Re: [Vo]: Proton's internal structure...

2009-11-21 Thread Jed Rothwell
As I mentioned before, Cook gave a presentation on this subject at ICCF-15: http://iccf15.frascati.enea.it/ICCF15-PRESENTATIONS/S8_O2_Cook.pdf After the presentation someone asked what does this have to do with cold fusion? Cook said nothing so far. I felt like adding: Come on people, it has to

[Vo]: Proton's internal structure...

2009-11-20 Thread Mark Iverson
This just out at PhysOrg... (see at bottom of msg) What I find funny, in a sad kind of way, is the following statement: 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

Re: [Vo]: Proton's internal structure...

2009-11-20 Thread Horace Heffner
On Nov 19, 2009, at 11:13 PM, Mark Iverson wrote: This just out at PhysOrg... (see at bottom of msg) What I find funny, in a sad kind of way, is the following statement: So you have one set of data that tells you the mass-dependence picture doesn't work and another that tells you the

Re: [Vo]: Proton's internal structure...

2009-11-20 Thread Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
On this point I'm reminded of the Oppenheimer-Phillips effect. Heavy nuclei, under deuteron bombardment, undergo nuclear transmutation short of the energy required to overcome the Coulomb barrier. A deuteron is the most polarized nucleus, being possible to conceive of as something like a

Re: [Vo]: Proton's internal structure...

2009-11-20 Thread Alexander Hollins
so basically, london forces inside the protons? rock on. On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 1:13 AM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: This just out at PhysOrg... (see at bottom of msg) What I find funny, in a sad kind of way, is the following statement: So you have one set of data that tells

RE: [Vo]: Proton's internal structure...

2009-11-20 Thread Mark Iverson
, November 20, 2009 5:09 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: Proton's internal structure... On Nov 19, 2009, at 11:13 PM, Mark Iverson wrote: This just out at PhysOrg... (see at bottom of msg) What I find funny, in a sad kind of way, is the following statement: So you have one set