Re: [Vo]:Verisimilitude, lies, and true lies Part 1
IMO, the quest to explain origin of inertia (mass) in terms of an energy field (higgs field) is topsy-turvy, because historically and logically the concept of inertia is more basic than than the concept energy. Energy is a derived concept. It is like trying to explain the origin of Judaism in terms of Christianity or Islam. Harry On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > CERN has spent $ten billion and counting to verify how particles get their > mass from the Higgs field. As I understand the Higgs theory (whose > implications about the acquisition of mass by particles I might not fully > comprehend) the Higgs mechanism is a process that is universal and constant > throughout the universe for all matter contained therein. > > If mass depletion happens on a per particle basis as a process that > underpins the quiescence conjecture in cold fusion, the decision makers who > spent all those euros on proton smashing hardware are derelict in their lack > of attention to the possibility of quiescence. > > Higgs theory and quiescence are not compatible or at least is very hard to > be made compatible. > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Jones Beene wrote: >> >> Mark, >> >> Thanks for remembering this thread. It is definitely worth revisiting in >> the >> context of a number of issues related to finding the proper and ultimate >> source of gain in Ni-H. >> >> I had actually delayed moving on to a "Part 2" of this premise for a >> number >> of reasons including apparent lack of interest in the hypothesis: that >> hypothesis being that the proton alone has a modicum of excess mass to >> spare >> (to provide to a reaction). This would be in the sense of conversion of a >> bit of the non-quantized internal bosonic mass into energy - over and >> above >> whatever the "average" value of the proton turns out to be (or the minimum >> in that range). >> >> I was kind of "picking on" on the a.m.u. as a culprit in this earlier >> posting, knowing full well that long ago the definition of a.m.u. was >> effectively carved into stone (based on carbon mass and an average of >> fermions) and no longer related to "real results in real experiments." >> >> I think it is time for me to go back to this old thread and try to glean >> and >> reword the relevant issues into a Part 2. Again, the major hypothesis, is >> that the net proton mass is not quantized, but is in the vicinity of >> 938.272013 MeV on average (even this accepted value is in contention). At >> best, this value becomes what is really an "average mass" based on >> whatever >> the most advanced current measurement technique is being use before >> recalibration. That average can vary a fractional percent or more, as >> either >> "overage" or "deficit". The overage is "in play" as the mystery energy >> source for Ni-H reactions, whether they be from Mills, Rossi, DGT, >> Piantelli, Celani, or Thermacore. >> >> Of course, some of that mass overage, when "in play" would be convertible >> to >> energy when the strong force is pitted against Coulomb repulsion. That is >> where all of the mysteries of QCD, QM and QED comes into play. The >> standard >> model gives us 938.272013 MeV but the quark component of protons is the >> only >> component which is relatively "fixed" with a fixed value; and at least one >> hundred MeV is "in play". That is massive, but most of it must be retained >> since quarks are not mutually attractive without it. There is a range of >> expendable mass-energy of the non-quark remainder (pion, gluon, etc) - >> which >> is extractable as the 'gain' seen in the Ni-H thermal effect - yet the >> proton maintains its identity. >> >> Can this mass loss, if depleted (leading to quiescence) then can be >> replenished by exposure to a heavy nucleus (bringing the average mass of >> the >> proton back up)? That is the gist of our speculation relating to the major >> problem in moving forward. >> >> Jones >> >> _ >> From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint >> >> Jones: >> You might want to follow this thread: >> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg35942.html >> >> The quote from the PhysOrg article which starts the thread is this: >> "So you have one set of data that tells you the mass-dependence picture >> doesn't >> work and another that tells you the density-dependence picture doesn't >> work," >> Arrington explained. "So, if both of these pictures are wrong, what's >> really >> going on?" >> >> I know this doesn't speak directly to your point of the variability of the >> 'constant' referred to as the a.m.u., but I see that you did not >> participate >> in that thread and thought you might have missed it; it may have some >> relevance to the a.m.u. issue >> >> Clearly, there is still much to learn... ANYONE who says that LENR/CF is >> impossible is not a scientist... regardless of whether its 'real' fusion, >> or >> some variant. >> >> -Mark >> _
Re: [Vo]:Verisimilitude, lies, and true lies Part 1
CERN has spent $ten billion and counting to verify how particles get their mass from the Higgs field. As I understand the Higgs theory (whose implications about the acquisition of mass by particles I might not fully comprehend) the Higgs mechanism is a process that is *universal and constant * throughout the universe for all matter contained therein. If mass depletion happens on *a per particle basis* as a process that underpins the quiescence conjecture in cold fusion, the decision makers who spent all those euros on proton smashing hardware are derelict in their lack of attention to the possibility of quiescence. Higgs theory and quiescence are not compatible or at least is very hard to be made compatible. On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > Mark, > > Thanks for remembering this thread. It is definitely worth revisiting in > the > context of a number of issues related to finding the proper and ultimate > source of gain in Ni-H. > > I had actually delayed moving on to a "Part 2" of this premise for a number > of reasons including apparent lack of interest in the hypothesis: that > hypothesis being that the proton alone has a modicum of excess mass to > spare > (to provide to a reaction). This would be in the sense of conversion of a > bit of the non-quantized internal bosonic mass into energy - over and above > whatever the "average" value of the proton turns out to be (or the minimum > in that range). > > I was kind of "picking on" on the a.m.u. as a culprit in this earlier > posting, knowing full well that long ago the definition of a.m.u. was > effectively carved into stone (based on carbon mass and an average of > fermions) and no longer related to "real results in real experiments." > > I think it is time for me to go back to this old thread and try to glean > and > reword the relevant issues into a Part 2. Again, the major hypothesis, is > that the net proton mass is not quantized, but is in the vicinity of > 938.272013 MeV on average (even this accepted value is in contention). At > best, this value becomes what is really an "average mass" based on whatever > the most advanced current measurement technique is being use before > recalibration. That average can vary a fractional percent or more, as > either > "overage" or "deficit". The overage is "in play" as the mystery energy > source for Ni-H reactions, whether they be from Mills, Rossi, DGT, > Piantelli, Celani, or Thermacore. > > Of course, some of that mass overage, when "in play" would be convertible > to > energy when the strong force is pitted against Coulomb repulsion. That is > where all of the mysteries of QCD, QM and QED comes into play. The standard > model gives us 938.272013 MeV but the quark component of protons is the > only > component which is relatively "fixed" with a fixed value; and at least one > hundred MeV is "in play". That is massive, but most of it must be retained > since quarks are not mutually attractive without it. There is a range of > expendable mass-energy of the non-quark remainder (pion, gluon, etc) - > which > is extractable as the 'gain' seen in the Ni-H thermal effect - yet the > proton maintains its identity. > > Can this mass loss, if depleted (leading to quiescence) then can be > replenished by exposure to a heavy nucleus (bringing the average mass of > the > proton back up)? That is the gist of our speculation relating to the major > problem in moving forward. > > Jones > > _ > From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint > > Jones: > You might want to follow this thread: > http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg35942.html > > The quote from the PhysOrg article which starts the thread is this: > "So you have one set of data that tells you the mass-dependence picture > doesn't > work and another that tells you the density-dependence picture doesn't > work," > Arrington explained. "So, if both of these pictures are wrong, what's > really > going on?" > > I know this doesn't speak directly to your point of the variability of the > 'constant' referred to as the a.m.u., but I see that you did not > participate > in that thread and thought you might have missed it; it may have some > relevance to the a.m.u. issue > > Clearly, there is still much to learn... ANYONE who says that LENR/CF is > impossible is not a scientist... regardless of whether its 'real' fusion, > or > some variant. > > -Mark > _ > From: Jones Beene > > Here is a non-trolling shocker: The so called "unit" at the base of > everything we know as "stuff" (matter) which is the atomic mass unit > (a.m.u.) is a lie. > > That's right - at least it is a small lie in the sense that after all these > years, it has no firm value when you look close enough. No one at CERN > knows > exactly what it is, or how variable it can be, after it is pumped down, so > to speak. It is also a "true lie" since we now use an assigned value to > define itsel
RE: [Vo]:Verisimilitude, lies, and true lies Part 1
Mark, Thanks for remembering this thread. It is definitely worth revisiting in the context of a number of issues related to finding the proper and ultimate source of gain in Ni-H. I had actually delayed moving on to a "Part 2" of this premise for a number of reasons including apparent lack of interest in the hypothesis: that hypothesis being that the proton alone has a modicum of excess mass to spare (to provide to a reaction). This would be in the sense of conversion of a bit of the non-quantized internal bosonic mass into energy - over and above whatever the "average" value of the proton turns out to be (or the minimum in that range). I was kind of "picking on" on the a.m.u. as a culprit in this earlier posting, knowing full well that long ago the definition of a.m.u. was effectively carved into stone (based on carbon mass and an average of fermions) and no longer related to "real results in real experiments." I think it is time for me to go back to this old thread and try to glean and reword the relevant issues into a Part 2. Again, the major hypothesis, is that the net proton mass is not quantized, but is in the vicinity of 938.272013 MeV on average (even this accepted value is in contention). At best, this value becomes what is really an "average mass" based on whatever the most advanced current measurement technique is being use before recalibration. That average can vary a fractional percent or more, as either "overage" or "deficit". The overage is "in play" as the mystery energy source for Ni-H reactions, whether they be from Mills, Rossi, DGT, Piantelli, Celani, or Thermacore. Of course, some of that mass overage, when "in play" would be convertible to energy when the strong force is pitted against Coulomb repulsion. That is where all of the mysteries of QCD, QM and QED comes into play. The standard model gives us 938.272013 MeV but the quark component of protons is the only component which is relatively "fixed" with a fixed value; and at least one hundred MeV is "in play". That is massive, but most of it must be retained since quarks are not mutually attractive without it. There is a range of expendable mass-energy of the non-quark remainder (pion, gluon, etc) - which is extractable as the 'gain' seen in the Ni-H thermal effect - yet the proton maintains its identity. Can this mass loss, if depleted (leading to quiescence) then can be replenished by exposure to a heavy nucleus (bringing the average mass of the proton back up)? That is the gist of our speculation relating to the major problem in moving forward. Jones _ From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint Jones: You might want to follow this thread: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg35942.html The quote from the PhysOrg article which starts the thread is this: "So you have one set of data that tells you the mass-dependence picture doesn't work and another that tells you the density-dependence picture doesn't work," Arrington explained. "So, if both of these pictures are wrong, what's really going on?" I know this doesn't speak directly to your point of the variability of the 'constant' referred to as the a.m.u., but I see that you did not participate in that thread and thought you might have missed it; it may have some relevance to the a.m.u. issue Clearly, there is still much to learn... ANYONE who says that LENR/CF is impossible is not a scientist... regardless of whether its 'real' fusion, or some variant. -Mark _ From: Jones Beene Here is a non-trolling shocker: The so called "unit" at the base of everything we know as "stuff" (matter) which is the atomic mass unit (a.m.u.) is a lie. That's right - at least it is a small lie in the sense that after all these years, it has no firm value when you look close enough. No one at CERN knows exactly what it is, or how variable it can be, after it is pumped down, so to speak. It is also a "true lie" since we now use an assigned value to define itself (by convention) but it is a lie nevertheless. We give it a value that is used to calibrate the instruments that detect it so it CANNOT vary by much. This is partly due to the inconvenient truth that the atomic mass unit is "not exactly" equivalent to an average between the mass of a proton (1.673 10-27 kg) and a neutron(1.675 10-27 kg). Essentially it is a variable within a close range, so that we overlook the problem of not having a true value. Plus most of the known universe is hydrogen, with no neutron - so one must ask - why should it be an average anyway? Plus (HUGE) when you start looking at raw data - the mass of proton is NOT always the value we suspect without "recalibration" - and in practice, the detectors of whatever variety - are essentially calibrated back to give what is suspected to be the "known value". How convenient. Sometimes they are way-off without calibration. This all gets back to verisimilitude, as a philosoph
RE: [Vo]:Verisimilitude, lies, and true lies Part 1
Jones: You might want to follow this thread: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg35942.html The quote from the PhysOrg article which starts the thread is this: "So you have one set of data that tells you the mass-dependence picture doesn't work and another that tells you the density-dependence picture doesn't work," Arrington explained. "So, if both of these pictures are wrong, what's really going on?" I know this doesn't speak directly to your point of the variability of the 'constant' referred to as the a.m.u., but I see that you did not participate in that thread and thought you might have missed it; it may have some relevance to the a.m.u. issue. For all the rookie Vortexians: My point in starting that thread was the following: "And the experts dare say that fusion is IMPOSSIBLE under the conditions present in a CF cell? This can ONLY be said if one knows everything about nuclear interactions, and CLEARLY, they DON'T!" A highly H or D-loaded metal lattice is not normal, and could be considered 'far from equilibrium', so how can anyone claim an unexpected phenomenon couldn't happen? The kind of science story which reports on an unexpected result is becoming more common now that we're able to discern things down to the nano-scale and pico-second... with all that we are able to accomplish, and build, and the accuracy to umpteen decimal places, it's easy to fall into the mindset that there isn't much to learn about atomic/nuclear physics. Clearly, there is still much to learn... ANYONE who says that LENR/CF is impossible is not a scientist... regardless of whether its 'real' fusion, or some variant. -Mark _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 2:50 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Verisimilitude, lies, and true lies Part 1 Here is a non-trolling shocker: The so called "unit" at the base of everything we know as "stuff" (matter) which is the atomic mass unit (a.m.u.) is a lie. That's right - at least it is a small lie in the sense that after all these years, it has no firm value when you look close enough. No one at CERN knows exactly what it is, or how variable it can be, after it is pumped down, so to speak. It is also a "true lie" since we now use an assigned value to define itself (by convention) but it is a lie nevertheless. We give it a value that is used to calibrate the instruments that detect it so it CANNOT vary by much. This is partly due to the inconvenient truth that the atomic mass unit is "not exactly" equivalent to an average between the mass of a proton (1.673 10-27 kg) and a neutron(1.675 10-27 kg). Essentially it is a variable within a close range, so that we overlook the problem of not having a true value. Plus most of the known universe is hydrogen, with no neutron - so one must ask - why should it be an average anyway? Plus (HUGE) when you start looking at raw data - the mass of proton is NOT always the value we suspect without "recalibration" - and in practice, the detectors of whatever variety - are essentially calibrated back to give what is suspected to be the "known value". How convenient. Sometimes they are way-off without calibration. This all gets back to verisimilitude, as a philosophical matter, but it has a lot of practical meaning when we begin to dwell on hydrogen energy anomalies. That is because mass is convertible to energy, and the proton has such a large amount of potential energy, roughly a GeV, that it can provide thousands of times the energy of combustion, and still be hydrogen. IOW it has variable mass within a range and it is not a particular tight range, when the excess is multiplies by c2. This also relates to some of the mass of a proton being NOT quantized. Quarks are quantized but even their mass is at best a wild guess, insofar as far a firm values go and there is much more there than quarks anyway. More on that later, but write this off as another level of verisimilitude. BTW, the a.m.u. or atomic mass unit is actually smaller than the "average" of a proton and a neutron, in practice by 1% or so - since some mass is said to be involved in the binding energy of the nucleus. But hello ! ... even that is a lie, since if it were binding "energy" instead of force, then there would be a time delineated component and there isn't really. The proton does not decay (as best we can tell). More on this in later postings. My angle, as many vorticians are aware - is finding new kind of protonic nuclear reaction - one that does not involved very much radiation or transmutation. Working back from results in Ni-H as the defining question of our energy future - that forces one to reconsider nuclear and look at "subnuclear". Verisimilitude is a bitch. Pardon my French (or is it Italian) on that one, and Vada a bordo, CAZZO! Rossi may be taking on water faster than Mitt changes major policies, but the "Maru Ni-H" is getting more buoyancy b
Re: [Vo]:Verisimilitude, lies, and true lies Part 1
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote: > Man, I hope the dinner guests don't stay too long... Go salt the food, man. T
RE: [Vo]:Verisimilitude, lies, and true lies Part 1
Dam you Jones!! We have company coming over in 30 mins and I can't read this yet :-) BTW, the fact that, your posting earlier that two protons can attract each other under rare and specific conditions would be *expected* under my qualitative model expressed this past year. Man, I hope the dinner guests don't stay too long... -mark _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 2:50 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Verisimilitude, lies, and true lies Part 1 Here is a non-trolling shocker: The so called "unit" at the base of everything we know as "stuff" (matter) which is the atomic mass unit (a.m.u.) is a lie. That's right - at least it is a small lie in the sense that after all these years, it has no firm value when you look close enough. No one at CERN knows exactly what it is, or how variable it can be, after it is pumped down, so to speak. It is also a "true lie" since we now use an assigned value to define itself (by convention) but it is a lie nevertheless. We give it a value that is used to calibrate the instruments that detect it so it CANNOT vary by much. This is partly due to the inconvenient truth that the atomic mass unit is "not exactly" equivalent to an average between the mass of a proton (1.673 10-27 kg) and a neutron(1.675 10-27 kg). Essentially it is a variable within a close range, so that we overlook the problem of not having a true value. Plus most of the known universe is hydrogen, with no neutron - so one must ask - why should it be an average anyway? Plus (HUGE) when you start looking at raw data - the mass of proton is NOT always the value we suspect without "recalibration" - and in practice, the detectors of whatever variety - are essentially calibrated back to give what is suspected to be the "known value". How convenient. Sometimes they are way-off without calibration. This all gets back to verisimilitude, as a philosophical matter, but it has a lot of practical meaning when we begin to dwell on hydrogen energy anomalies. That is because mass is convertible to energy, and the proton has such a large amount of potential energy, roughly a GeV, that it can provide thousands of times the energy of combustion, and still be hydrogen. IOW it has variable mass within a range and it is not a particular tight range, when the excess is multiplies by c2. This also relates to some of the mass of a proton being NOT quantized. Quarks are quantized but even their mass is at best a wild guess, insofar as far a firm values go and there is much more there than quarks anyway. More on that later, but write this off as another level of verisimilitude. BTW, the a.m.u. or atomic mass unit is actually smaller than the "average" of a proton and a neutron, in practice by 1% or so - since some mass is said to be involved in the binding energy of the nucleus. But hello ! ... even that is a lie, since if it were binding "energy" instead of force, then there would be a time delineated component and there isn't really. The proton does not decay (as best we can tell). More on this in later postings. My angle, as many vorticians are aware - is finding new kind of protonic nuclear reaction - one that does not involved very much radiation or transmutation. Working back from results in Ni-H as the defining question of our energy future - that forces one to reconsider nuclear and look at "subnuclear". Verisimilitude is a bitch. Pardon my French (or is it Italian) on that one, and Vada a bordo, CAZZO! Rossi may be taking on water faster than Mitt changes major policies, but the "Maru Ni-H" is getting more buoyancy by the hour. And that ain't all hot air. Jones <>
