I also assert that if a magnetic force is strong enough, that force could inject so much energy into the proton in terms of spin coupling with the gluons that the proton will disintegrate into a quark/gluon plasma.
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > If energy comes from the strong force, and gluons, the force carrier of > the strong force also carry spin, then magnetic energy can carry the energy > derived from the strong force, that energy is nuclear energy, > > > On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:58 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> > wrote: > >> OK, but how does it happen? Should spin be conserved? I can picture >> two spins in opposite direction sharing net spin leaving heat energy on the >> table. And in this case, spin could be conserved. Is something like this >> required? >> >> Dave >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> >> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >> Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 12:42 pm >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism >> >> *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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >
