isolated single moving particle can emit thermal energy directly...It therefore can not emit thermal energy in the form of IR without the interaction of other particles around it.* The thermal energy is converted to spin energy( aka magnetic) under the action of electrons/photons in the form polariton. The polariton is the mediator. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 1:15 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: That is the model that I try to understand Axil. But I do not believe that an isolated single moving particle can emit thermal energy directly. A free proton moving uniformly in space has a relative velocity to every observer except one at rest to it. It therefore can not emit thermal energy in the form of IR without the interaction of other particles around it. The infrared photons contain energy that once existed as kinetic energy(thermal) of the system of particles. Gravitational energy, of course, can end up as photon energy when a cloud of hydrogen gas and dust condenses. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 12:45 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism Thermal motion produces infrared photons that are central to the LENT reaction. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: *Can random thermal motion ever be converted into spin?* I assert that this is the underlying mechanism of LENR. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:40 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Thanks Jones. There might be something here that needs further research. Would it not seem logical that there should exist some ultimate minimum energy level for the proton mass? In other words, some mass below which additional energy can not be extracted. I can imagine that higher spin energy states would exist. These may even exchange total energy among the nearby protons such that most remain elevated about the zero additional energy state. Then I might ask about how unidirectional the effect should be. Would the tendency to achieve maximum disorder push the process of converting the stored excess energy into thermal motion? Can random thermal motion ever be converted into spin? I suppose I am reaching for a mechanism that would allow an exchange of the captured spin energy with random thermal energy. I guess that spin energy is strongly associated with angular momentum while thermal energy tends to be considered associated with linear momentum. The two might not mix very well. So far I have not been able to come up with a way to exchange the two types of momentum. Forgive me for rambling on, but this is the way my mind processes interactive ideas as I try to connect the dots. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 12:14 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism From: David Roberson * *I want to ask you about your thougths about the variation in proton mass. Should the variation be measurable with high sensitivity mass spectrometers? Yes and no. This is not unlike the problem of mass-4 similarity between D2 and He but more demanding. There could be repeatable statistical variation over a large population within measurement error of the very top level specialty spectrometer, running for substantial time periods. But in an average lab – no way. Given Rossi’s claims, it might even be possible to actually weight the difference on a sensitive scale if the hydrogen sample was say 10 grams of H2 from a blue box which had given up say a gigawatt of heat over 6 months. There are nanogram scales using piezoelectric effects which could be modified. * I suppose that even a 1% variation would be more than enough to supply all of the nuclear energy that we are seeing since the energy content of the standard mass is so great. Not that large. The usable mass variation for protons appears to be about 70 ppm (part per million). If the distribution is a bell curve, then perhaps one third of the population can be further depleted. In short, the average gain possible can be calculated to be about 5,000-10,000 times more than chemical but about 1,000-2,000 times less than nuclear fusion. * Also, are you aware of any super accurate mass measurements that have shown variation in this factor? I have a collection of published measurements of proton mass (going back to the cold war era) where there were substantial reported variations, especially as seen in Russia. Different instrumentation. Nowadays, everyone automatically seems to use the same value. Jones
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
Actually the linear momentum remains the same overall in this case. The gun pushes against its mount and imparts linear momentum to the earth that equals the amount given to the projectile. Energy can be freely exchanged among the various forms such as magnetic to linear in this case. Also, linear energy can be converted into angular energy, but both types of momentum remain conserved for the complete system. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 1:00 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism Energy can be converted directly between angular and linear forms, but is the same true for momentum? I suspect not. What about a rail gun where magnetism is converted into linear momentum of the projectile. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:53 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Perhaps so. Can spin energy be converted into linear kinetic energy? If spin is tied to angular momentum, one might expect it to be conserved overall. How do we prove or disprove this? If you look at the universe from a distance you observe large amounts of spin(angular momentum) that does not appear to be going away by conversion into thermal energy(linear momentum). Both processes appear to be conserved and is that true for spin among smaller units such as protons? Are these phenomena always orthogonal? Energy can be converted directly between angular and linear forms, but is the same true for momentum? I suspect not. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 12:34 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism I assert that the magnetic component of matter as released by LENR is the source of dark energy. Dark energy is the resonance values picked up by josephson junction resonance effects instead of dark matter. http://arxiv.org/abs/1309.3790 Could it be that the bosenova that has been seen in the DGT Ni/H reactor as described by professor Kim is a microcosm of the expansion of the universe as a result of dark energy. Could it be that the universe is undergoing a bosenova? On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:18 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The wiki article seems to tie down the proton mass quite accurately, but it may just be the accuracy of the calculation instead of actual measurements. I would be interested in seeing actual mass measurements by real instruments instead of super computer calculations. It is not too hard to visualize that the measurement accuracy is questionable. How can I go about finding those results? Spin variations among the various components of the proton might easily lead to interesting results. If this is indeed the source of LENR energy, then one might ask how it is shared among the total matter of the universe. Can it be passed between various protons freely by electromagnetic interaction? Does the normal trend exist that results in kinetic energy as the preferred outcome in which case the proton mass excess would want to find some way to be converted into heat ultimately? How long can the excess energy be trapped inside the proton before it finds it way out? You might want to know if the energy transfer is a two way process where spin can be given or taken away by other protons, etc. Here, our recent discussions about interaction with magnetic fields might yield fruitful results. A large external magnetic field could be the process that directs the energy exchange in a gainful manner as opposed to random exchange that is the norm. Of course all of these questions and suppositions are based upon pure speculation thus far. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 12:01 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism The spin of the proton is the big puzzle in particle physics. The quarks in the proton contribute less than half of the required proton spin. The gluons contribute the remainder of the spin. But theory says that gluons should not have spin. If gluons have spin then they must be magnetic and they can be effected by magnetic force. But the gluons are the force carriers of the strong force; the strong force is not magnetic. But the strong force must be magnetic if the gluons have spin. Something is not right about how theory defines the strong force and it will take LENR, IMHO, to solve this issue. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 11:37 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Jones, I want to ask you about your thougths about the variation in proton mass. Should the variation be measurable with high sensitivity mass spectrometers? I suppose that even a 1% variation would be more than enough to supply all of the nuclear energy that we are seeing since the energy content of the standard
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
Should the net spin be conserved? Energy can be converted and released, but does spin have to be shared with something else as that energy is extracted? This concept may be a key one to consider. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 1:07 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism If energy comes from the strong force, and gluons, the force carrier of the strong force also carry spin, then magnetic energy can carry the energy derived from the strong force, that energy is nuclear energy, On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:58 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: OK, but how does it happen? Should spin be conserved? I can picture two spins in opposite direction sharing net spin leaving heat energy on the table. And in this case, spin could be conserved. Is something like this required? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 12:42 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism Can random thermal motion ever be converted into spin? I assert that this is the underlying mechanism of LENR. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:40 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Thanks Jones. There might be something here that needs further research. Would it not seem logical that there should exist some ultimate minimum energy level for the proton mass? In other words, some mass below which additional energy can not be extracted. I can imagine that higher spin energy states would exist. These may even exchange total energy among the nearby protons such that most remain elevated about the zero additional energy state. Then I might ask about how unidirectional the effect should be. Would the tendency to achieve maximum disorder push the process of converting the stored excess energy into thermal motion? Can random thermal motion ever be converted into spin? I suppose I am reaching for a mechanism that would allow an exchange of the captured spin energy with random thermal energy. I guess that spin energy is strongly associated with angular momentum while thermal energy tends to be considered associated with linear momentum. The two might not mix very well. So far I have not been able to come up with a way to exchange the two types of momentum. Forgive me for rambling on, but this is the way my mind processes interactive ideas as I try to connect the dots. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 12:14 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism From: David Roberson * *I want to ask you about your thougths about the variation in proton mass. Should the variation be measurable with high sensitivity mass spectrometers? Yes and no. This is not unlike the problem of mass-4 similarity between D2 and He but more demanding. There could be repeatable statistical variation over a large population within measurement error of the very top level specialty spectrometer, running for substantial time periods. But in an average lab – no way. Given Rossi’s claims, it might even be possible to actually weight the difference on a sensitive scale if the hydrogen sample was say 10 grams of H2 from a blue box which had given up say a gigawatt of heat over 6 months. There are nanogram scales using piezoelectric effects which could be modified. * I suppose that even a 1% variation would be more than enough to supply all of the nuclear energy that we are seeing since the energy content of the standard mass is so great. Not that large. The usable mass variation for protons appears to be about 70 ppm (part per million). If the distribution is a bell curve, then perhaps one third of the population can be further depleted. In short, the average gain possible can be calculated to be about 5,000-10,000 times more than chemical but about 1,000-2,000 times less than nuclear fusion. * Also, are you aware of any super accurate mass measurements that have shown variation in this factor? I have a collection of published measurements of proton mass (going back to the cold war era) where there were substantial reported variations, especially as seen in Russia. Different instrumentation. Nowadays, everyone automatically seems to use the same value. Jones
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
As the energy of the proton increases via increased velocity, that energy is converted into gluons. If gluons carry spin, part of that new energy is converted to new spin energy. This energy conversion should also work in the other direction when gluons are reconfigured to a lower energy state. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 1:25 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Should the net spin be conserved? Energy can be converted and released, but does spin have to be shared with something else as that energy is extracted? This concept may be a key one to consider. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 1:07 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism If energy comes from the strong force, and gluons, the force carrier of the strong force also carry spin, then magnetic energy can carry the energy derived from the strong force, that energy is nuclear energy, On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:58 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: OK, but how does it happen? Should spin be conserved? I can picture two spins in opposite direction sharing net spin leaving heat energy on the table. And in this case, spin could be conserved. Is something like this required? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 12:42 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism *Can random thermal motion ever be converted into spin?* I assert that this is the underlying mechanism of LENR. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:40 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Thanks Jones. There might be something here that needs further research. Would it not seem logical that there should exist some ultimate minimum energy level for the proton mass? In other words, some mass below which additional energy can not be extracted. I can imagine that higher spin energy states would exist. These may even exchange total energy among the nearby protons such that most remain elevated about the zero additional energy state. Then I might ask about how unidirectional the effect should be. Would the tendency to achieve maximum disorder push the process of converting the stored excess energy into thermal motion? Can random thermal motion ever be converted into spin? I suppose I am reaching for a mechanism that would allow an exchange of the captured spin energy with random thermal energy. I guess that spin energy is strongly associated with angular momentum while thermal energy tends to be considered associated with linear momentum. The two might not mix very well. So far I have not been able to come up with a way to exchange the two types of momentum. Forgive me for rambling on, but this is the way my mind processes interactive ideas as I try to connect the dots. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 12:14 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism From: David Roberson * *I want to ask you about your thougths about the variation in proton mass. Should the variation be measurable with high sensitivity mass spectrometers? Yes and no. This is not unlike the problem of mass-4 similarity between D2 and He but more demanding. There could be repeatable statistical variation over a large population within measurement error of the very top level specialty spectrometer, running for substantial time periods. But in an average lab – no way. Given Rossi’s claims, it might even be possible to actually weight the difference on a sensitive scale if the hydrogen sample was say 10 grams of H2 from a blue box which had given up say a gigawatt of heat over 6 months. There are nanogram scales using piezoelectric effects which could be modified. * I suppose that even a 1% variation would be more than enough to supply all of the nuclear energy that we are seeing since the energy content of the standard mass is so great. Not that large. The usable mass variation for protons appears to be about 70 ppm (part per million). If the distribution is a bell curve, then perhaps one third of the population can be further depleted. In short, the average gain possible can be calculated to be about 5,000-10,000 times more than chemical but about 1,000-2,000 times less than nuclear fusion. * Also, are you aware of any super accurate mass measurements that have shown variation in this factor? I have a collection of published measurements of proton mass (going back to the cold war era) where there were substantial reported variations, especially as seen in Russia. Different instrumentation. Nowadays, everyone automatically seems to use the same value. Jones
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: ... I get really tired hearing about all the mathematical and/or experimental evidence complaints coming out of Vortex-L about what someone perceives as a critical and/or fatal flaw concerning Mills' CP, but they never make a concerted effort to directly ask the doctor to respond to such concerns. Instead many just continue complain about their misgivings here ... The good thing about Mills's prodigious efforts to construct a theory is that, because it is a theory, it is something that can be grasped and elucidated by other people. This is in contrast to a revealed religion, say, where one may need to turn to the head of the religion to get clarification on questions that come up. Eric
Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter
Kevin, l googled you and I can see we life rather close to each other. I cannot remember ever doing any busines with you. If you find yourself holding rudges , vortex is hardly the place to sttlethat. If you have any hard feeloings , please address me via email and or telephone. I ensure you that we can find a satisfactory answer or solution. If you rather keep whatever feelings you have please keep them out of vortex. I personally think one need to clear the airand not go around holdinggrudges, which in the long runhurts nobody but yourself. I am as I said fine talking about your problems whatever they are. On Aug 8, 2014 9:55 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: I know enough about your life that you need to get one. On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Kevin, you know nothing about my life. Even if you did your advice is the sand box argument. It is totally withour references so as an analtyical engineer you should stay away from such poorly founded arguments. If that is not enough to motivate your way of behaving, I will give you the ultimate reason to keep your opinion to yourself: if I have not figured out how to have life at my age I will unlikely be motivated or educated by your floskel. On Aug 7, 2014 9:30 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Get a life, Lennart On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 7:18 AM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: I know Kevin your reasoning is picked froom preschoolers. Sandbox logics. I call it and it goes like:My dad is bigger than yours . . .. On Aug 6, 2014 10:33 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Lennart, if you don't want an alligator to snap at you, then stop throwing rocks at him. Even preschoolers know the wisdom of this. On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Kevin, it is not worth a comment. You are just judgemental. Inhave not asked you to have an opinion about my capacity, still you think you can make judgements. Sorry, keep to the subject not to any personal vendetta. I admit my shortcomings in science although I am from the beginning an engineer as well. On Aug 6, 2014 9:04 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: OK. Kevin, you obviously know more about physics than about management/leadership. ***Oh Lennart, you obviously know little about either. We had a talk about my subject not long ago. It did not go very well. ***Yes, because you are a poor manager/leader, can't put a solid argument together and are basically a follower not a leader. I will take my chances in an area I am poorly prepared. Reason I try is because I am confused. I haave some friends who told me that state of matter is not very accurate. Their opinion is that it is an infinite number of states. ***Once again you demonstrate your leadership style: You follow a crowd. Not only that but you did not understand the original contention. So you're barking up the wrong tree and you shouldn't be barking in the first place. First of all help me understand what is more accurate. If my friends are correct, then We do not need o look for any new states. ***Your friends are not correct. You THINK we are looking for new states, but in reality we are simply trying to nail down what has been agreed in science. Maybe it is worth finding out more about states of matter for reasons beyond LENR and maybe to fully undrstand LENR an understanding of more hard to describe/understand states is required. ***Umm... yeah, but your statement has very little meaning. Recall my prior criticisms of you on this subject and how poorly it reflects on your leadership. The whole discussion about different theories is way too adament in my opinion. ***You do not know what you are talking about, so your opinion isn't worth much. It seems like if evry theory is having problems to be accepted by a wide group of scientists. ***What you don't seem to realize is that the whole field of LENR is not accepted by a wide group of scientists. I think a more humble aproach where taking pieces from all theories would propel the search for a solution forward much faster than the attempt to disqualify othe theories while lifting ones own up to theology level.. ***I didn't say that AT ALL. I don't see how you get that from what I wrote. What I say is that there might be many forms of LENR. ***Okay, nothing controversial here in terms of current LENR observations. They might be depending on which state of matter they are working in. ***POTO. (Pointing Out The Obvious). But not only that, you are saying something DIRECTLY in agreement with my original contention but acting as if you're arguing against it. So why not take the thoughts from Ed Storms, Dr. Mills, WL, Axil, Jones, etc. and search
Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter
Peter, My objections are not so much rooted in the new ideas themselves, but in ideas that have no basis in reality pretending to be heirs to the throne. These ideas are a distraction. We need to get rid of these fluffs. People with no training or qualifications in this area have the audacity to start arguing with Ed Storms, a proven, long-time researcher in the field. Understanding this field requires a deep knowledge in many scientific disciplines only a few people like Ed have. Ed is uniquely qualified to even begin discussing this field, yet his theories are rejected in favor of the latest, but definitely not the greatest, theories proposing structures and substances we clearly know can not exist. My challenge is open to anyone who can satisfactorily answer my initial contention. How can the nickel nanostructures, such as nanowires, nano antennas, etc continue to exist to catalyze these LENR reactions at temperatures enough to sinter, then melt then even evaporate or sublimate nickel nanoparticles. Proposing a novel structure (BEC soltions, etc) that possesses novel abilities (metaphasic shielding) is utterly ridiculous. And this coming from an anonymous source who has not even began to establish his qualifications to even begin to discuss in this field. Am I the only one that see this as a problem? Would you accept cancer treatment advise from an ordinary doctor, and not a cancer specialist. Or better still, would you from a non-doctor. Or even still, from a kid with clearly no medical training and qualifications. And even better still, from an anonymous kid with clearly no medical traininig and qualifications. Would you hold this kid's opinion in higher regard than the specialist's opinion? Our cancer specialist has several decades of proven field experience with a library bigger than what anyone has. Our cancer specialist has studied extensively this field probably even before our kid was born. Yet the kid proposes to excise our cancer with his light saber, which supposedly has unique nano metaphasic shielding abilities, and we are all awed by the supposed miraculous abilities of this light saber that we forget to even realize that this light saber does not and can not exist. So, those who are most prolific in proposing ideas win? Is this how science is supposed to work? This is worse than the 2000-climatologists committee-based, consensus-based, computer-simulation-based science of climate scaremongers. Jojo - Original Message - From: Peter Gluck To: VORTEX Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2014 10:53 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter Dear Jojo, I want to answer you in part, prior to Axil. We have to take great care with naming ideas willy nilly,,nanoplasmonics, nanomagnetism, BEC are not so have a growing literature - see Google Scholar please and do a lighting fast search. What sacrosnct rules they contradict how when this has to be shown for any case in detail. Thermodynamics is first candidate and it is much invoked- great care! I think that the field is in such a deep trouble- not understood, desired process not controlled, no possibilities of intensification and scale-up visible- that really new ideas, principles, theories are needed. The old ones have no connection to the experimental reality- Ed Storms is right in not liking theories; he still has to demonstrate that his new theory has problem solving power. I would advise to welcome ideas that are new here- but have domains of validity outside LENR. You also can come with new ideas, the old ones have not been productive at all, right?. Peter On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: Axil, I feel it is counterproductive to the advancement of science for people to be proposing ideas willy nilly - ideas that have no bearing in reality and cleary violates known physical principles. Attempts at theory of these kinds are not helpful and adds a significant amount of noise that needs to be sifted thru and vetted. I think this is what Ed storms is lamenting from ideas coming in this forum. Take your ideas of exotic substances (BEC soltions) shielding nanostructures from melting in high temps. Such metaphasic shielding ideas are counterproductive. Instead of cleary admitting that your ideas has a big hole - a clear violation of a known physical property; you propose this even more preposterous idea of metaphasic shielding for high temps to try to explain another created miracle. Each miracle requires a dozen more miracles to explain it. This is getting ridiculous. Tell me my friend; would you be so bold in proposing such ludricous ideas if people knew who you really are? Being anonymous affords you the opportunity to be as outrageous and senseless as you like without consequence. I am trying to say this without any attempt at a personal attack,
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 9:18 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The wiki article seems to tie down the proton mass quite accurately, but it may just be the accuracy of the calculation instead of actual measurements. I would be interested in seeing actual mass measurements by real instruments instead of super computer calculations. It is not too hard to visualize that the measurement accuracy is questionable. How can I go about finding those results? The wiki article gives the proton (rest) mass as being 938.272046(21) MeV/c^2 [1]. If this value is accurate, at that precision I believe we have +/- 1 0.21 eV to use for free energy speculation. As you allude to, there's the accuracy of the mass and the precision of the mass. The precision of the mass given above implies that the standard deviation of the measurements is very small (as small as the numbers in parentheses). The precision and the accuracy of the number are related. The accuracy is the fit with experiment, and it places a bound on the precision that can be specified. The number above is most likely not an ab initio calculation and is instead a summary of the experimental findings relating to the mass of the proton. Because there was no doubt some variability found in the proton mass, a more precise number (more decimal places out) could not be specified. All of this assumes the Wikipedia people are being appropriately diligent in this particular case. Eric [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
I wrote: If this value is accurate, at that precision I believe we have +/- 1 0.21 eV to use for free energy speculation. Sorry -- +/- 0.21 eV. (I need a personal editor.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
Another point to add to this thread -- it's kind of a cool idea to think there might be different energy levels for the proton (or neutron). I gather that the idea is that the constituent particles of the proton (currently believed to be quarks) can be in different states of angular momentum (in contrast to intrinsic spin, which presumably is conserved), and together perhaps provide some kind of shell model, comparable to the electron shell model of the atom and the nuclear shell model of the nucleus. In this case there would be a ground state and then different excited states for the proton as a whole. If a shell-model approach is suitable, perhaps most protons would be in the ground state and then there would be brief periods where some of them are nudged into an excited state, and perhaps a few that are in a longer-lasting metastable state. These states would relax and give off a photon through an immediate or a proximate interaction of some kind. If a quantum system with relaxed and excited states is involved, I doubt that a Gaussian distribution would describe the energies (masses) across the population. Eric
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
Their theory doesn't make sense, not even as a classical approximation. I cannot make heads or tails of anything there. For example, any wave function, time independent, must be a standing wave. If it is a fraction, and you want to enforce this, it will be a sum of many waves, possibly infinite. This violates the exclusion principle, since each orbital can only have one spin of each electron. Mills theory in general is very interesting and a big part of it is correct math because no one is able to pinpoint any detailed errors like on eq. X there is a strange factor etc (and I checked the g-factor calculation and have asked Mills to publish that in a journal to underline arguments like this in a better way). In stead of high quality critique we get blatherings about crackpot theory an such. Be a good boy and please pinpoint the error in e.g. the derivation of the g-factor else I would take Mills theory to be a very interesting theory. Of cause the hydrinos are a solution that seams strange and could be an artefact of the theory without it being crackpot or wrong. Math is like that, it is not reality but a model of it. I agree that we are men/women enough to discuss the issue here on vortex but I don't follow your argument above 1) standing waves as in mills theory are not the same as time independent, they are recurrent e.g. the same pattern repeat itself. Consider separating the time in the schrödinger equation, aprox, dphi/dT = H phi, and the acompanion eigenvalue proble e.g. dphi/dt = i k phi in quantum mechanics, that has A(r) exp(i k t) as a solution this is the normal ground state and the wave equation is recurrent and not time independent. The probability density however is time independent. So also on QM the standing waves are recurrent and not time independent. 2) I can be wrong but I look on the hydrino has a photon moving in a wave so that if you look at it at a plane it does a half wavelength at one turn and complete the wavelength (for H(1/2)) in the second. As you say in two dimensions this would cause havoc, but in 3D the photon may also turn in the third dimensions on the sphere to avoid havoc. Therefore I would not turn down hydrinos based on your argument. If you can detail yourself I could change my opinion though. Also note that the bending in 3d makes these solutions very different from the normal solutions typically found and therefore I am a bit unsure that QED and QM can handle hydrinos correctly. Also to me that explains that you cannot easily change the states just by exchanging photons, something different is needed and that could be the reason that we have water on earth and that it hasen't burned into dark matter. For the octupole moment I would ask Mills though, it is too difficult for me to analyze. Cheers
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
I wrote: I gather that the idea is that ... some kind of shell model [is involved]. Another analogy that might be relevant -- there could be different isotopes for protons and neutrons, e.g., bound states with differing numbers of quarks. Eric
RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
From: Eric Walker * The wiki article gives the proton (rest) mass as being 938.272046(21) MeV/c^2 * If this value is accurate, at that precision I believe we have +/- 1 0.21 eV to use for free energy speculation. That is CODATA. Of course, it is no less accurate than any of the others. Unfortunately, it is no more accurate either. How can it be when quarks have variable mass? For instance, Jefferson Lab uses the value of 938.256 MeV. Other Labs, especially overseas have their own values. Some are measured, some calculated, some averaged. I’m in the process of a paper on this, but I can tell you – I have high level estimates within a range, and am convinced that there is at least 70 ppm which is in play, as excess above a median value. That can be called a narrow range, or a wide range, depending on one’s mindset. The only value not in dispute in 2014 goes to the first four digits - 938.2xx MeV … almost everything thereafter, in terms of mass variation, is in play. In fact NASA put men on the moon using a value that was pretty way off from what is now considered reliable. Jones
Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter
Ed Storms last post: --- Bob, I know very well about muon fusion. If you took the time to read my papers, you would understand not only do I understand but you have no idea what you are talking about. The muon produces hot fusion, not cold fusion. The process has no relationship to cold fusion. I have tried to be patient and explain what is known about LENR and what I consider a useful explanation. I have found these discussions interesting and useful in trying to explain LENR. However, I no longer see a purpose in continuing to subscribe to Vortex. The goal here is not to understand but to speculate. That is not my goal. Ed Storms --- To set the record straight, Ed was under heavy speculative pressure from many here on vortex and I was not the most effective because of my excessive good nature and respect for the opinions of others. IMHO, as usually happens, Jones was the most biting. You give be too much credit in the Storms confrontations. To give some background on the special contempt that Ed holds for SPP theory, Ed's SPP theory disregard is tied to DGT as perfected in the private and unknown discussions held in CMMS between Ed and John H. If DGT succeeds in securing its intellectual property rights, the SPP theory might well be supported by much experimental evidence. As it is now, DGT has released much supporting evidence for BEC and SPP theory. If DGT fails, this true theory will be lost for another 100 years. But like LENR, SPP theory will eventually be accepted because it is the true way the Ni/H reactor works. If Rossi reads vortex, he will also see the truth in the SPP theory upon reflection of the inner workings of his cat and mouse. You might see something SPP like from Rossi but he is not interested in truth telling. I am just a weak reflection of the battles between DGT, Dr. Kim and George Miley and Ed Storms. Dr. Kim is the original purveyor of the BEC theory. From reading the latest posts of Peter, he is about to speak against the old LENR theories. And Peter will become another outcast imposed by telling the truth among the old guard LENR workers. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: Peter, My objections are not so much rooted in the new ideas themselves, but in ideas that have no basis in reality pretending to be heirs to the throne. These ideas are a distraction. We need to get rid of these fluffs. People with no training or qualifications in this area have the audacity to start arguing with Ed Storms, a proven, long-time researcher in the field. Understanding this field requires a deep knowledge in many scientific disciplines only a few people like Ed have. Ed is uniquely qualified to even begin discussing this field, yet his theories are rejected in favor of the latest, but definitely not the greatest, theories proposing structures and substances we clearly know can not exist. My challenge is open to anyone who can satisfactorily answer my initial contention. How can the nickel nanostructures, such as nanowires, nano antennas, etc continue to exist to catalyze these LENR reactions at temperatures enough to sinter, then melt then even evaporate or sublimate nickel nanoparticles. Proposing a novel structure (BEC soltions, etc) that possesses novel abilities (metaphasic shielding) is utterly ridiculous. And this coming from an anonymous source who has not even began to establish his qualifications to even begin to discuss in this field. Am I the only one that see this as a problem? Would you accept cancer treatment advise from an ordinary doctor, and not a cancer specialist. Or better still, would you from a non-doctor. Or even still, from a kid with clearly no medical training and qualifications. And even better still, from an anonymous kid with clearly no medical traininig and qualifications. Would you hold this kid's opinion in higher regard than the specialist's opinion? Our cancer specialist has several decades of proven field experience with a library bigger than what anyone has. Our cancer specialist has studied extensively this field probably even before our kid was born. Yet the kid proposes to excise our cancer with his light saber, which supposedly has unique nano metaphasic shielding abilities, and we are all awed by the supposed miraculous abilities of this light saber that we forget to even realize that this light saber does not and can not exist. So, those who are most prolific in proposing ideas win? Is this how science is supposed to work? This is worse than the 2000-climatologists committee-based, consensus-based, computer-simulation-based science of climate scaremongers. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com *To:* VORTEX vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Saturday, August 09, 2014 10:53 PM *Subject:* Re:
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: That is CODATA. Of course, it is no less accurate than any of the others. Unfortunately, it is no more accurate either. How can it be when quarks have variable mass? Variability in the mass of the quark does not prevent an accurate proton mass from being specified. What it does is places a bound on the numerical precision that an accurate proton mass value can have. In short, you say 938.2xx MeV, and CODATA (Wikipedia) says 938.272046(21) MeV. Both of these values is accurate to within your value, and the CODATA value may or may not be more accurate. (I have no opinion on whose value is the better one here.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
The energy from LENR comes from gluons. The standard model of physics got it right when it predicted where the mass of ordinary matter comes from, according to a massive new computational effort. Particle physics explains that the bulk of atoms is made up of protons and neutrons, which are themselves composed of smaller particles known as quarks, which in turn are bound by gluons. The odd thing is this: the mass of gluons is zero and the mass of quarks [accounts for] only five percent. Where, therefore, is the missing 95 percent? The answer, according to theory, is that the energy from the interactions between quarks and gluons accounts for the excess mass (because as Einstein’s famous E=mc² equation proved, energy and mass are equivalent). Gluons are the carriers of the strong nuclear force that binds three quarks together to form one proton or neutron; these gluons are constantly popping into existence and disappearing again. The energy of these vacuum fluctuations has to be included in the total mass of the proton and neutron]. The new study finally crunched the numbers on how much energy is created in these fluctuations and confirmed the theory, but it took a supercomputer over a year to do so. The theory that describes the interactions of quarks and gluons is known as quantum chromodynamics, or QCD. These exchanges bind quarks together by changing a quark property known as color charge. This charge is similar to electric charge but comes in three different types, whimsically referred to as red, green and blue. Six different types of quarks interact with eight varieties of gluons to create a panoply of elementary particles. Calculating these interactions was a massive task, as researchers explain in an article in Science, The team used more than a year of time on the parallel computer network at Jülich, which can handle 200 teraflops - or 200 trillion arithmetical calculations per second. But what, you may be saying, of the Higgs boson? The Higgs is often mentioned as an elusive particle that endows other particles with mass, and the Large Hadron Collider will search for it when it starts up again next year. But the Higgs is thought to explain only where the mass of the quarks themselves comes from. The new work confirms that the mass of the stuff around us is due only in very small part to the masses of quarks themselves. Most of it comes from the way they interact. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 5:45 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: That is CODATA. Of course, it is no less accurate than any of the others. Unfortunately, it is no more accurate either. How can it be when quarks have variable mass? Variability in the mass of the quark does not prevent an accurate proton mass from being specified. What it does is places a bound on the numerical precision that an accurate proton mass value can have. In short, you say 938.2xx MeV, and CODATA (Wikipedia) says 938.272046(21) MeV. Both of these values is accurate to within your value, and the CODATA value may or may not be more accurate. (I have no opinion on whose value is the better one here.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
OK, so that leaves just about nothing to extract. It would certainly not be adequate to explain LENR levels of energy we are expecting. So, why do we hear members of the vortex speaking of variation in the mass of the proton as being important? I have to ask about the measurement technique and how it is possible to determine the mass to that level of precision. I have never witnessed the determination of proton mass and plead ignorance to the processes that are used. Can anyone actually make a physical measurement that is to the accuracy suggested? Anyone can calculate the number to as many decimal figures as they desire by using a computer model but the results might not reflect the real world values. Does anyone have first hand experience in making this determination and what is the real standard deviation of the energy content of a lone proton? If the numbers are as precise as you are suggesting then why not put to rest the thought of being able to somehow extract this source of energy? Jones, I think you might have some input that would be helpful. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 4:45 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism I wrote: If this value is accurate, at that precision I believe we have +/- 1 0.21 eV to use for free energy speculation. Sorry -- +/- 0.21 eV. (I need a personal editor.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sat, 9 Aug 2014 06:55:58 -0700: Hi, [snip] We can note that Cravens adds samarium-cobalt to his active mix. This material is permanently magnetized. You might also note that natural Samarium contains two long lived radioactive isotopes, Sm-147 (15%) Sm-148 (11%), both of which decay via alpha decay. If this decay were somehow triggered, it might explain an energy anomaly. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
From: Eric Walker … How can it be when quarks have variable mass? Variability in the mass of the quark does not prevent an accurate proton mass from being specified. What it does is places a bound on the numerical precision that an accurate proton mass value can have You still may not have an accurate understanding. These are real differences - not a function of numerical precision. Of course, quark variability places a bound but that bound is comparatively huge. Hydrogen extracted from deep old methane can have different average mass than hydrogen split from rain water. Interstellar hydrogen or solar-wind hydrogen can vary markedly from either. The source is important. There is no other way to accurately explain the history of variation in measurements. This is not about numerical precision of an instrument so much as it is about unknown variables and the past 13 billion year history of the sample.
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
I tend to agree with your thoughts about different energy states for the proton if it in fact really does consist of a combination of smaller units in some orbital relationships. And, if it does have energy levels, then it should be possible to couple energy to and from those states somehow. Perhaps it requires direct contact or near direct contact. On the other hand, longer reaching electromagnetic interaction would be ideal for coupling to nearby atoms instead of within the same nucleus. If this process is to be the source of LENR energy one would expect the energy storage lifetime to be significant unless it is somehow replenished by another so far undefined nuclear process. Could this sort of process be associated with the sharing of energy among many atoms that arises during one nuclear release? I suppose this might fall in line along with our thoughts about spin coupling and magnetic field interaction. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 5:01 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism Another point to add to this thread -- it's kind of a cool idea to think there might be different energy levels for the proton (or neutron). I gather that the idea is that the constituent particles of the proton (currently believed to be quarks) can be in different states of angular momentum (in contrast to intrinsic spin, which presumably is conserved), and together perhaps provide some kind of shell model, comparable to the electron shell model of the atom and the nuclear shell model of the nucleus. In this case there would be a ground state and then different excited states for the proton as a whole. If a shell-model approach is suitable, perhaps most protons would be in the ground state and then there would be brief periods where some of them are nudged into an excited state, and perhaps a few that are in a longer-lasting metastable state. These states would relax and give off a photon through an immediate or a proximate interaction of some kind. If a quantum system with relaxed and excited states is involved, I doubt that a Gaussian distribution would describe the energies (masses) across the population. Eric
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
Interesting information Jones. Do you plan to distribute your paper within this list when complete? It might help our understanding of the true proton mass and it's potential of being the source of LENR. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 5:36 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism From:Eric Walker Ø Thewiki article gives the proton (rest) mass as being 938.272046(21) MeV/c^2 Ø Ifthis value is accurate, at that precision I believe we have +/- 1 0.21 eV touse for free energy speculation. That isCODATA. Of course, it is no less accurate than any of the others. Unfortunately,it is no more accurate either. How can it be when quarks have variable mass? Forinstance, Jefferson Lab uses the value of 938.256 MeV.Other Labs, especially overseas have their own values. Some are measured, somecalculated, some averaged. I’m in the process of a paper on this, butI can tell you – I have high level estimates within a range, and am convincedthat there is at least 70 ppm which is in play, as excess above a median value. That can be called a narrow range, or a wide range, depending on one’smindset. The only value not in dispute in 2014 goes tothe first four digits - 938.2xx MeV … almost everything thereafter, in termsof mass variation, is in play. In fact NASA put men on the moon using a valuethat was pretty way off from what is now considered reliable. Jones
Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter
With all due respect my friend, DGT and John H are no where near the caliber of Ed Storms. This is precisely the kind of skewed science by popularity that I am bemoaning. What we have is a kid (a rather dishonest bunch kids at that.) arguing with a cancer specialist. What is John H's qualifications to even begin to be the authority in this field? What does DGT have? A pre-industrial H6 machine? LOL When two highly qualified people, first Stremmenos, then Gamberale, speak against their self-interest, we need to take heed. (We also have Jed's first hand testimony of his experience with DGT) DGT is a fraud as far as I am concerned and yet we hold the work of such dubious entities against the work and knowledge of a long-time researcher with a proven and distinguished track record. Does that really make sense to you? Heck, you can do better just arguing with Ed yourself without invoking the authority of DGT. Invoking DGT and the mythical hyperion will only serve to damage your credibility. Jojo PS. When someone begins to speak against Old Guard LENR theories, it makes sense for them to have a robust theory first. Not an ad-hoc patchwork of speculation and misrepresented experimental data creating miracle explanations and then more miracles trying to hold on to the first miracle. Come on guys, we need to temper this distraction and try to focus. - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2014 5:44 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter Ed Storms last post: --- Bob, I know very well about muon fusion. If you took the time to read my papers, you would understand not only do I understand but you have no idea what you are talking about. The muon produces hot fusion, not cold fusion. The process has no relationship to cold fusion. I have tried to be patient and explain what is known about LENR and what I consider a useful explanation. I have found these discussions interesting and useful in trying to explain LENR. However, I no longer see a purpose in continuing to subscribe to Vortex. The goal here is not to understand but to speculate. That is not my goal. Ed Storms --- To set the record straight, Ed was under heavy speculative pressure from many here on vortex and I was not the most effective because of my excessive good nature and respect for the opinions of others. IMHO, as usually happens, Jones was the most biting. You give be too much credit in the Storms confrontations. To give some background on the special contempt that Ed holds for SPP theory, Ed's SPP theory disregard is tied to DGT as perfected in the private and unknown discussions held in CMMS between Ed and John H. If DGT succeeds in securing its intellectual property rights, the SPP theory might well be supported by much experimental evidence. As it is now, DGT has released much supporting evidence for BEC and SPP theory. If DGT fails, this true theory will be lost for another 100 years. But like LENR, SPP theory will eventually be accepted because it is the true way the Ni/H reactor works. If Rossi reads vortex, he will also see the truth in the SPP theory upon reflection of the inner workings of his cat and mouse. You might see something SPP like from Rossi but he is not interested in truth telling. I am just a weak reflection of the battles between DGT, Dr. Kim and George Miley and Ed Storms. Dr. Kim is the original purveyor of the BEC theory. From reading the latest posts of Peter, he is about to speak against the old LENR theories. And Peter will become another outcast imposed by telling the truth among the old guard LENR workers. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: Peter, My objections are not so much rooted in the new ideas themselves, but in ideas that have no basis in reality pretending to be heirs to the throne. These ideas are a distraction. We need to get rid of these fluffs. People with no training or qualifications in this area have the audacity to start arguing with Ed Storms, a proven, long-time researcher in the field. Understanding this field requires a deep knowledge in many scientific disciplines only a few people like Ed have. Ed is uniquely qualified to even begin discussing this field, yet his theories are rejected in favor of the latest, but definitely not the greatest, theories proposing structures and substances we clearly know can not exist. My challenge is open to anyone who can satisfactorily answer my initial contention. How can the nickel nanostructures, such as nanowires, nano antennas, etc continue to exist to catalyze these LENR reactions at temperatures enough to sinter, then melt then even evaporate or sublimate nickel nanoparticles. Proposing a novel structure (BEC soltions,
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
Jones, you describe the proton in a manner that reminds me of different types of coal reserves. If what you say is correct then the proton internal energy storage mechanism must have a half life measured in the billions of years. Perhaps that is true, but it sounds like a revolutionary idea. Extraction of this potential energy must be extremely difficult in nature since otherwise most of it would have been depleted over the lifetime of the universe. A thought just occurred to me concerning the half life of the stored proton energy. A similar concept could be applied to the existence of normal hydrogen in the universe. All of it could eventually be converted into heaver elements in which case it ceases to exist, but a reaction threshold and the physical dimensions of the universe have slowed down the process to an extent that much of the original amount remains to this day, billions of years later. Do protons that were created in the first moments contain varying amounts of internal energy that can remain trapped until somehow triggered? I assume that this is what you are thinking. This is an interesting concept. Mills considers natural hydrogen as the potential source of energy as the electron is induced to move closer to the proton. You go a step further, all the way to the construction of the proton itself. Maybe both processes are available for us to tap. Both processes require that the original source somehow maintains its stored potential energy over eons. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 6:04 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism From:Eric Walker …How can it be when quarks have variable mass? Variability inthe mass of the quark does not prevent an accurate proton mass from beingspecified. What it does is places a bound on the numerical precision thatan accurate proton mass value can have You still may not have anaccurate understanding. These are real differences - not a function ofnumerical precision. Of course, quark variability places a bound but that boundis comparatively huge. Hydrogen extracted from deepold methane can have different average mass than hydrogen split from rain water.Interstellar hydrogen or solar-wind hydrogen can vary markedly from either. Thesource is important. There is no other way to accurately explain the history ofvariation in measurements. This is not aboutnumerical precision of an instrument so much as it is about unknown variables andthe past 13 billion year history of the sample.
Re: [Vo]:Elon Musk needs LENR
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Fri, 8 Aug 2014 02:30:28 -0400: Hi, [snip] Another related issue is the peril to the crew imposed by long term exposure to microgravity. This need not be a problem on the trip out and back. You just need to spin up the ship so that the outer rim has 1 g. This is where the crew would spend most of their time. Long term exposure to radiation is however a different matter, but no worse than experienced during long stays in the International Space Station? (BTW if I had my way, trips to Mars would take a few days, not months ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
99% of the proton mass comes from the gluon binding energy. I just want to add more detail about why the proton is heavier than the three constituent quarks that make up the proton, if you start with the three quarks bound into the proton and if you try to pull one of the quarks out of the proton, it will take more and more force and thus more and more energy as you pull the quark out. As energy is added more gluons appear. So as you try to separate the quark out of the proton, the proton actually gets heavier as gluons are created. In fact at some point when enough energy has been added to the system it becomes energetically favorable to create a new pair in the region between the quark the residual proton. Now the the newly created will be attracted to the quark that is being pulled out of the proton whereas the other newly created will be pulled back into the proton which will then constitute a normal proton again with 3 quarks. Meanwhile the that is being pulled out and the newly created will become bound together as a meson - therefore the attempt to pull a quark out of a proton will result in a final state that has a meson and a proton. So the weird thing about the strong color force is that due to the fact the force increases with distance instead of decreasing with distance, it is impossible to separate the bound state of quarks into individual quarks and thus it is impossible to compare the constituent masses to the mass of the bound state. When energy is added to a proton, the space between the quarks increases in quantum increments. When enough magnetic energy is added to the proton, you will end up creating new kinds of particles and these new particles will be heavier than the original bound state of quarks. Mesons decay into pions which controls the attraction of protons and neutrons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pion skip In particle physics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_physics, a *pion* (short for *pi meson*, denoted with π) is any of three subatomic particles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subatomic_particle: π0, π+, and π−. Each pion consists of a quark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark and an antiquark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiquark and is therefore a meson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meson. Pions are the lightest mesons and they play an important role in explaining the low-energy properties of the strong nuclear force http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_nuclear_force. Pions are unstable, with the charged pions π+ and π− decaying with a mean life time of 26 nanoseconds and the neutral pion π0 decaying with an even shorter lifetime. Charged pions tend to decay into muons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon and muon neutrinos, and neutral pions into gamma rays http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_ray. Applying a sufficiently strong magnetic field to protons may result in muon catalyzed fusion. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 6:59 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Jones, you describe the proton in a manner that reminds me of different types of coal reserves. If what you say is correct then the proton internal energy storage mechanism must have a half life measured in the billions of years. Perhaps that is true, but it sounds like a revolutionary idea. Extraction of this potential energy must be extremely difficult in nature since otherwise most of it would have been depleted over the lifetime of the universe. A thought just occurred to me concerning the half life of the stored proton energy. A similar concept could be applied to the existence of normal hydrogen in the universe. All of it could eventually be converted into heaver elements in which case it ceases to exist, but a reaction threshold and the physical dimensions of the universe have slowed down the process to an extent that much of the original amount remains to this day, billions of years later. Do protons that were created in the first moments contain varying amounts of internal energy that can remain trapped until somehow triggered? I assume that this is what you are thinking. This is an interesting concept. Mills considers natural hydrogen as the potential source of energy as the electron is induced to move closer to the proton. You go a step further, all the way to the construction of the proton itself. Maybe both processes are available for us to tap. Both processes require that the original source somehow maintains its stored potential energy over eons. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 6:04 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism *From:* Eric Walker … How can it be when quarks have variable mass? Variability in the mass of the quark does not prevent an accurate proton mass from being specified. What it does is places a bound on the numerical precision that an accurate proton mass value can have You still may not
RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
-Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com We can note that Cravens adds samarium-cobalt to his active mix. This material is permanently magnetized. You might also note that natural Samarium contains two long lived radioactive isotopes, Sm-147 (15%) Sm-148 (11%), both of which decay via alpha decay. If this decay were somehow triggered, it might explain an energy anomaly. Good point Robin - and you forgot Sm-149, an alpha emitter which is also in sizeable percentage ... but the half-life of these is a hundred billion year range and up, so it would definitely require accelerated decay to be relevant - and that would also show helium in the ash. However, the wild card for samarium is probably not accelerated decay so much as it is alteration of the QM probability field which can be a function of any radioactive decay isotope in a tiny percentage. At least that was the opinion of a series of experiments which showed large gain from small additions of alpha emitters.
RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
From: Axil Axil 99% of the proton mass comes from the gluon binding energy. I just want to add more detail about why the proton is heavier than the three constituent quarks that make up the proton… Nonsense. Where did that bogon come from? It must be a typo…
Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter
We are here to speculate and this forum is the place that you come to speculate. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 6:57 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: With all due respect my friend, DGT and John H are no where near the caliber of Ed Storms. This is precisely the kind of skewed science by popularity that I am bemoaning. What we have is a kid (a rather dishonest bunch kids at that.) arguing with a cancer specialist. What is John H's qualifications to even begin to be the authority in this field? What does DGT have? A pre-industrial H6 machine? LOL When two highly qualified people, first Stremmenos, then Gamberale, speak against their self-interest, we need to take heed. (We also have Jed's first hand testimony of his experience with DGT) DGT is a fraud as far as I am concerned and yet we hold the work of such dubious entities against the work and knowledge of a long-time researcher with a proven and distinguished track record. Does that really make sense to you? Heck, you can do better just arguing with Ed yourself without invoking the authority of DGT. Invoking DGT and the mythical hyperion will only serve to damage your credibility. Jojo PS. When someone begins to speak against Old Guard LENR theories, it makes sense for them to have a robust theory first. Not an ad-hoc patchwork of speculation and misrepresented experimental data creating miracle explanations and then more miracles trying to hold on to the first miracle. Come on guys, we need to temper this distraction and try to focus. - Original Message - *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Sunday, August 10, 2014 5:44 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter Ed Storms last post: --- Bob, I know very well about muon fusion. If you took the time to read my papers, you would understand not only do I understand but you have no idea what you are talking about. The muon produces hot fusion, not cold fusion. The process has no relationship to cold fusion. I have tried to be patient and explain what is known about LENR and what I consider a useful explanation. I have found these discussions interesting and useful in trying to explain LENR. However, I no longer see a purpose in continuing to subscribe to Vortex. The goal here is not to understand but to speculate. That is not my goal. Ed Storms --- To set the record straight, Ed was under heavy speculative pressure from many here on vortex and I was not the most effective because of my excessive good nature and respect for the opinions of others. IMHO, as usually happens, Jones was the most biting. You give be too much credit in the Storms confrontations. To give some background on the special contempt that Ed holds for SPP theory, Ed's SPP theory disregard is tied to DGT as perfected in the private and unknown discussions held in CMMS between Ed and John H. If DGT succeeds in securing its intellectual property rights, the SPP theory might well be supported by much experimental evidence. As it is now, DGT has released much supporting evidence for BEC and SPP theory. If DGT fails, this true theory will be lost for another 100 years. But like LENR, SPP theory will eventually be accepted because it is the true way the Ni/H reactor works. If Rossi reads vortex, he will also see the truth in the SPP theory upon reflection of the inner workings of his cat and mouse. You might see something SPP like from Rossi but he is not interested in truth telling. I am just a weak reflection of the battles between DGT, Dr. Kim and George Miley and Ed Storms. Dr. Kim is the original purveyor of the BEC theory. From reading the latest posts of Peter, he is about to speak against the old LENR theories. And Peter will become another outcast imposed by telling the truth among the old guard LENR workers. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: Peter, My objections are not so much rooted in the new ideas themselves, but in ideas that have no basis in reality pretending to be heirs to the throne. These ideas are a distraction. We need to get rid of these fluffs. People with no training or qualifications in this area have the audacity to start arguing with Ed Storms, a proven, long-time researcher in the field. Understanding this field requires a deep knowledge in many scientific disciplines only a few people like Ed have. Ed is uniquely qualified to even begin discussing this field, yet his theories are rejected in favor of the latest, but definitely not the greatest, theories proposing structures and substances we clearly know can not exist. My challenge is open to anyone who can satisfactorily answer my initial contention. How can the nickel nanostructures, such as nanowires, nano antennas, etc continue to
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
Energy states are always quantized based on a quantum number so that there will be ascending levels of energy in the protons.
Re: [Vo]:Elon Musk needs LENR
The economic and weight cost in increasing the strength of the structure to supply a gravity equivalent to the spacecraft is huge. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 7:07 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Fri, 8 Aug 2014 02:30:28 -0400: Hi, [snip] Another related issue is the peril to the crew imposed by long term exposure to microgravity. This need not be a problem on the trip out and back. You just need to spin up the ship so that the outer rim has 1 g. This is where the crew would spend most of their time. Long term exposure to radiation is however a different matter, but no worse than experienced during long stays in the International Space Station? (BTW if I had my way, trips to Mars would take a few days, not months ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
Dave, I’d like to get it published when completed. This first came up in regard to a hypothesis for reversible proton fusion (RPF) which is not ruled out, but does not fit the circumstances as well as spin-coupling. In fact RPF could precede spin-coupling, in the sense of being causative. As you can see, it is more complex than just variable proton mass. Anyway, the bottom line for LENR with protium is that hydrogen from a few sources can provide as much as 15-30 keV per proton in net mass-energy, available for conversion by spin coupling with no identity change in the nucleon (there is no permanent fusion or transmutation, but the energy is nuclear). Of course, only a fraction of any population of protons will be “heavy” enough but the extra mass of the tail of that fraction can be up to 100 keV per proton. From: David Roberson Interesting information Jones. Do you plan to distribute your paper within this list when complete? It might help our understanding of the true proton mass and it's potential of being the source of LENR. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 5:36 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism From: Eric Walker * The wiki article gives the proton (rest) mass as being 938.272046(21) MeV/c^2 * If this value is accurate, at that precision I believe we have +/- 1 0.21 eV to use for free energy speculation. That is CODATA. Of course, it is no less accurate than any of the others. Unfortunately, it is no more accurate either. How can it be when quarks have variable mass? For instance, Jefferson Lab uses the value of 938.256 MeV. Other Labs, especially overseas have their own values. Some are measured, some calculated, some averaged. I’m in the process of a paper on this, but I can tell you – I have high level estimates within a range, and am convinced that there is at least 70 ppm which is in play, as excess above a median value. That can be called a narrow range, or a wide range, depending on one’s mindset. The only value not in dispute in 2014 goes to the first four digits - 938.2xx MeV … almost everything thereafter, in terms of mass variation, is in play. In fact NASA put men on the moon using a value that was pretty way off from what is now considered reliable. Jones
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: ... the proton which will then constitute a normal proton again with 3 quarks. My recollection is that there are three valence quarks which contribute to the charge and spin of the proton, together with a multitude of sea quarks that do not contribute (perhaps because they're paired up). Eric
Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter
That is true my friend, and I personally enjoy the speculation. But it seems to me that if your speculation is challenged and you can not give a satisfactory answer, it seems prudent to step back and reevaluate your assumptions. There is a difference between just speculating vs. clinging stubbornly to your speculation even when faced with insurmountable objections to your speculation. The former is helpful, the latter is distraction and counter productive. My friend, I have offered a challenge to you. Please explain how the nickel nanostructures you speculate can continue to exist at extremely high temps. This challenge is valid and if it stands, it will totally discredit your speculation. To me the right thing to do is to seriously consider this objection and maybe make adjustments to your speculations, instead of continuing to harp your speculations despite the strong case against it. This is what I find counter productive. We keep repeating our favorite mantra here in Vortex: Experiment trumps theory. Well your theory can not stand up to what we know about these LENR systems - especially what we know about Nickel physical properties. This is a big and valid objection, It needs to be addressed and answered properly. Jojo - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2014 7:19 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter We are here to speculate and this forum is the place that you come to speculate. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 6:57 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: With all due respect my friend, DGT and John H are no where near the caliber of Ed Storms. This is precisely the kind of skewed science by popularity that I am bemoaning. What we have is a kid (a rather dishonest bunch kids at that.) arguing with a cancer specialist. What is John H's qualifications to even begin to be the authority in this field? What does DGT have? A pre-industrial H6 machine? LOL When two highly qualified people, first Stremmenos, then Gamberale, speak against their self-interest, we need to take heed. (We also have Jed's first hand testimony of his experience with DGT) DGT is a fraud as far as I am concerned and yet we hold the work of such dubious entities against the work and knowledge of a long-time researcher with a proven and distinguished track record. Does that really make sense to you? Heck, you can do better just arguing with Ed yourself without invoking the authority of DGT. Invoking DGT and the mythical hyperion will only serve to damage your credibility. Jojo PS. When someone begins to speak against Old Guard LENR theories, it makes sense for them to have a robust theory first. Not an ad-hoc patchwork of speculation and misrepresented experimental data creating miracle explanations and then more miracles trying to hold on to the first miracle. Come on guys, we need to temper this distraction and try to focus. - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2014 5:44 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter Ed Storms last post: --- Bob, I know very well about muon fusion. If you took the time to read my papers, you would understand not only do I understand but you have no idea what you are talking about. The muon produces hot fusion, not cold fusion. The process has no relationship to cold fusion. I have tried to be patient and explain what is known about LENR and what I consider a useful explanation. I have found these discussions interesting and useful in trying to explain LENR. However, I no longer see a purpose in continuing to subscribe to Vortex. The goal here is not to understand but to speculate. That is not my goal. Ed Storms --- To set the record straight, Ed was under heavy speculative pressure from many here on vortex and I was not the most effective because of my excessive good nature and respect for the opinions of others. IMHO, as usually happens, Jones was the most biting. You give be too much credit in the Storms confrontations. To give some background on the special contempt that Ed holds for SPP theory, Ed's SPP theory disregard is tied to DGT as perfected in the private and unknown discussions held in CMMS between Ed and John H. If DGT succeeds in securing its intellectual property rights, the SPP theory might well be supported by much experimental evidence. As it is now, DGT has released much supporting evidence for BEC and SPP theory. If DGT fails, this true theory will be lost for another 100 years. But like LENR, SPP theory will eventually be accepted because it is the true way the Ni/H reactor works. If Rossi reads vortex, he will also see the truth in the SPP theory upon reflection of
Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter
My friend, I have offered a challenge to you. Please explain how the nickel nanostructures you speculate can continue to exist at extremely high temps. Please read http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2014/08/lenr-and-nanoplasmonics.html They do not continue to exist. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 9:10 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: That is true my friend, and I personally enjoy the speculation. But it seems to me that if your speculation is challenged and you can not give a satisfactory answer, it seems prudent to step back and reevaluate your assumptions. There is a difference between just speculating vs. clinging stubbornly to your speculation even when faced with insurmountable objections to your speculation. The former is helpful, the latter is distraction and counter productive. My friend, I have offered a challenge to you. Please explain how the nickel nanostructures you speculate can continue to exist at extremely high temps. This challenge is valid and if it stands, it will totally discredit your speculation. To me the right thing to do is to seriously consider this objection and maybe make adjustments to your speculations, instead of continuing to harp your speculations despite the strong case against it. This is what I find counter productive. We keep repeating our favorite mantra here in Vortex: Experiment trumps theory. Well your theory can not stand up to what we know about these LENR systems - especially what we know about Nickel physical properties. This is a big and valid objection, It needs to be addressed and answered properly. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Sunday, August 10, 2014 7:19 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter We are here to speculate and this forum is the place that you come to speculate. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 6:57 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: With all due respect my friend, DGT and John H are no where near the caliber of Ed Storms. This is precisely the kind of skewed science by popularity that I am bemoaning. What we have is a kid (a rather dishonest bunch kids at that.) arguing with a cancer specialist. What is John H's qualifications to even begin to be the authority in this field? What does DGT have? A pre-industrial H6 machine? LOL When two highly qualified people, first Stremmenos, then Gamberale, speak against their self-interest, we need to take heed. (We also have Jed's first hand testimony of his experience with DGT) DGT is a fraud as far as I am concerned and yet we hold the work of such dubious entities against the work and knowledge of a long-time researcher with a proven and distinguished track record. Does that really make sense to you? Heck, you can do better just arguing with Ed yourself without invoking the authority of DGT. Invoking DGT and the mythical hyperion will only serve to damage your credibility. Jojo PS. When someone begins to speak against Old Guard LENR theories, it makes sense for them to have a robust theory first. Not an ad-hoc patchwork of speculation and misrepresented experimental data creating miracle explanations and then more miracles trying to hold on to the first miracle. Come on guys, we need to temper this distraction and try to focus. - Original Message - *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Sunday, August 10, 2014 5:44 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter Ed Storms last post: --- Bob, I know very well about muon fusion. If you took the time to read my papers, you would understand not only do I understand but you have no idea what you are talking about. The muon produces hot fusion, not cold fusion. The process has no relationship to cold fusion. I have tried to be patient and explain what is known about LENR and what I consider a useful explanation. I have found these discussions interesting and useful in trying to explain LENR. However, I no longer see a purpose in continuing to subscribe to Vortex. The goal here is not to understand but to speculate. That is not my goal. Ed Storms --- To set the record straight, Ed was under heavy speculative pressure from many here on vortex and I was not the most effective because of my excessive good nature and respect for the opinions of others. IMHO, as usually happens, Jones was the most biting. You give be too much credit in the Storms confrontations. To give some background on the special contempt that Ed holds for SPP theory, Ed's SPP theory disregard is tied to DGT as perfected in the private and unknown discussions held in CMMS between Ed and John H. If DGT succeeds in securing its intellectual property rights, the SPP theory might well be supported by much experimental evidence. As it is now,
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2014/jul/11/gluons-get-in-on-proton-spin Gluons get in on proton spin New research shows that gluons carry most of the protons spin snip In the latest work, a group of theorists – Daniel de Florian http://users.df.uba.ar/deflo/deflo/main.html, from the Aires University in Argentina, and colleagues – analysed several years' worth of collision data from RHIC's STAR and PHENIX experiments. De Florian and colleagues have now studied data collected up until 2009, and have compared those data with a theoretical model they have developed that predicts the likely spin direction of gluons carrying a certain fraction of the momentum involved in the proton collisions. The researchers discovered, in contrast to a null result they obtained using fewer data five years ago, that gluon spin does tend to line up with that of the protons, rather than against it. In fact, they estimate that gluons could supply as much as half of a proton's spin. This is the first evidence that suggests gluons could make a significant contribution to proton spin, says team member Werner Vogelsang http://www.tphys.physik.uni-tuebingen.de/~vogelsang/Welcome.html of Tübingen University in Germany, who adds that, on theoretical grounds, gluons ought to supply the same amount of spin to neutrons. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 9:06 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: ... the proton which will then constitute a normal proton again with 3 quarks. My recollection is that there are three valence quarks which contribute to the charge and spin of the proton, together with a multitude of sea quarks that do not contribute (perhaps because they're paired up). Eric
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
Muon catalyzed fusion might come about when a magnetic field creates a muon during proton interaction with a magnetic field from meson production via meson decay. To create this effect, a stream of negative muons, most often created by decaying pions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pion, is sent to a crystal of hydrogen. The muon may bump the electron from one of the hydrogen isotopes. The muon, 207 times more massive than the electron, effectively shields and reduces the electromagnetic repulsion between two nuclei and draws them much closer into a covalent bond than an electron can. Because the nuclei are so close, the strong nuclear force is able to kick in and bind both nuclei together. They fuse, release the catalytic muon (most of the time), and part of the original mass of both nuclei is released as energetic particles, as with any other type of nuclear fusion. The release of the catalytic muon is critical to continue the reactions. The majority of the muons continue to bond with other hydrogen isotopes and continue fusing nuclei together. However, not all of the muons are recycled: some bond with other debris emitted following the fusion of the nuclei (such as alpha particles and helions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helion_(chemistry)), removing the muons from the catalytic process. This gradually chokes off the reactions, as there are fewer and fewer muons with which the nuclei may bond. The number of reactions achieved in the lab can be as high as 150 fusions per muon (average). Muons will continue to be produced through energy injection into the protons and neutrons of the atoms within the influence of the magnetic beam. This magnetic based reaction is more probable than the magnetic formation of a quark/gluon plasma since it only requires 100 MeV of energy to produce the muon. Linier and angular momentum is conserved via neutrino production during the decay of the pion to keep all spins zero. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 6:00 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: OK, so that leaves just about nothing to extract. It would certainly not be adequate to explain LENR levels of energy we are expecting. So, why do we hear members of the vortex speaking of variation in the mass of the proton as being important? I have to ask about the measurement technique and how it is possible to determine the mass to that level of precision. I have never witnessed the determination of proton mass and plead ignorance to the processes that are used. Can anyone actually make a physical measurement that is to the accuracy suggested? Anyone can calculate the number to as many decimal figures as they desire by using a computer model but the results might not reflect the real world values. Does anyone have first hand experience in making this determination and what is the real standard deviation of the energy content of a lone proton? If the numbers are as precise as you are suggesting then why not put to rest the thought of being able to somehow extract this source of energy? Jones, I think you might have some input that would be helpful. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 4:45 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism I wrote: If this value is accurate, at that precision I believe we have +/- 1 0.21 eV to use for free energy speculation. Sorry -- +/- 0.21 eV. (I need a personal editor.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
Muon catalyzed fusion could be the enabler of Proton Proton fusion (PP). The double protons seen in the Piantelli experiments might be due to the first steps in the PP fusion chain. PP will exist until there is a positron emission to form deuterium. The PP could then be fused with nickel to form copper via muon fusion. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 11:13 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Muon catalyzed fusion might come about when a magnetic field creates a muon during proton interaction with a magnetic field from meson production via meson decay. To create this effect, a stream of negative muons, most often created by decaying pions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pion, is sent to a crystal of hydrogen. The muon may bump the electron from one of the hydrogen isotopes. The muon, 207 times more massive than the electron, effectively shields and reduces the electromagnetic repulsion between two nuclei and draws them much closer into a covalent bond than an electron can. Because the nuclei are so close, the strong nuclear force is able to kick in and bind both nuclei together. They fuse, release the catalytic muon (most of the time), and part of the original mass of both nuclei is released as energetic particles, as with any other type of nuclear fusion. The release of the catalytic muon is critical to continue the reactions. The majority of the muons continue to bond with other hydrogen isotopes and continue fusing nuclei together. However, not all of the muons are recycled: some bond with other debris emitted following the fusion of the nuclei (such as alpha particles and helions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helion_(chemistry)), removing the muons from the catalytic process. This gradually chokes off the reactions, as there are fewer and fewer muons with which the nuclei may bond. The number of reactions achieved in the lab can be as high as 150 fusions per muon (average). Muons will continue to be produced through energy injection into the protons and neutrons of the atoms within the influence of the magnetic beam. This magnetic based reaction is more probable than the magnetic formation of a quark/gluon plasma since it only requires 100 MeV of energy to produce the muon. Linier and angular momentum is conserved via neutrino production during the decay of the pion to keep all spins zero. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 6:00 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: OK, so that leaves just about nothing to extract. It would certainly not be adequate to explain LENR levels of energy we are expecting. So, why do we hear members of the vortex speaking of variation in the mass of the proton as being important? I have to ask about the measurement technique and how it is possible to determine the mass to that level of precision. I have never witnessed the determination of proton mass and plead ignorance to the processes that are used. Can anyone actually make a physical measurement that is to the accuracy suggested? Anyone can calculate the number to as many decimal figures as they desire by using a computer model but the results might not reflect the real world values. Does anyone have first hand experience in making this determination and what is the real standard deviation of the energy content of a lone proton? If the numbers are as precise as you are suggesting then why not put to rest the thought of being able to somehow extract this source of energy? Jones, I think you might have some input that would be helpful. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 4:45 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism I wrote: If this value is accurate, at that precision I believe we have +/- 1 0.21 eV to use for free energy speculation. Sorry -- +/- 0.21 eV. (I need a personal editor.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter
So, I read your link, but all I see is a lot of jargon and over 2 dozen miracles. So, your claim is that the reaction consist of 2 stages, a static NAE environment which starts the LENR process which then quickly get melted; at which point, the Dynamic NAE takes over and continue the LENR process. Am I correct then, in my understanding of your theory, that without the existence of Static NAEs, the LENR will never bootstrap itself? If this is your claim, then I have a question that should be easy to answer. If Static NAEs nanowires are destroyed (melted) at the first pass of the reaction. How come the reactor can be stopped and restarted? The reactor should only be capable of being started once. The first start destroys all the Static NAEs making impossible to restart the LENR process after it is shut down the first time. Quite obviously that is not the case with the hotcat. Please enlighten us with another miracle to explain the hotcat's ability to be restarted multiple times. Jojo - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2014 10:35 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter My friend, I have offered a challenge to you. Please explain how the nickel nanostructures you speculate can continue to exist at extremely high temps. Please read http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2014/08/lenr-and-nanoplasmonics.html They do not continue to exist. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 9:10 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: That is true my friend, and I personally enjoy the speculation. But it seems to me that if your speculation is challenged and you can not give a satisfactory answer, it seems prudent to step back and reevaluate your assumptions. There is a difference between just speculating vs. clinging stubbornly to your speculation even when faced with insurmountable objections to your speculation. The former is helpful, the latter is distraction and counter productive. My friend, I have offered a challenge to you. Please explain how the nickel nanostructures you speculate can continue to exist at extremely high temps. This challenge is valid and if it stands, it will totally discredit your speculation. To me the right thing to do is to seriously consider this objection and maybe make adjustments to your speculations, instead of continuing to harp your speculations despite the strong case against it. This is what I find counter productive. We keep repeating our favorite mantra here in Vortex: Experiment trumps theory. Well your theory can not stand up to what we know about these LENR systems - especially what we know about Nickel physical properties. This is a big and valid objection, It needs to be addressed and answered properly. Jojo - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2014 7:19 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter We are here to speculate and this forum is the place that you come to speculate. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 6:57 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: With all due respect my friend, DGT and John H are no where near the caliber of Ed Storms. This is precisely the kind of skewed science by popularity that I am bemoaning. What we have is a kid (a rather dishonest bunch kids at that.) arguing with a cancer specialist. What is John H's qualifications to even begin to be the authority in this field? What does DGT have? A pre-industrial H6 machine? LOL When two highly qualified people, first Stremmenos, then Gamberale, speak against their self-interest, we need to take heed. (We also have Jed's first hand testimony of his experience with DGT) DGT is a fraud as far as I am concerned and yet we hold the work of such dubious entities against the work and knowledge of a long-time researcher with a proven and distinguished track record. Does that really make sense to you? Heck, you can do better just arguing with Ed yourself without invoking the authority of DGT. Invoking DGT and the mythical hyperion will only serve to damage your credibility. Jojo PS. When someone begins to speak against Old Guard LENR theories, it makes sense for them to have a robust theory first. Not an ad-hoc patchwork of speculation and misrepresented experimental data creating miracle explanations and then more miracles trying to hold on to the first miracle. Come on guys, we need to temper this distraction and try to focus. - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2014 5:44 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter Ed Storms last post: --- Bob, I know very well about muon fusion. If you took the time to read my papers,
