Re: [Vo]:transmitted radiation for potential reactions in an NiH system
Eric-- The first reaction that produces Ni-59 will end up as Co-59 with no gammas since the Ni-59 decay involves an electron capture and a hot beta +, which will give thermal energy to the matrix ( about .52Mev) with a subsequent beta+, beta- decay with its back-to-back .51 Mev gammas. The total energy from the Ni-59 decay--half live 7.6x10^4 years-- is 1.073 Mev. Ni-59 has a -3/2 spin and and Co-59 has a -7/2 spin. It seems that spin is changed since the beta+ particle would only carry +or- 1/2 spin. I do not understand how spin angular momentum is conserved in the Ni-59 decay reaction, unless there are several neutrinos involved which could carry away spin angular momentum. You have not considered neutron capture reactions with the various Ni isotopes. If the H reacts in the magnetic field in the Rossi device with an electron to form a neutron as an intermediate virtual particle, then Ni-58 would go to Ni-59 and hence to Co-59 as described above. Proton absorption reaction with Ni-60 would give Cu-61 with a 3.41 H half life. Cu-61 decays by electron capture and gives a beta+ with soft gammas (.28 and .65 Mev) and a stable Ni-61 isotope. (Focardi indicated that Cu was formed and in non-natural isotopic ratios in the Rossi device.) This conclusion seems to differ from your table regarding the desirability of the reaction. Proton absorption reaction with Ni-58 gives Cu-59 which decays with a half live if 82 s and produces a beta+ at 3.75 Mev and hot gammas at 1.3 Mev. Total energy of this decay is 4.8 Mev. This does not look like it would be a reaction that Rossi would like given the hot gamma. And there is a radioactive product, since the final item is Ni-59 with its long half life and its .51 Mev gammas from the beta+ annihilation. A proton reaction with Ni-62 would give Cu-63, which is stable. This reaction would involve a decrease in energy (mass) of about 6.22 Mev. How the energy would be released is a question. It may be distributed by spin coupling to the rest of the matrix electrons and hence as thermal energy. Rossi would not want Ni-58, but Ni-62 and Ni-62 would seem to be ok. Ni-61 would be undesirable also since it gives Cu-62 with the addition of a proton, and Cu-62 decays with a hot gamma of 1.17 Mev. It is my thought that there may be two reactions occurring at the same time with spin of the resulting Cu-63 isotopes having equal but opposite excited spin states such that spin angular momentum change is 0 and each of the two new Cu-63 nuclei decay from their excited states at the same time, coupling with electrons in the matrix, with each electron receiving a quanta or two in the process. It may be that a pair of protons, a Cooper pair, actually react with two Ni-62 nuclei in a solid state BEC configuration. The magnetic field that exists in the Ni matrix would cause the degenerative quantum states in the adjacent Ni nuclei to allow the necessary excited spin states to handle the excess mass energy released in the reactions. All this is without gammas. How's that for a guess? Bob Cook - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2014 8:01 PM Subject: [Vo]:transmitted radiation for potential reactions in an NiH system I was curious what the numbers would look like for a range of possible reactions in an NiH system if the only two assumptions that were made were that nuclear reactions are the main show in NiH LENR and that somehow there is a way to overcome Coulomb repulsion. Although I suspect this is not the whole story, I wanted to see what would happen if we keep things somewhat simple. Here is what I found: a.. The Ni(d,p)Ni reactions are benign and can shielded against fairly easily. b.. Nearly all other obvious exothermic reactions (e.g., Ni(p,*), d(p,*)) lead to penetrating radiation, for which even 5cm of lead will not be sufficient. c.. The Ni(d,p)Ni reactions produce fast protons, which can potentially lead to secondary reactions of undesirable types. You can see the model here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ylFdUCZ65O7V06MAX1KGmYC4UaaVII4HU5vJ6BIHnPU/edit#gid=399187264 It is very crude and is surely wrong on some details. I had to estimate the cross sections in some cases, for example, and cross sections are pretty finicky. But even a set of back-of-the-envelope calculations can lead to insights. If the general trend of the model is correct, the numbers tell an interesting story. Perhaps the columns most of interest will be W, X, Y and Z, which estimate the number of escaping photons for each reaction for different thicknesses of various materials. If you find a mistake, let me know. Here are some possible implications of the model: a.. Proton capture in NiH leads to nasty byproducts, including gammas and electron-positron annihilation photons, and is to be
Re: [Vo]:transmitted radiation for potential reactions in an NiH system
Hi Eric, Nice spreadsheet. I like how it captures a lot of considerations in one place. Have you considered adding the reactions that would include a delta in atomic number of 2N? Seems like there were trends in experiment reports showing transmutations by integer multiples of 2 in atomic number. Bob On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 9:01 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: You can see the model here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ylFdUCZ65O7V06MAX1KGmYC4UaaVII4HU5vJ6BIHnPU/edit#gid=399187264
Re: [Vo]:Humans Need Not Apply
At least people are talking about basic income, even if the method of financing it differs from Georgeist principles. Besides it could be that the best designed basic income will based on more than one principle. Btw, I don't think rent seeking is inherently bad. Everyone should be entitled to collect rent rather than be forced into wage labor and a basic income would give everybody a form of rental income. Harry On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 12:39 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: The PBS article gives the basis of the dividend as natural resources, which doesn't address automation. The CFR proposal is for unelected central banks to make decisions as to which portions of the population are due dividends from assets owned by the central banks. OK, so I'll admit that it is theoretically possible for the central banks to end up owning everything as everything becomes automated -- perhaps even one world-wide central bank owning the entire planet's assets. In that situation a more rational tax base (dividends from a fully automated economy) is acquired at the expense of even the paltry representation of porkbarrel special interest public sector rent seeking. On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 11:38 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 12:20 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Martin Luther King, Jr. recommended Henry George's citizen's dividend. But that's the last thing he ever did. They killed him and I believe it was because of that recommendation as it would have eliminated the need for the welfare bureaucracy and would have replaced the entire civil rights paradigm founded on protected groups with a completely neutral general welfare. The American Enterprise Institute scholar and prominent libertarian theoretician Charles Murray pretty much recommended the same thing recently in his book In Our Hands: A Plan to Replace the Welfare State. He was roundly ignored by MLK's supposed supporters, libertarians and conservatives. The interests arrayed against this on all sides of the political divides are enormous: Basically, anyone that uses the word populist with a sneer. The situation is improving. There are an increasing number of voices with diverse political leanings, albeit still in the minority, who express support for some sort of a universal unearned basic income. Why you have the right to a $5K dividend from Uncle Sam http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/right-5k-dividend-uncle-sam/ Need-based benefits necessarily divide society into two camps, higher-income payers and lower-income receivers. The former resent that money is taken from them, while the latter resent being viewed as welfare recipients. No one is happy with the arrangement. Dividends from common wealth, by contrast, unite society by putting all its members in the same boat. The income everyone receives is a right, not a handout. This changes the story, the psychology and the politics. Even the Council on Foreign Relations Is Saying It: Time to Rain Money on Main Street http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/25932-even-the-council-on-foreign-relations-is-saying-it-time-to-rain-money-on-main-street The September/October issue of Foreign Affairs features an article by Mark Blyth and Eric Lonergan titled “Print Less But Transfer More: Why Central Banks Should Give Money Directly To The People.” It’s the sort of thing normally heard only from money reformers and Social Credit enthusiasts far from the mainstream. What’s going on? Harry
[Vo]:Rossi Confirms IH/Chinese RD Operation...
http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/09/07/rossi-confirms-ihchinese-rd-operation/ Harry
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: I posted drawings of these cross-sections. If you don't have them, I can post them again. Yes, please, if you could. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Humans Need Not Apply
On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 8:25 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Btw, I don't think rent seeking is inherently bad. Everyone should be entitled to collect rent rather than be forced into wage labor and a basic income would give everybody a form of rental income. I think rent seeking is economic-speak for predation. I've never seen it used in a positive context. I'm guessing economists would not consider normal rent bad at all; it's no doubt considered payment for a legitimate service provided the landlord. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Confirms IH/Chinese RD Operation...
On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 10:10 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/09/07/rossi-confirms-ihchinese-rd-operation/ Just a note to anyone from JASON who may be eavesdropping [1]. If LENR goes bona fide live in the next few years, you may be rotated out for not anticipating this one. Eric [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JASON_(advisory_group)
Re: [Vo]:Humans Need Not Apply
From the Wikipedia article on economic rent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent: By contrast, in production theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production_theory, if there is no exclusivity and there is perfect competition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition, there are no economic rents, as competition drives prices down to their floor.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent#cite_note-1[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent#cite_note-2 My favorite example of economic rent is the income enjoyed by Microsoft due to the network effect aka network externality of people needing to buy their operating systems and people needing to target software development of applications to their operating systems. On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 8:25 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Btw, I don't think rent seeking is inherently bad. Everyone should be entitled to collect rent rather than be forced into wage labor and a basic income would give everybody a form of rental income. I think rent seeking is economic-speak for predation. I've never seen it used in a positive context. I'm guessing economists would not consider normal rent bad at all; it's no doubt considered payment for a legitimate service provided the landlord. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Confirms IH/Chinese RD Operation...
Oh, come on. I was on a classified project with imminent nuclear war priority back in the 80s that had direct review by the Jasons and even then people were calling them hood ornaments. On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 10:10 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/09/07/rossi-confirms-ihchinese-rd-operation/ Just a note to anyone from JASON who may be eavesdropping [1]. If LENR goes bona fide live in the next few years, you may be rotated out for not anticipating this one. Eric [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JASON_(advisory_group)
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
Here are drawings of what I deduced for construction of the HotCat and HT2 versions (mostly from the Penon report): HotCat (first generation) https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5Pc25a4cOM2SnVSTFJGbnBNR1k/edit?usp=sharing HT2 (second generation with cat and mouse) https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5Pc25a4cOM2dzRreW14cWVlazg/edit?usp=sharing Let me know if you have trouble accessing or viewing these .png image files. Bob Higgins On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: I posted drawings of these cross-sections. If you don't have them, I can post them again. Yes, please, if you could. Eric
[Vo]:Spin Coupling
Spin coupling is a superset phrase for several types of energy transfer mechanisms, including angular momentum coupling, magnetic coupling and much more. Unfortunately, there is no scholarly paper to elucidate all of the intricacy of this phenomenon, as it applies to LENR. Mention was made of spin coupling in gravimagnetics by Horace Heffner years ago, and it is too bad he is not here to bring those comments up to date in a broader context. It was part of Julian Schwinger's approach to LENR, far earlier. Spin coupling exists as a way to transfer energy across vast scales of geometry, all the way from galaxies down to quarks. Included in the term are 1) magnetic dipole coupling 2) LS coupling of hydrogen and possibly potassium, where the electron spins interact among themselves in groups to form a total spin angular momentum (similar to magnons); 3) J coupling, which is also called indirect dipole-dipole coupling which is mediated through hydrogen bonds connecting two spins. 4) JJ coupling happens between heavier atoms like nickel; 5) Spin-spin coupling 6) Magnon coupling 7) Mössbauer coupling 8) Nuclear coupling, which is stronger at short distances and is incorporated directly into the nuclear shell model. 9) Subatomic spin coupling of quarks and pions QCD etc. Certainly there are others under the umbrella of spin coupling. A focus on spin coupling phenomenon - as the main source of nuclear gain, without gamma radiation, is new to somewhat new to LENR and it is not clear who to attribute the idea to, possibly Schwinger in a simpler form - but it stands as an alternative way to transfer mass-energy from heavy nuclei, directly to light nuclei, then to electrons, then to magnons (in the sense of a coherent array). The energy is nuclear, but there is no fusion nor is it Mills, even if reduced orbitals are involved. The result is spatial thermal gain which is similar in some respects to the way a magnetic core of a transformer heats up. Yet in the end the gain is mass-to-energy - since nuclear mass converts to spin at a basic subatomic level, starting at the quark level and QCD. The main problem is that there could be much more going on in any LENR experiment than spin coupling. In fact, spin coupling can co-exist with nuclear fusion, beta decay, hydrinos or any other nuclear process. Plus, gain from spin coupling can make incidental fusion reactions seem more robust than they in actuality ... or vice-versa. By that, it is suggested that spin coupling, providing only milli-eV of energy per nucleon, but which is transferred at terahertz rates, is a mechanism which can provide many Watts of thermal gain, which can make a few incidental fusion reactions stand-out as being more important than they are... or vice versa. This is a complex and interesting angle - for looking at gain in nickel-hydrogen systems for several reasons. First, of course is that nickel is ferromagnetic and many experiments have shown changes around the Curie point of nickel. Second is the Letts/Cravens effect and the recent NI-Week demo of Dennis Cravens, and the magnetic work of Mitchell Swartz - all of which show a strong connection of magnetism to excess heat. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:transmitted radiation for potential reactions in an NiH system
Hi Bob, Good comments. Replies inline. Just to mention it again, the model is no more than a back-of-the-envelope estimate. I'm guessing a rigorous treatment would do a lot of things differently. Eric On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 2:23 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: The first reaction that produces Ni-59 will end up as Co-59 with no gammas since the Ni-59 decay involves an electron capture and a hot beta +, which will give thermal energy to the matrix ( about .52Mev) with a subsequent beta+, beta- decay with its back-to-back .51 Mev gammas. The total energy from the Ni-59 decay--half live 7.6x10^4 years-- is 1.073 Mev. Although there are annihilation photons for the subsequent decay to 59Co, the half-life is on the order of tens of thousands of years. For that reason I guessed that the number of photons per second coming from such decays would be (relatively) small and went with the next highest-energy photon source I could identify, 15 keV electrons, for which I assumed as a safe upper bound that they could give rise to photons of equivalent energy through scattering. I think the number of 59Co decays per second will look like this: λ = ln(2) / 7.6e4 y = ln(2) / 2.3e12 s ΔN (decays in a second) = -λ N Δt = (-ln(2) / 2.3e12 s) * (1.37E+14) * 1 s = -41 decays I've plugged in the value for N=1.37E+14 from the model. I assume the negative result means there is a loss of 41 parent nuclei (59Ni) in the process. 41 annihilation photons per second is not trivial, but I'm guessing it's not that big a deal either. Ni-59 has a -3/2 spin and and Co-59 has a -7/2 spin. It seems that spin is changed since the beta+ particle would only carry +or- 1/2 spin. I do not understand how spin angular momentum is conserved in the Ni-59 decay reaction, unless there are several neutrinos involved which could carry away spin angular momentum. I don't know enough about nuclear spin and spin selection rules at this point to comment on this detail. The beta+ decay was taken from [1]. You have not considered neutron capture reactions with the various Ni isotopes. If the H reacts in the magnetic field in the Rossi device with an electron to form a neutron as an intermediate virtual particle, then Ni-58 would go to Ni-59 and hence to Co-59 as described above. For this one time, I was hoping to go with something that stayed pretty close to normal physics. Note that a proton and a closely bound electron will not necessarily behave like a neutron at the time of a capture. I would expect the electron to fly off, carrying the energy of the gamma, along the lines that Robin has proposed elsewhere. (This contradicts what I wrote above about hydrinos leading to gammas.) Proton absorption reaction with Ni-60 would give Cu-61 with a 3.41 H half life. ... Proton absorption reaction with Ni-58 gives Cu-59 which decays with a half live if 82 s and produces a beta+ at 3.75 Mev and hot gammas at 1.3 Mev. ... A proton reaction with Ni-62 would give Cu-63, which is stable. These reactions are all accounted for. Rossi would not want Ni-58, but Ni-62 and Ni-62 would seem to be ok. Ni-61 would be undesirable also since it gives Cu-62 with the addition of a proton, and Cu-62 decays with a hot gamma of 1.17 Mev. My take is a bit different -- under the assumptions of the model, I think he would *not* want 62Ni. See the columns to the far right. A significant amount of shielding will be needed to prevent the 87 keV beta- deexcitation gammas from escaping (e.g., 2cm of lead). If one figures out a way to *remove* the 62Ni, however, the radiation gets better. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_copper
Re: [Vo]:Spin Coupling
Jones-- You are mystical in your assessment of spin coupling. I am also a mystic. The presence of a magnetic field is known to separate the energy states associated with spin energy. The variation of magnetic fields may allow the random connection with resonant frequencies and spin quantum states in a matrix of Ni or any other solid state material. I do not know about Heffner or Springer, but more power to them. Why has Peter not taken up spin coupling except in passing noting that his new Hamiltonian is relativistic and considers a loosy spin-boson model with (I assume) energy coupling? My thoughts about spin coupling go all the way back to PF in 1989. They were vague and reflected my ideas presented in my early correspondence with Vortex-l in February. The subsequent discussion with you and others on this blog have certainly enhanced my ideas. The two dimensional and one dimensional issues associated with nano particles and structures I believe is a key issue in understanding the reaction potential and spin coupling in a magnetic field. Your third item in the list below regarding hydrogen bonds is also noted and may be a key model to consider in the fractionation of spin energy from nuclei to a matrix or molecule with hydrogen bonding. The comment I made to Eric regarding his recent spread sheet follows hereinafter and addresses potential spin coupling between Ni-62 and Cu-63. The first reaction that produces Ni-59 will end up as Co-59 with no gammas since the Ni-59 decay involves an electron capture and a hot beta +, which will give thermal energy to the matrix ( about .0.52 Mev) with a subsequent beta+, beta- decay with its back-to-back .51 Mev gammas. The total energy from the Ni-59 decay--half live 7.6x10^4 years-- is 1.073 Mev. Ni-59 has a -3/2 spin and and Co-59 has a -7/2 spin. It seems that spin is changed since the beta+ particle would only carry +or- 1/2 spin. I do not understand how spin angular momentum is conserved in the Ni-59 decay reaction, unless there are several neutrinos involved which could carry away spin angular momentum. You have not considered neutron capture reactions with the various Ni isotopes. If the H reacts in the magnetic field in the Rossi device with an electron to form a neutron as an intermediate virtual particle, then Ni-58 would go to Ni-59 and hence to Co-59 as described above. Proton absorption reaction with Ni-60 would give Cu-61 with a 3.41 H half life. Cu-61 decays by electron capture and gives a beta+ with soft gammas (.28 and .65 Mev) and a stable Ni-61 isotope. (Focardi indicated that Cu was formed and in non-natural isotopic ratios in the Rossi device.) This conclusion seems to differ from your table regarding the desirability of the reaction. Proton absorption reaction with Ni-58 gives Cu-59 which decays with a half live if 82 s and produces a beta+ at 3.75 Mev and hot gammas at 1.3 Mev. Total energy of this decay is 4.8 Mev. This does not look like it would be a reaction that Rossi would like given the hot gamma. And there is a radioactive product, since the final item is Ni-59 with its long half life and its .51 Mev gammas from the beta+ annihilation. A proton reaction with Ni-62 would give Cu-63, which is stable. This reaction would involve a decrease in energy (mass) of about 6.22 Mev. How the energy would be released is a question. It may be distributed by spin coupling to the rest of the matrix electrons and hence as thermal energy. Rossi would not want Ni-58, but Ni-62 and Ni-62 would seem to be ok. Ni-61 would be undesirable also since it gives Cu-62 with the addition of a proton, and Cu-62 decays with a hot gamma of 1.17 Mev. It is my thought that there may be two reactions occurring at the same time with spin of the resulting Cu-63 isotopes having equal but opposite excited spin states such that spin angular momentum change is 0 and each of the two new Cu-63 nuclei decay from their excited states at the same time, coupling with electrons in the matrix, with each electron receiving a quanta or two in the process. It may be that a pair of protons, a Cooper pair, actually react with two Ni-62 nuclei in a solid state BEC configuration. The magnetic field that exists in the Ni matrix would cause the degenerative quantum states in the adjacent Ni nuclei to allow the necessary excited spin states to handle the excess mass energy released in the reactions. All this is without gammas. How's that for a guess? Bob Cook - Original Message - From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 12:17 PM Subject: [Vo]:Spin Coupling Spin coupling is a superset phrase for several types of energy transfer mechanisms, including angular momentum coupling, magnetic coupling and much more. Unfortunately, there is no scholarly paper to elucidate all of the intricacy of this phenomenon, as it applies to LENR. Mention was made of spin
Re: [Vo]:Spin Coupling
I have recently come across Torsion Fields, the theoretical fifth force that has yet to be experimentally demonstrated. Should this fifth force be the 10th spin-spin interaction on the list? Nigel On 07/09/2014 20:17, Jones Beene wrote: Spin coupling is a superset phrase for several types of energy transfer mechanisms, including angular momentum coupling, magnetic coupling and much more. Unfortunately, there is no scholarly paper to elucidate all of the intricacy of this phenomenon, as it applies to LENR. Mention was made of spin coupling in gravimagnetics by Horace Heffner years ago, and it is too bad he is not here to bring those comments up to date in a broader context. It was part of Julian Schwinger's approach to LENR, far earlier. Spin coupling exists as a way to transfer energy across vast scales of geometry, all the way from galaxies down to quarks. Included in the term are 1) magnetic dipole coupling 2) LS coupling of hydrogen and possibly potassium, where the electron spins interact among themselves in groups to form a total spin angular momentum (similar to magnons); 3) J coupling, which is also called indirect dipole-dipole coupling which is mediated through hydrogen bonds connecting two spins. 4) JJ coupling happens between heavier atoms like nickel; 5) Spin-spin coupling 6) Magnon coupling 7) Mössbauer coupling 8) Nuclear coupling, which is stronger at short distances and is incorporated directly into the nuclear shell model. 9) Subatomic spin coupling of quarks and pions QCD etc. Certainly there are others under the umbrella of spin coupling. A focus on spin coupling phenomenon - as the main source of nuclear gain, without gamma radiation, is new to somewhat new to LENR and it is not clear who to attribute the idea to, possibly Schwinger in a simpler form - but it stands as an alternative way to transfer mass-energy from heavy nuclei, directly to light nuclei, then to electrons, then to magnons (in the sense of a coherent array). The energy is nuclear, but there is no fusion nor is it Mills, even if reduced orbitals are involved. The result is spatial thermal gain which is similar in some respects to the way a magnetic core of a transformer heats up. Yet in the end the gain is mass-to-energy - since nuclear mass converts to spin at a basic subatomic level, starting at the quark level and QCD. The main problem is that there could be much more going on in any LENR experiment than spin coupling. In fact, spin coupling can co-exist with nuclear fusion, beta decay, hydrinos or any other nuclear process. Plus, gain from spin coupling can make incidental fusion reactions seem more robust than they in actuality ... or vice-versa. By that, it is suggested that spin coupling, providing only milli-eV of energy per nucleon, but which is transferred at terahertz rates, is a mechanism which can provide many Watts of thermal gain, which can make a few incidental fusion reactions stand-out as being more important than they are... or vice versa. This is a complex and interesting angle - for looking at gain in nickel-hydrogen systems for several reasons. First, of course is that nickel is ferromagnetic and many experiments have shown changes around the Curie point of nickel. Second is the Letts/Cravens effect and the recent NI-Week demo of Dennis Cravens, and the magnetic work of Mitchell Swartz - all of which show a strong connection of magnetism to excess heat. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Spin Coupling
On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: I do not know about Heffner or Springer, but more power to them. Horace's web page is still up. I hope the same is true for him. http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Spin Coupling
On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote: I have recently come across Torsion Fields, the theoretical fifth force that has yet to be experimentally demonstrated. Should this fifth force be the 10th spin-spin interaction on the list? The web has much on the works of Dr Gennady Shipov and Torsion Fields. Here is a 2005 interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jyruZg8uko
RE: [Vo]:Spin Coupling
Wiki doesn't have many kind words for many of the torsion field proponents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsion_field_%28pseudoscience%29 ...despite Jack Sarfatti (or maybe because of him) But there could be a kernel of truth which is related to spin coupling. Terry may know what Jack's response is... -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton Nigel Dyer wrote: I have recently come across Torsion Fields, the theoretical fifth force that has yet to be experimentally demonstrated. Should this fifth force be the 10th spin-spin interaction on the list? The web has much on the works of Dr Gennady Shipov and Torsion Fields. Here is a 2005 interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jyruZg8uko
Re: [Vo]:Spin Coupling
On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Wiki doesn't have many kind words for many of the torsion field proponents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsion_field_%28pseudoscience%29 ...despite Jack Sarfatti (or maybe because of him) But there could be a kernel of truth which is related to spin coupling. Terry may know what Jack's response is... Well, attempts at verification of TF by experimental evidence have had poor results. Jack invited Gennady over for a storming session about a decade ago and the result was a falling out. This often happens when large egos collide...especially in phrynge physics. Jack pretty much labels it as so much BS here (and Jack knows BS): http://quantumfuture.net/quantum_future/torsion.pdf All the words in quotation marks above are unnecessary or misleading, or make no sense at all. Their actual function is to discourage the experts from trying to figure it out what the author is talking about. It is part of what is called ”impressionistic style” in theoretical physics. There is nothing wrong with impressionistic style. Some painters are realist, some surrealist, some impressionist etc. But it is important to recognize the style. When I see an impressionistic painting, I usually squint my eyes so as to consciously not to pay attention to the details. I understand that it is up to me to give the meaning to the painting, not to the painter. And sometimes I am able to give this meaning, and sometimes not. I think the dialog between the two pretty much ended with: Gennady Shipov Goldstone's fields and Higgs's mechanism in my theory are connected with primary torsion fields. Jack Show equations. Shipov It is object which appears pioneering from Absolute Vacuum. Jack Show equations
Re: [Vo]:Spin Coupling
Wikipedia may not have kind words for the proponents, but that does not seem to have stopped other people making serious (I assume) suggestions as to how they could be measured, and getting their ideas published in Science. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6122/928.abstract?sid=ec0e0993-aeb3-4f3d-9fbc-35c4c0cecb73 Nigel On 07/09/2014 22:16, Terry Blanton wrote: On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Wiki doesn't have many kind words for many of the torsion field proponents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsion_field_%28pseudoscience%29 ...despite Jack Sarfatti (or maybe because of him) But there could be a kernel of truth which is related to spin coupling. Terry may know what Jack's response is... Well, attempts at verification of TF by experimental evidence have had poor results. Jack invited Gennady over for a storming session about a decade ago and the result was a falling out. This often happens when large egos collide...especially in phrynge physics. Jack pretty much labels it as so much BS here (and Jack knows BS): http://quantumfuture.net/quantum_future/torsion.pdf All the words in quotation marks above are unnecessary or misleading, or make no sense at all. Their actual function is to discourage the experts from trying to figure it out what the author is talking about. It is part of what is called ”impressionistic style” in theoretical physics. There is nothing wrong with impressionistic style. Some painters are realist, some surrealist, some impressionist etc. But it is important to recognize the style. When I see an impressionistic painting, I usually squint my eyes so as to consciously not to pay attention to the details. I understand that it is up to me to give the meaning to the painting, not to the painter. And sometimes I am able to give this meaning, and sometimes not. I think the dialog between the two pretty much ended with: Gennady Shipov Goldstone's fields and Higgs's mechanism in my theory are connected with primary torsion fields. Jack Show equations. Shipov It is object which appears pioneering from Absolute Vacuum. Jack Show equations
Re: [Vo]:Spin Coupling
Here is one of Shipov's definitive papers if anyone wishes to make up their own mind: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8mt4mJOTGvBM1FaZDBoUWVnNEE/edit?usp=sharing
RE: [Vo]:Spin Coupling
Robert Dicke to the rescue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brans%E2%80%93Dicke_theory This guy deserved two Nobel prizes... but who sez life is fair? -Original Message- From: Nigel Dyer Wikipedia may not have kind words for the proponents, but that does not seem to have stopped other people making serious (I assume) suggestions as to how they could be measured, and getting their ideas published in Science. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6122/928.abstract?sid=ec0e0993-aeb3-4f3d-9fbc-35c4c0cecb73 Nigel
RE: [Vo]:Spin Coupling
-Original Message- From: Bob Cook The presence of a magnetic field is known to separate the energy states associated with spin energy. The variation of magnetic fields may allow the random connection with resonant frequencies and spin quantum states in a matrix of Ni ... It would seem that spin coupling is pushing us towards a better model of LENR. If we can agree that mass is being converted into energy and transferred by way of spin coupling as the active modality, then the next question is where, precisely, is the mass loss happening? Fusion has the advantage of pinpointing the loss in a known way, but fusion may not be a satisfactory answer. (I realize this is a minority view) If there is an alternative way to transfer mass-energy from heavy nuclei, directly to light nuclei, then to electrons, then to magnons - the deposited energy is nuclear, even if it is only spin energy. There are coincidences in physics, but to my thinking, the fact that nickel is the one element in nature which has the most neutron rich isotope, is not coincidental with its role in LENR. It probably gets back to the number 28... (sorry, not 42)...28 is magic. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Spin Coupling
On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 6:20 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: It would seem that spin coupling is pushing us towards a better model of LENR. If we can agree that mass is being converted into energy and transferred by way of spin coupling as the active modality, then the next question is where, precisely, is the mass loss happening? As long as we are speculating, why not have spin coupling act like a hydrino catalyst and lower the orbit of the electron? Only intertial mass is converted.
RE: [Vo]:Spin Coupling
Speaking of mysticism, Bob - here is a poser that only a greek-geek freemason vortician on the RAW tradition, will appreciate: Nickel has 28 written all through it. Is there a deeper, even Platonic, understanding for why 28 is magical in the nuclear context? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_number_%28physics%29 I've pondered this question before to no avail. Back when Grimer was here we discussed vesica piscis and the square root of 3, and all of that deep current (literally if you need to convert AC to DC)... anyway... ...just now in thinking about the number 42 in the context of 28, it occurs that in Euclidean geometry, there are five Platonic solids... and of these, the only regular polygon which will nest in another of the five types, having equal faces such that have both axial symmetry and rotational symmetry and are non-scaled compounds... let me catch my breath... wow... amazing...these are the octahedron within the icosahedron. Get it? See the last image here: https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/symmetry/polycpd.htm The octahedron of course represents 8 units and the icosahedron represents 20. When merged as a nucleus - this is the signature of nickel 28. All in all, this cross-connection to geometry should mean that remarkable stability will reside in the basic structure, apart from physics due only to symmetry - and guess what... the stability of the two polygons is no hat trick: http://www.renyi.hu/~carlos/radiusstab.pdf Did you catch the second vesica piscis connection? Wow... the Illuminati could annoint yours truly as a 33rd degree Grand Poobah Mason, on the spot - for that bit of profundity... -Original Message- From: Bob Cook The presence of a magnetic field is known to separate the energy states associated with spin energy. The variation of magnetic fields may allow the random connection with resonant frequencies and spin quantum states in a matrix of Ni ... It would seem that spin coupling is pushing us towards a better model of LENR. If we can agree that mass is being converted into energy and transferred by way of spin coupling as the active modality, then the next question is where, precisely, is the mass loss happening? Fusion has the advantage of pinpointing the loss in a known way, but fusion may not be a satisfactory answer. (I realize this is a minority view) If there is an alternative way to transfer mass-energy from heavy nuclei, directly to light nuclei, then to electrons, then to magnons - the deposited energy is nuclear, even if it is only spin energy. There are coincidences in physics, but to my thinking, the fact that nickel is the one element in nature which has the most neutron rich isotope, is not coincidental with its role in LENR. It probably gets back to the number 28... (sorry, not 42)...28 is magic. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Spin Coupling
Must be a fresh batch of windowpane circulating in Berkeley.
