*Can random thermal motion ever be converted into spin?* I assert that this is the underlying mechanism of LENR.
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:40 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: > Thanks Jones. There might be something here that needs further > research. Would it not seem logical that there should exist some ultimate > minimum energy level for the proton mass? In other words, some mass below > which additional energy can not be extracted. > > I can imagine that higher spin energy states would exist. These may even > exchange total energy among the nearby protons such that most remain > elevated about the zero additional energy state. Then I might ask about > how unidirectional the effect should be. Would the tendency to achieve > maximum disorder push the process of converting the stored excess energy > into thermal motion? Can random thermal motion ever be converted into spin? > > I suppose I am reaching for a mechanism that would allow an exchange of > the captured spin energy with random thermal energy. I guess that spin > energy is strongly associated with angular momentum while thermal energy > tends to be considered associated with linear momentum. The two might not > mix very well. So far I have not been able to come up with a way to > exchange the two types of momentum. > > Forgive me for rambling on, but this is the way my mind processes > interactive ideas as I try to connect the dots. > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 12:14 pm > Subject: RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism > > From: David Roberson > * > * I want to ask you about your thougths about the variation in proton > mass. Should the variation be measurable with high sensitivity mass > spectrometers? > > Yes and no. This is not unlike the problem of mass-4 similarity between D2 > and He but more demanding. There could be repeatable statistical variation > over a large population within measurement error of the very top level > specialty spectrometer, running for substantial time periods. But in an > average lab – no way. > > Given Rossi’s claims, it might even be possible to actually weight the > difference on a sensitive scale if the hydrogen sample was say 10 grams of > H2 from a blue box which had given up say a gigawatt of heat over 6 months. > There are nanogram scales using piezoelectric effects which could be > modified. > > * I suppose that even a 1% variation would be more than enough to > supply all of the nuclear energy that we are seeing since the energy content > of the standard mass is so great. > > Not that large. The usable mass variation for protons appears to be about 70 > ppm (part per million). If the distribution is a bell curve, then perhaps > one third of the population can be further depleted. In short, the average > gain possible can be calculated to be about 5,000-10,000 times more than > chemical but about 1,000-2,000 times less than nuclear fusion. > > > * Also, are you aware of any super accurate mass measurements that > have shown variation in this factor? > > I have a collection of published measurements of proton mass (going back to > the cold war era) where there were substantial reported variations, > especially as seen in Russia. Different instrumentation. Nowadays, everyone > automatically seems to use the same value. > > Jones > > > >
