The D's may be able to shed they mass energy via SPIN COUPLING, IF they
combine to form a virtual He with a high spin state/energy that can be
distributed to many other particles in the QM system, including the
electrons, all without gammas being emitted. Again the question is the
coupling. IMHO there is no reason why virtual particles cannot have high
energy spin states to handle excess mass energy in the short term.
Jones--You seem to conclude spin coupling is possible, why not in this case.
Everything that has not been discovered to date has been unnoticed
heretofore by definition. Other reactions of D may not have had the
necessary structure/parameter control to allow the coupling. Consider just
one parameter, the appropriate alignment of magnetic fields. Was this
parameter addressed in light bulbs in the past?
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jones Beene" <jone...@pacbell.net>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2014 7:11 AM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer
Hi Robin,
Sounds more like Randell Mills than Storms ... and now that you mention
it,
I remember being surprised to hear this from Ed at the time - since it
raises more questions than it answers. The HUGE unsolved problem is that
with deuterium as the active gas, two deuterons cannot shed anywhere close
to enough mass-energy to eliminate gammas, at least not without reducing
their own nuclear mass significantly.
The two electrons - even if completely converted to photons - are
deficient
in mass energy - reducing the ~24 MeV known to occur in deuteron fusion by
only a few MeV (3 MeV if one e- remains to catalyze the fusion). In short,
the deuterium fusion, if there is any via QM time reversal, needs to be
prompted by a massively larger "zone of depletion" - and not from simply
the
two atoms.
Now it gets interesting if one wants to stick to the two-atom-only
explanation. If some portion deuteron mass can be physically converted to
energy, say up to 11 MeV via UV/x-ray photon release - even in principle-
then there is no reason to proceed all the way to fusion to see
spectacular
gain. Any gain prior to fusion should show up easily as an extremely
intense
light source.
In fact, deuterium-filled arc emission bulbs for lighting have been used
for
50 years in microscopy, with no reported thermal anomaly. Could that kind
of
anomaly have gone unnoticed?
-----Original Message-----
From: mix...@bigpond.com
What do you make of the following message from the archives?
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg90378.html
Well, there is also a possible analogy of the QM depletion zone, which
might arise in a combined type of Millsean-LENR situation, such that the
"makeup" nuclear reaction only occurs in a severely depleted zone (due to
orbital redundancy being brought back up to equilibrium by time-reversed
fusion reaction.)
This sounds like Ed's theory. ;)
...Except... there is a rather huge fundamental difference between:
a) fusion-first followed by thousands of stepwise decreases in energy
release, delayed over an extended time frame.
and
b) millions of small energy releases happening first - from a non-nuclear
mechanism, followed by a new type of QM tunneling fusion reaction which
can
only happen in a severely depleted spatial zone.
My apologies to Ed if he has changed his view to reconcile the two.
