*Energy can be converted directly between angular and linear forms, but is the same true for momentum? I suspect not.*
What about a rail gun where magnetism is converted into linear momentum of the projectile. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:53 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: > Perhaps so. Can spin energy be converted into linear kinetic energy? If > spin is tied to angular momentum, one might expect it to be conserved > overall. How do we prove or disprove this? > > If you look at the universe from a distance you observe large amounts of > spin(angular momentum) that does not appear to be going away by conversion > into thermal energy(linear momentum). Both processes appear to be > conserved and is that true for spin among smaller units such as protons? > Are these phenomena always orthogonal? > > Energy can be converted directly between angular and linear forms, but is > the same true for momentum? I suspect not. > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 12:34 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism > > I assert that the magnetic component of matter as released by LENR is > the source of dark energy. Dark energy is the resonance values picked up by > josephson junction resonance effects instead of dark matter. > > > http://arxiv.org/abs/1309.3790 > > Could it be that the bosenova that has been seen in the DGT Ni/H reactor > as described by professor Kim is a microcosm of the expansion of the > universe as a result of dark energy. Could it be that the universe is > undergoing a bosenova? > > > On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:18 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> > wrote: > >> The wiki article seems to tie down the proton mass quite accurately, but >> it may just be the accuracy of the calculation instead of actual >> measurements. I would be interested in seeing actual mass measurements by >> real instruments instead of super computer calculations. It is not too >> hard to visualize that the measurement accuracy is questionable. How can I >> go about finding those results? >> >> Spin variations among the various components of the proton might easily >> lead to interesting results. If this is indeed the source of LENR energy, >> then one might ask how it is shared among the total matter of the >> universe. Can it be passed between various protons freely by >> electromagnetic interaction? Does the normal trend exist that results in >> kinetic energy as the preferred outcome in which case the proton mass >> excess would want to find some way to be converted into heat ultimately? >> How long can the excess energy be trapped inside the proton before it finds >> it way out? >> >> You might want to know if the energy transfer is a two way process where >> spin can be given or taken away by other protons, etc. Here, our recent >> discussions about interaction with magnetic fields might yield fruitful >> results. A large external magnetic field could be the process that directs >> the energy exchange in a gainful manner as opposed to random exchange that >> is the norm. >> >> Of course all of these questions and suppositions are based upon pure >> speculation thus far. >> >> Dave >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> >> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >> Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 12:01 pm >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism >> >> The spin of the proton is the big puzzle in particle physics. The >> quarks in the proton contribute less than half of the required proton spin. >> The gluons contribute the remainder of the spin. But theory says that >> gluons should not have spin. >> >> If gluons have spin then they must be magnetic and they can be effected >> by magnetic force. But the gluons are the force carriers of the strong >> force; the strong force is not magnetic. But the strong force must be >> magnetic if the gluons have spin. >> >> Something is not right about how theory defines the strong force and it >> will take LENR, IMHO, to solve this issue. >> >> >> On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 11:37 AM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Jones, I want to ask you about your thougths about the variation in >>> proton mass. Should the variation be measurable with high sensitivity mass >>> spectrometers? 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. >>> >>> Also, are you aware of any super accurate mass measurements that have >>> shown variation in this factor? Perhaps the best way to begin discussion >>> of this question is to locate the basic standard variation curves that must >>> have been generated for lone proton measurements to see if the uncertainty >>> has enough range to be useful. If the standard deviation of mass >>> uncertainty is adequate then this might be a productive concept. In that >>> case, LENR is merely a process that leads to the release of the stored >>> energy and methods to enhance that process must be available. >>> >>> Dave >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> >>> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >>> Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 11:20 am >>> Subject: RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism >>> >>> The most important unsolved problem in physics is arguably >>> proton/quark spin dynamics. The superset of this problem is >>> underappreciated – variability of proton mass. >>> >>> It is a surprise to many scientists that quark mass is highly variable >>> and apparently has been for billions of years … meaning that there could be >>> gradual shifts over time. Quark mass cannot be accurately quantized; and >>> because of that systemic problem in fundamental physics - proton mass is >>> itself variable as a logical deduction. Protons, or at least a fraction on >>> the distribution tail of any population, can therefore supply a great deal >>> of energy without the need to fuse or undergo any change in identity. Quark >>> spin and proton spin are, in one viewpoint, independent of each other, but >>> they must be linked (as a logical deduction) which is another form of >>> wave-particle duality. This is part of the larger so-called “proton spin >>> crisis”. >>> >>> There are dozens if not hundreds of papers and scholarly articles trying >>> to rationalize problems with the standard model of physics, based on quark >>> mass variation going all the way back to Big Bang nucleosynthesis. Quark >>> mass variation is a fact, and quark spin is a major feature of that mass. >>> >>> This is why any new model for LENR – based on mass depletion of >>> reactants (mass-to-energy conversion) via spin coupling is on much firmer >>> theoretical ground than a silly attempt to invent a way to completely hide >>> gamma rays. Gamma rays are known to always be emitted when deuterium fuses >>> to helium. It is almost brain-dead to suggest that they can be hidden with >>> 100% success in any experiment where they should be seen. >>> >>> It is an embarrassment to the field of LENR when a scientist of the >>> caliber of Ed Storms, goes on record as saying that nanomagnetism is “a >>> distraction”. Distraction to what? one must ask: is it a distraction to >>> promotion of a book, or a distraction to an erroneous suggestion that >>> helium is found commensurate with excess heat in LENR? Or a distraction to >>> the bogus idea that gamma rays can be hidden 100% of the time? >>> >>> That is the kind of distraction which is poised to become the new norm. >>> ____________________________________ >>> >>> >>> Thanks Peter and Bob. Here are a couple of additional thoughts on an >>> emerging nanomagnetism hypothesis. >>> >>> Nanomagnetism can be operational parallel to other processes in any >>> experiment, even a novel form of “fusion” if that exists. Nanomagnetism can >>> be part of a dynamical Casimir effect as well. However, the thermal gain of >>> nanomagnetism results from a direct conversion of mass-to-energy, where the >>> mass lost is in the form of nuclear spin – possibly quark spin. There is no >>> transmutation and no nuclear radiation. >>> >>> It is likely that there are two (or three) distinct temperature regimes >>> for Ni-H. Nanomagnetism is involved most strongly in the lower regime which >>> is seen in the Cravens demo. In this regime the Neel temperature is >>> critical. We can note that Cravens adds samarium-cobalt to his active mix. >>> This material is permanently magnetized. >>> >>> In a higher temperature version of nanomagnetism, the Curie point is >>> critical. This would explain the noticeable threshold mentioned in several >>> papers around 350 C. >>> >>> In the highest temperature regime (HotCat) permanent magnetism is not >>> possible as an inherent feature, and an external field must be implemented. >>> Thus, resistance wiring itself can be supplying the needed magnetic field >>> alignment in the HotCat. Only a few hundred Gauss is required and it can be >>> intermittent. At the core of the hot version, and possibly all versions, is >>> a new kind of HTSC or high-temperature superconductivity which is local and >>> happens only in quantum particles (quantum dots, or excitons). This form of >>> “local HTSC” seen at the nanoscale only, is entering the mainstream as we >>> speak, see: “Physicists unlock nature of high-temperature superconductivity” >>> >>> http://phys.org/news/2014-07-physicists-nature-high-temperature-superconductivity.html >>> >>> Summary: Magnetism is highly directional. "Knowing the directional >>> dependence … we were able, for the first time, to quantitatively predict >>> the material's superconducting properties using a series of mathematical >>> equations… calculations showed that the gap possesses d-wave symmetry, >>> implying that for certain directions the electrons were bound together very >>> strongly, while they were not bound at all for other directions," >>> >>> This in effect is the spin-flip seen in the transition from >>> superparamagnetism >>> to superferromagnetism working in a repeating cycle with intermediate >>> stages which are antiferromagnetic or ferrimagnetic around the Neel >>> temperature, in one version - so in effect what we have in nanomagnetism is >>> a “heat driven electrical transformer” where the heat is self-generated. >>> __________________________________ >>> >>> In automotive engineering, there are several idealized energy transfer >>> cycles which involve four clearly segmented stages of engine operation. >>> For >>> instance, the Otto cycle consists of: >>> >>> 1) Intake, Compression, Expansion, Exhaust which are further >>> arranged as >>> 2) Two isentropic processes - adiabatic and reversible and >>> 3) Two isochoric processes - constant volume >>> 4) As an "idealized" cycle, this never happens completely in >>> practice, >>> but it permits substantial gain in a ratchet-like way and substantial >>> understanding of the process. >>> 5) There are many other idealized cycles for combustion, such as the >>> Stirling which is probably closer, as an analogy, to nanomagnetism >>> >>> In nanomagnetism, there is a corresponding strong metaphor involving a >>> similar kind of 4 legged hysteresis curve, where we find >>> >>> 1) Antiferromagnetism, superparamagnetism, ferrimagnetism and >>> superferromagnetism working in a repeating cycle >>> 2) The remainder of the analogy is under development but there are >>> two >>> reversible processes involving field alignment, requiring two operative >>> classes of reactants - one mobile and one stationary >>> 3) Nanomagnetism requires a ferromagnetic nucleus which is nominally >>> stationary. (yes, palladium and titanium alloy can be ferromagnetic) >>> 4) Nanomagnetism requires a mobile medium, loaded or absorbed into >>> the >>> ferromagnet which has variable magnetic properties. >>> 5) Hydrogen and its isotopes appears to be the exclusive mobile >>> medium, >>> which can oscillate between diamagnetic (as a molecule) and strongly >>> paramagnetic (as an absorbed atom) >>> 6) Spin coupling provides the transfer of energy from the >>> ferromagnetic >>> nucleus to the mobile nucleus in a method similar to induction. >>> 7) Inverse square permits very strong effective fields for transfer >>> of >>> spin energy from nickel-62, for instance. >>> 8) Nanomagnetism seems to boosted by the presence of an oxide of >>> the >>> ferromagnet - i.e. nickel with a small percentage of nickel oxide but the >>> oxide is not required. >>> >>> This is an emerging hypothesis, the details of which are fluid, but... >>> shall >>> we say... "attractive" :-) >>> >>> >> >> >
