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.

 

Reply via email to