Re: [Vo]:The neutron fallicy

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

So it is seen that INSIDE the nucleus, the quark changes its flavor when
> interacting via the W- or W+. This interaction cannot be observed outside
> the nucleus because quarks do not exist outside the nucleus.
>

Your description taken as a whole, with the discussion of the exchange of
the massive W and Z bosons, is helpful in getting a better grasp of why
neutron production outside of the nucleus is very improbable.  It is easy
to forget the relevant observations that neutrons are stable within a
nucleus but decay outside of it, and that a nucleus with an overabundance
of protons will be likely to decay via beta plus decay to a more stable
isotope with more neutrons.

Earlier you wrote:


> Because of the transient nature of beta decay, we cannot depend on nuclear
> decay to drive the LENR process. LENR must be produced by an absolutely
> certain cause...a cause that is guarantied to occur. Descriptions of what
> quantum mechanics does is absolutely  adverse to absolute statements.  And
> at the same time, it is nearly impossible to predict how subatomic
> particles and energy interact to get to the results that are later observed
> in LENR.
>

Here I understand you to be saying that because LENR is observed to occur,
there must be something going on under the hood that does not have a
negligible probability associated with it (as would be the case with beta
plus decay outside of the nucleus).  But it's easy to misunderstand this
statement to mean that you are proposing that LENR somehow avoids quantum
mechanics.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Scientists Confirm 'Impossible' EM Drive Propulsion

[Axil Axil]

This might be the paper

http://tu-dresden.de/die_tu_dresden/fakultaeten/fakultaet_maschinenwesen/ilr/rfs/forschung/folder.2007-08-21.5231434330/ag_raumfahrtantriebe/JPC%20-%20Direct%20Thrust%20Measurements%20of%20an%20EM%20Drive%20and%20Evaluation%20of%20Possible%20Side-Effects.pdf

On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

> Thanks for posting this.  I was going to post it as well.
>
> This can only help LENR because, if something that was deemed impossible
> becomes a reality, there is more willingness to look at other supposedly
> impossible technologies.
>
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 6:40 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> Scientists Confirm 'Impossible' EM Drive Propulsion
>>
>>
>> https://hacked.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Xenon_hall_thruster-750x500.jpg
>>
>> Later today, July 27, German scientists will present new experimental
>> results on the controversial, "impossible" EM Drive, at the American
>> Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics' Propulsion and Energy Forum in
>> Orlando. The presentation is titled "Direct Thrust Measurements of an
>> EmDrive and Evaluation of Possible Side-Effects."
>>
>> Beware of the hacked web site. I got a bad site security warning on it.
>>
>>
>> http://www.examiner.com/article/german-scientists-confirm-nasa-results-of-propellentless-impossible-em-drive
>>
>> also see
>>
>>
>> http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-07/24/emdrive-space-drive-pluto-mission
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Scientists Confirm 'Impossible' EM Drive Propulsion

[Kevin O'Malley]

Thanks for posting this.  I was going to post it as well.

This can only help LENR because, if something that was deemed impossible
becomes a reality, there is more willingness to look at other supposedly
impossible technologies.

On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 6:40 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Scientists Confirm 'Impossible' EM Drive Propulsion
>
>
> https://hacked.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Xenon_hall_thruster-750x500.jpg
>
> Later today, July 27, German scientists will present new experimental
> results on the controversial, "impossible" EM Drive, at the American
> Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics' Propulsion and Energy Forum in
> Orlando. The presentation is titled "Direct Thrust Measurements of an
> EmDrive and Evaluation of Possible Side-Effects."
>
> Beware of the hacked web site. I got a bad site security warning on it.
>
>
> http://www.examiner.com/article/german-scientists-confirm-nasa-results-of-propellentless-impossible-em-drive
>
> also see
>
>
> http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-07/24/emdrive-space-drive-pluto-mission
>

[Vo]:The neutron fallicy

[Axil Axil]

The overarching theme of this essay is to explain how  neutrons are only
transmuted from protons as a result of beta decay meadiated under the
control of the weak force.  Nuclear decay requires the weak force and
neutron production requires nuclear decay. Nuclear decay resulting in the
production of neutrons from protons must occur INSIDE the nucleus.

To start off, quantum mechanics (QM) is a sometimes thing. Sometimes it
does this and sometimes it does that. What QM does is based on probability.
Nuclear decay is subject to the vagaries of probability. The production of
a neutron from a proton is a sometimes thing. Because of the transient
nature of beta decay, we cannot depend on nuclear decay to drive the LENR
process. LENR must be produced by an absolutely certain cause...a cause
that is guarantied to occur. Descriptions of what quantum mechanics does is
absolutely  adverse to absolute statements.  And at the same time, it is
nearly impossible to predict how subatomic particles and energy interact to
get to the results that are later observed in LENR.

Next, the weak force is one of the four fundamental forces that govern all
matter in the universe While the other forces hold things together, the
weak force plays a greater role in things falling apart, or decaying. In
nuclear physics, beta decay (β-decay) is a type of nucleon rebalancing
function in which a proton is transformed into a neutron, or vice versa,
INSIDE an atomic nucleus. This process allows the atom to move closer to
the optimal ratio of protons and neutrons. Atoms want to have a one for one
balance of protons and neutrons INSIDE the nucleus.

The weak force, or weak interaction that is responsible for turning a
proton into a neutron is only effective at incredibly short distances. It
acts on the subatomic level and plays a crucial role in keeping the number
of protons and neutrons balanced in the nucleus or for converting stray
neutrons that somehow get outside the nucleus and away from their proton
partners into protons.

So it is seen that INSIDE the nucleus, the quark changes its flavor when
interacting via the W- or W+. This interaction cannot be observed outside
the nucleus because quarks do not exist outside the nucleus. Because of
quark confinement, isolated quarks are not observed and the weak force only
works in decay processes inside the nucleus. I am ignoring the decay of
subatomic particles associated with nuclear processes.

There are many neutrons inside of atoms and they are universally stable
when protons and neutrons are paired together INSIDE the nucleus.  But if
there is a very large mismatch in the number of protons or neutrons INSIDE
the nucleus, a neutron can decay into a proton or a proton can become a
neutron. When a neutron is outside of the nucleus, it will decay into a
proton, positron and a neutrino. But in order for a stray neutron to decay
into a proton, positron and neutrino, a very heavy W boson is needed to be
born out of the energy of the vacuum to mediate the decay of the neutron
 through the weak force.

The weak force only manifests itself INSIDE the nucleus or INSIDE the
neutron, not in or around the proton or the electron. The weak force is
absolutely required to turn a proton into a neutron. In order for the weak
force to manifest outside the nucleus, a massive W boson must be born out
of the vacuum. Under the rules of virtual particle production, the
probability that this huge amount of virtual energy could be borrowed from
the vacuum  is proportional to the mass of the W boson. Since the W boson
is one of the heaviest boson that there can be... it is huge, the
probability that the W boson will come into existence unbidden from the
vacuum is vanishingly small. And if the W boson were generated from the
vacuum, it would only be around for a very short time since its lifetime is
inversely proportional to its mass. And if it did spring into existence
from the vacuum, it would need to be produced and located within .1 percent
of the diameter of the proton* to properly project the weak force during it
almost near instantaneously short lifetime.

* ( the weak interaction involves the exchange of the intermediate vector
bosons, the W and the Z. Since the mass of these particles is on the order
of 80 GeV, the uncertainty principle dictates a range of about 10-18 meters
which is about .1% of the diameter of a proton.)
The bottom line, the probability that the weak force affects subatomic
particles OUTSIDE the nucleus is almost ZERO.

In beta plus decay, for a proton to become a neutron requires the proton to
decay into a neutron, a positron, and a neutrino OUTSIDE of the nucleus.
This virtual neutrino must be produced out of the energy of the vacuum just
in the vanishingly short time that the W boson is in existence. This
probability of two such extremely unlikely event occurring simultaneously
is so small that this nearly impossible combination of events can occur
together is close to zero.

Now in a 1 me

[Vo]:Obstacle Management justifies "Why Technology First"

[Peter Gluck]

Dear Friends,
It is indeed a heretic idea but it is realist and pragmatic. Theory first,
technology after
brings a delay of 50 years as a a minimum.

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/07/creative-obstacle-management-for-lenr.html

The target of this writing/message is the AIRBUS Workshop at Toulouse, Oct
15-16.

What is the best drug against the Cassandra Syndrome?

yours,
Peter
-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Is the new MFMP test flawed from the start?

[Bob Cook]

Is the new MFMP test flawed from the start?For good high temperature 
thermocouples try a niobium-iridium junction.  Iridium wires are expensive, 
however inert.  And niobium is almost as good.  A custom t/c vendor should be 
able to either weld them or electroplate them into a good junction.  Welding is 
a more common joining technique, but electro-plating may give a better bond 
without any carbon or oxygen contamination.

Electron beam welding may also work well and eliminate contamination of the 
junction.

Bob Cook 


From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 3:34 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: [Vo]:Is the new MFMP test flawed from the start?

I wasn’t aware of “photon multiplication” as a potential hindrance to IR 
testing (in the context of thermometry) until recently, but it is a hot topic 
in Optics journals these days. Was it even mentioned wrt Lugano? Doubt it. For 
instance - with quantum dots as the receptor, 7 new visible photons can be 
emitted from every UV photon entering the dot. This would change the blackbody 
curve of the thermal emitter should it also be a UV emitter. Does the glow 
stick contain quantum dots and does the gain involve UV? The would greatly 
alter assumptions.

Much was made of the alumina emissivity problem, but that is a different 
subject than photon multiplication (which relates to another underlying 
assumption – that the thermal emitter is not an intrinsic light source). Thus, 
emissivity is different from multiplication - and both can cause errors. Bob 
Higgins revised the suspected Lugano temperature down to 1100C, from the 
original 1410C - based on an emissivity correction, but if photon 
multiplication was happening at the same time, and the E-Cat is an intrinsic UV 
emitter - there could be even less energy gain than the thermal calculation 
indicates.

The sad thing is that in both cases, the simple expedient of a specialty black 
coating could solve the problem. Surely MFMP are now aware of the necessity of 
such a coating. Here is one of many companies which provides them.

http://www.aremco.com/high-emissivity-coatings/


According to E-Cat World, a new glow-stick test is underway. The plan is to use 
a non-contact thermometry again, including an IR thermometer rather than the 
thermocouple that was used with the Padua test. Both the IR thermometer and the 
Optris Pi 160 will give incorrect readings if IR photons are multiplied in the 
range in which they operate… unless coated.

Personally, I do not believe that K-type thermocouples will be accurate either, 
so the black coating is a must. Type K may be used up to 1260C in non-oxidizing 
or inert atmospheres. According to experts, in marginally oxidizing atmosphere, 
such as coated with a ceramic cement and operating in air, the situation is 
different. As low as 800C the chromel wire of the pair will start to corrode in 
a phenomenon known as "green rot". 


Anyway, if it’s not too late – please paint the reactor with high emissivity 
paint and use a platinum thermocouple. Otherwise – expect to hear the same 
complaints from skeptics as before.

Re: [Vo]:Is the new MFMP test flawed from the start?

[Bob Cook]

Is the new MFMP test flawed from the start?For good high temperature 
thermocouples try a niobium-iridium junction.  Iridium wires are expensive, 
however inert.  And niobium is almost as good.  A custom t/c vendor should be 
able to either weld them or electroplate them into a good junction.  Welding is 
a more common joining technique, but electro-plating may give a better bond 
without any carbon or oxygen contamination.

Bob Cook 


From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 3:34 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: [Vo]:Is the new MFMP test flawed from the start?

I wasn’t aware of “photon multiplication” as a potential hindrance to IR 
testing (in the context of thermometry) until recently, but it is a hot topic 
in Optics journals these days. Was it even mentioned wrt Lugano? Doubt it. For 
instance - with quantum dots as the receptor, 7 new visible photons can be 
emitted from every UV photon entering the dot. This would change the blackbody 
curve of the thermal emitter should it also be a UV emitter. Does the glow 
stick contain quantum dots and does the gain involve UV? The would greatly 
alter assumptions.

Much was made of the alumina emissivity problem, but that is a different 
subject than photon multiplication (which relates to another underlying 
assumption – that the thermal emitter is not an intrinsic light source). Thus, 
emissivity is different from multiplication - and both can cause errors. Bob 
Higgins revised the suspected Lugano temperature down to 1100C, from the 
original 1410C - based on an emissivity correction, but if photon 
multiplication was happening at the same time, and the E-Cat is an intrinsic UV 
emitter - there could be even less energy gain than the thermal calculation 
indicates.

The sad thing is that in both cases, the simple expedient of a specialty black 
coating could solve the problem. Surely MFMP are now aware of the necessity of 
such a coating. Here is one of many companies which provides them.

http://www.aremco.com/high-emissivity-coatings/


According to E-Cat World, a new glow-stick test is underway. The plan is to use 
a non-contact thermometry again, including an IR thermometer rather than the 
thermocouple that was used with the Padua test. Both the IR thermometer and the 
Optris Pi 160 will give incorrect readings if IR photons are multiplied in the 
range in which they operate… unless coated.

Personally, I do not believe that K-type thermocouples will be accurate either, 
so the black coating is a must. Type K may be used up to 1260C in non-oxidizing 
or inert atmospheres. According to experts, in marginally oxidizing atmosphere, 
such as coated with a ceramic cement and operating in air, the situation is 
different. As low as 800C the chromel wire of the pair will start to corrode in 
a phenomenon known as "green rot". 


Anyway, if it’s not too late – please paint the reactor with high emissivity 
paint and use a platinum thermocouple. Otherwise – expect to hear the same 
complaints from skeptics as before.

RE: [Vo]:Matter to energy, and back

[Roarty, Francis X]

EM drive is claimed to be relativistic so by making a closed system in our 
frame, [his trapezoidal microwave cavity], you are using Lorentzian effects to 
unbalance the normal equal and opposite reactions in our frame.. of course in 
the case of LENR the hydrogen never see it that way because it becomes time 
dilated and balances out the forces on an axis we perceive as temporal from our 
perspective. This is a neo Lorentzian perspective based on Naudt’s paper 
describing the hydrino as relativistic hydrogen.. Casimir suppression making 
space time lower than the isotropy, warping instead of the welling to create 
negative gravitational equivalent acceleration… if you spatially can’t go 
slower when already stationary then negative acceleration must effect the 
temporal coordinate instead –IMHO this is much easier at the nano scale than 
many suspect and is performed without energy by geometrical segregation of 
virtual particles into macro scale regions where smaller vp are concentrated in 
the suppression zones and larger vp congregate just outside. I think this 
segregation into macro scale regions large enough for physical matter to react 
with makes the quantum foam and HUP exploitable forces.
Fran

From: Hauke Hein [mailto:hhe...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 9:48 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Matter to energy, and back

Hi Steven
I was thinking that maybe hydrogen at low
pressure and moderate temperature has a
molecular
rms velocity of close to escape velocity.
If one would calculate the weight of the hydrogen inside a hermetically closed
container that has the right pressure and
temperature for rms escape velocity and
then weigh it with an supersensitive balance
there might be a difference .I guess a certain
percentage of the molecules would due to there speed and trajectory behave like 
the ones between parallel vertical plates like in our communication before and 
generate a small
upward push.
I know that should not work in a closed system but heck the EMDRIVE seems to 
work
and that is a closed system!
Regards
Hauke Hein


--- Mensaje Original ---

Desde: "Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson" 
mailto:orionwo...@charter.net>>
Enviado: 27 de julio de 2015 18:33
Para: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Asunto: RE: [Vo]:Matter to energy, and back

Hauke,



I think your design concept is pretty much the same concept as mine. I would 
also speculate that using hydrogen atoms, or perhaps a hydrogen plasma stream, 
would help simplify what engineering might be involved. If there is a 
"cover"... then yes, it would be my suspicion that an upward thrust would be 
generated.



Wish there was a way to find out if such an experiment could be conducted.



Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

OrionWorks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks



From: Hauke Hein [mailto:hhe...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 4:54 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Matter to energy, and back



Hi Steven
I read your idea with the cannonball between
two reflekting mirrors.
I had an idea similar but with lets say
hydrogen atoms reflectet between two vertical parallel
walls at escape velocity.I think those particals
would follow a parabolic path climbing between the vertical walls.I wonder what 
would happen if one would install a horizontal
cover on top of the parallel walls limiting the
upwards movement of those oscillating particals?would they generate an upward
pressure?
Next question: what would happen if this
takes place in a closed box?
Hauke Hein


--- Mensaje Original ---

Desde: "Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson" 
mailto:orionwo...@charter.net>>
Enviado: 27 de julio de 2015 16:09
Para: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Asunto: RE: [Vo]:Matter to energy, and back

Bob, Jones,



Thanks for humoring me. I am not surprised that discussing energy/matter 
conversion techniques in 21st century terms is, how should I put it, a 
debatable matter.



Here's where I'm going with my previous request:



If practical M/E conversion technology could eventually be developed I think 
there might exist a particular type of thrust engine (mimicking anti-gravity) 
that could be developed capable of manipulating principals involving escape 
velocity & angular momentum. Think of Newton's famous illustration showing a 
cannon shooting a series of cannon balls around the earth with increasing 
values of velocity. Given enough velocity, you eventually can get a cannon ball 
into an orbit around Earth. With a little more velocity, it's off to the Moon 
and beyond! Now, think of a unique kind of high-tech cannon ball (matter) 
that's travelling faster than 17.5k mph, a ball of mass that we could 
technologically convert into energy after only a short distance so that 
something like a mirror could reflect all the photons back, let's say back at 
approximately 180 degrees. Then, after a very short time, convert the ball of 
photons back into a bal