Thermal motion produces infrared photons that are central to the LENT reaction.
should read Thermal motion produces infrared photons that are central to the LENR reaction. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thermal motion produces infrared photons that are central to the LENT > reaction. > > > On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> *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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >
