Russ- You may be right about the bag model of a nucleus. However, there are some models that suggest some order to nuclei, including the stability of alpha particle groups within nuclei as suggested by Rossi, based on Norman Cook’s theory, and the apparent existence of electrons and positrons that are frequently emitted from nuclei. These two particles are considered by many to be primary particles, and related only to photons.
Frankly, I like the idea that electrons and positrons make up the heavy particles like the muon, neutron and proton as suggested by P. Hatt, W Stubbs and others. The electron and positron most certainly exist as real particles. The bag of quarks model seems like a mythical explanation of matter, since the quarks are only virtual particles as yet. That’s not to say the empirical model they embody do not provide a fairly good prediction for high energy reactions where real particles are observed in experiments although for very short times in some cases. Bob Cook From: Russ George Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 3:10 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Is the proton friable? It seems that when hydrogen/deuterium becomes ultra-dense as Homlid and Fleischmann have shown and said all bets are off as to what is the atom ecology character of those hydrogen nuclei. In my work many years ago a good friend who won the Nobel prize for the ‘Quark’ and a gaggle of other Nobel laureates he and I collaborated with introduced me to his notion that very likely the ‘quark bag model’ would be what enables cold fusion. It effectively takes ‘protons’ and ‘neutrons’ off the list of being characteristics inside a nucleus, they only congeal and exist outside a nucleus. http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2016/04/18/cold-kaon-fusion/ From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 2:03 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is the proton friable? One of the things I don't get about Holmilid's theory for RM formation is that the small RM cluster has a 150pm atomic separation, or about 300pm radius. The Fe-K Fischer-Tropsch catalysts typically have pore diameters of 10-20nm, or nearly 100 times the size of the already huge RM cluster. How can this large catalyst geometry be responsible for producing UDH almost 100x smaller than the original RM cluster? Experiment has shown that porous F-T catalysts are able to catalyze formation of RM. It is interesting to note that the size of the UDH/UDD is much smaller than even the lattice parameters for Fe2O3 which are in the 500pm range. Also, it is not clear to me how currents from RM inside one of these pores could produce a "vortex". The magnetic field is already the curl of the current. If the current (electron or proton) was flowing around the ID of the pore, the magnetic field would be a closed toroid. It would not have extents outside of the diameter of the pore because current flow on one side of the pore would cancel the current flow on the opposite side. To be able to create a magnetic field that has a larger extent than the diameter of the pore, the current would have to be flowing as a tube in the direction of the axis of the pore - in which case, what is the current flowing from and to? Any thoughts on these? On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: From: Bob Higgins Ø What you describe is certainly an interesting and scary proposition - that protons could be sheared or broken apart. However, it is hard to imagine a number of thing in this hypothesis and that of Olafssen/Holmlid. First of all, where did the potential energy come from to put two hydrogen nuclei in 2.3pm proximity? My view on this differs from Holmlid and incorporates Lawandy’s view. For the sake of argument, consider that SPP are the formative cause of densification. They form a magnetic vortex on a surface between a conductor (not necessarily a metal) and a dielectric, and if hydrogen is also there, the H orbitals become entrained in the catalyst, powering the ring current and leaving Cooper pairs of protons as the end product, which can then further group into clusters. The hexagonal structure of hematite is critical. Yes, this requires energy from a flux of photons and is lossy. So the cumulative photons would supply the energy of densification. Any excess comes later. Ø Second, SPP is an electron resonance at a metal/dielectric interface, but the electrons themselves are in the metal (AFIK). How would these electrons that are in the metal (resonant in SPP or not) be complicit in a UDD/UDH breakup? IMO the electrons appear as ring current around the hexagon structure of iron oxide in the same way that electrons appear around the hexagonal ring of graphene oxide. A “local conductor” has substituted for the metal of the normal SPP and that is hematite, which fills both roles – dielectric and local conductor. Ø Thirdly, why would UDD/UDH be stable? Now that is a big mystery. Unlike metallic hydrogen, which is only stable so long as high pressure is applied and maintained, and which is far less dense than UDH, what we are probably seeing is a new isomer of metallic hydrogen which does not require continuous pressure. Holmlid is the expert but his view changes over time and he is probably incorrect on some points. Same with Miley, Lawandy, Mills, Winterberg, Hora, Olafsson and everyone else who comes into this field with their own background and preconceived notions. IMO – everyone can cherry pick up to the point that a defining experiment comes along and this may come from an unexpected source, maybe one of Holmlid’s students… who knows? Thankfully there does seem to be a cadre of younger researchers, mostly Nordic, getting involved in this R&D.
