Jones
That idea may explain heat release, however, such a reaction would not
account for the transmutations being seen in Japan and other evidence of new
nuclear species. I doubt such a reaction with small amounts of Ps can
explain the large energy releases associated with explosive reactions,
researchers have incurred.
Jones you said: It is not a violation of conservation of energy, if one
admits to the reality of the Dirac "sea".
Is there an energy release from the Dirac sea?
What is the coupling from the sea to the Ps transition.
Does something happen to cool the environment?
Is there any reference concerning the nature of the energy available in a
Dirac sea? I am not familiar with this idea.
Where does the Ps come from in reactions involving D only if the reaction is
not nuclear? I am thinking of the Muzino research which produced H from D
apparently.
Finally, as far as I know, spin coupled reactions do not involve gamma
radiation, yet I believe they are considered to be nuclear, at least where
nuclei are involve. (Spin coupling between electrons is probably not
considered nuclear. I do not know about Cooper Pairing of protons.)
However spin orbital force interactions are considered nuclear as are
transitions in nuclear magnetic resonant states of nuclei. None of these
reaction produce gammas or high energy photons. They may involve low energy
photons--absorption and emission--as energy states change.
You may want to consider some of these issues in your addition of your
poser.
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jones Beene" <jone...@pacbell.net>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2014 8:43 AM
Subject: [Vo]:The "real" chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
Poser: does the bare proton: H- (hydrogen cation) aka "nascent hydrogen"
possess anomalous chemical energy, and is that energy related to why is it
neutralized so quickly?
With the Rossi report coming up soon (we hope) and the likelihood that it
will show "apparent" gain above chemical, but without gamma radiation or
other indicia of a nuclear reaction, we need to more closely examine the
magnitude of the "real" chemical energy available from hydrogen
manipulation. It is not as clear-cut as you think, at least not when
using
water as the physical model for hydrogen redox reactions.
The following presents the case for an apparent and "natural" COP of
around
2.4 (6.8 eV instead of 2.85) being consistent with the real upper limit of
the chemical energy of nascent hydrogen neutralization via Ps. This is NOT
a
related explanation to the one Mills gives in his theory, but it may sound
similar, since anything to do hydrogen (or positronium) involves Rydberg
multiples. It is not a violation of conservation of energy, if one admits
to
the reality of the Dirac "sea".
In the case of positronium, the binding energy is 6.8 eV. Mills' theory
neglects the important role of positronium - and his view is tied to
redundant hydrogen orbitals. However, the best explanation for the rapid
(picosecond) neutralization of a free proton in nature is the ubiquity of
the Dirac "sea" of (virtual) positronium. Here is another version of
Dirac's
field - epola, ps-BEC, ZPF or a host of other names for those who are
intimidated by Hotson.
http://www.epola.co.uk/introduction/precis/precis.htm
Perhaps Rossi will demonstrate a robust version of this curiosity, one
that
has lurked in redox chemistry for decades going back to Langmuir's torch:
which is the possibility that asymmetric gain will be available in special
circumstances from sequential free proton formation and recombination.
This
gain is actually quite similar to chemical energy but higher and
non-nuclear.
In other words - there is a good argument that the "real" chemical energy
of
hydrogen manipulation can be about 2.4 times higher than it seems from
combustion, due to an active vacuum and nascent hydrogen neutralization
via
disruption of the binding energy of Ps (which energy remains in 3-space as
a
UV photon).
This argument will be continued in another post with more detail.
Jones
