particles are waves. In order to place a particle in a confining volume, its wave form must fit into that volume in an integral number of complete wave cycles. In order for a wave to be viable, it must always complete its cycle. This wave nature of particles is the basis of quantum mechanics.
With hydrinos, other electrons change the waveform of the orbiting electron through many body interactions and the orbit of that hydrino electron changes to be compatible with the change of that electron's waveform. A magnetic field can change the waveform of a particle and the associated change in its orbit and associated photon emissions is defined as the Zeeman effect. Many thing can effect the waveform of the electron and there are loads of effects including the fractional quantum Hall effect when the electron is confined in two dimensions. On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 7:05 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: > Bob, > > You ask an excellent question and I would also like to understand the > answer. We assume that linear momentum does not have quantum values so > that it can exist in smooth continuous states. Has this been proven? > Perhaps someone can analyze the HUP and show how it is so. > > Also, your question leaves me wondering why the angular spin must be > quantized instead of continuous. If I recall, some of the quantized states > are a result of explaining the incremental energy levels that electrons > find themselves exhibiting while orbiting nuclei. Perhaps this > determination is based upon measurements instead of forced by firm laws of > physics. This may be an example of empirical leading theoretical. > > After all, in classical macro systems the total angular momentum can be > constructed by breaking the mass into tiny increments and summing their > linear momentums. The differential elements on opposite sides of the > material balance out in magnitude but are not operating along the same > geometric lines. Each tiny component appears to have continuous values of > linear momentum instead of quantized states. > > I suppose that spin might not translate into the same phenomena as true > macro angular momentum. Perhaps someone can help with this issue. > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Sat, Jul 12, 2014 3:25 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Dynamic nuclear polarization > > Dave-- > > I understand the frame of reference idea. However what is the mechanism > that controls the fractionation of linear momentum among the particles. In > angular momentum the intrinsic quantum controlled parameter of spin > exists. The is no intrinsic quantity of linear momentum that is balanced > in the kinetic energy of the particles. I have assumed that some > unexplained couple between mass and gravity must control linear momentum on > a continuous scale, scale rather than in quanta as angular momentum is > controlled. > > This is the question I raise relative to the decay of radioactive > entities. How is the momentum of the emitted particle(s) and the residual > sometimes large particle determined within the small confines of the > original decaying particle? > > I have often speculated it is mediated by the addition of a entity > with significant momentum that results in a hot- like nuclear reaction > with transfer of some momentum to the various fission fragments. The > addition of magnetic fields allows the interaction of the incoming entity > to interact more often, possibly by changing the 3-D structure with its > interaction probability to a 2-D situation with higher probability of > interaction. > > Bob > > Sent from Windows Mail > > *From:* David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> > *Sent:* Saturday, July 12, 2014 9:22 AM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > > Bob, > > A careful choice of your reference frame can help resolve many of the > linear momentum issues. I like to choose one that is located at a point > where the net linear momentum of the particles is zero before the > reaction. Under that condition it is relatively easy to follow the > reactions since the final momentum must also remain zero and avoids nasty > math errors. > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Sat, Jul 12, 2014 3:50 am > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Dynamic nuclear polarization > > Dave-- > > I would assume in the hot fusion regime that significant linear momentum > must be conserved in addition to the conservation of energy associated with > kinetic energy of colliding particles. In cold fusion LENR there is know > momentum other than angular momentum to conserve. Gammas and other > linear momentum carrying particles are not needed and in fact not possible > because of their of their necessary of carrying linear momentum. it is > for this basic reason that I do not anticipate the existence of ganmas or > any energetic particle to be associated with LENR. > > If any has a good physical explanation of the mechanism for the > distribution of the linear momentum between decay products I would love to > see it. > > Bob > > > > > Sent from Windows Mail > > *From:* David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> > *Sent:* Friday, July 11, 2014 11:31 AM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > > When I take a step back I realize that it appears like a miracle for the > energy to always come out in small fractions of the total available. I > have to ask whether or not this unusual situation may be related to the > conditions upon which the reaction occurs. Is anyone aware of an > experiment that actually involves fusion of D x D at low temperatures while > the radiation is monitored? We do have data describing what is released > at very high kinetic energies, but is there a threshold below which our > preferred path may be exclusive? > > I suppose the closest analogy would be muon fusion. If I recall, that > pretty much matches what is emitted under hot fusion conditions. Perhaps > your point is valid and there is zero chance that D x D fusion is taking > place directly. If true, some sneak path is being followed and it is > common for alpha radiation to be generated in nuclear reactions. > > Plenty of energy can be deposited by alpha radiation into the structure. > Keeping that under control without generating gammas is quite a trick. > And, what other nuclear ash should we be seeing? > > I hope that Rossi and the future report from the long term experiment will > help to answer many of our questions. > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Fri, Jul 11, 2014 2:19 pm > Subject: RE: [Vo]:Dynamic nuclear polarization > > *From:* David Roberson > > I think Bob is hoping that energy can be taken away in smaller chunks > and that is what I would want to see as well….Has anyone identified > exactly where the large MeV energy from a D x D fusion is stored? It > remains in place for a short duration until released. Perhaps it can be > taken in many portions instead of one dangerous gamma. > > Dave, > > Once again, the relevant question is not whether energy can be released > piecemeal, in many small undetectable portions. We can assume that it can. > > The relevant question is this: can a new and previously unknown mechanism > accomplish this incredible feat 100% of the time, to the complete exclusion > of the known mechanism? > > Clearly – that is most unlikely. > > The 23 MeV would need to come out in packets of no more than about 6 keV > each. Anything above this level would show up on the kind of meters which > have been used for many years, and which have already proved that strong > radiation above background level is seldom seen. > > Think about it. That lack of any radiation signature in most experiments > of this kind means the large amount of energy (from the formative alpha > particle) comes out in at least 4,000 individual packets, none of which can > ever be larger than what is detectable. And furthermore, never ever do we > see the “known release mechanism” of standard physics. If true, this > proposition is moving towards an “intelligent” release of radiation, in > which packets must be monitored and rejected if they are too energetic. > > That kind of control is absurd, of course, but it highlights the larger > absurdity of suggesting that this reaction must involve the fusion of > deuterons to helium with no gamma signature. There are better alternatives. > > Jones > > >
