Re: [Vo]:The PP fusion reaction in LENR

[Nigel Dyer]

Bob

As far as I understand the details, the sea-quarks are a not 
unreasonable explanation for the probe data. Interestingly, the Stubbs 
alternative proposal removes sea-quarks but then effectively introduces 
sea-electrons as the main constituent of muons.  The Stubbs model would 
need to be extended to include an explanation for the evidence that is 
consistent with free (but shortlived) mesons, which currently have a 
relatively simple explanation as being quark-anti quark pairs.


Nigel


On 23/05/2018 18:35, bobcook39...@hotmail.com wrote:


Nygel--

How do you reconcile the Stubbs evaluation of real probe data?

Bob

Re: [Vo]:The PP fusion reaction in LENR

[mixent]

In reply to  bobcook39...@hotmail.com's message of Wed, 23 May 2018 05:47:32
+:
Hi Bob,
[snip]

That's fine. It also works with any other sub-particles that have charge,
regardless of what they are called, or how big they are.
BTW I wrote here below that it would account for all mass changes in nuclear
reactions. That's not quite true. Proton repulsion is partly responsible for the
mass change in fission reactions, implying that the resonance I mentioned may
only apply to near neighbors rather than the entire nucleus, and be only
responsible for the nuclear force that binds nucleons together.

>Robin—
>
>
>
>Quarks are merely a mathematical scheme to help make sense of high energy 
>physics.  IMHO the do not exist.  I will send you a separate study of electron 
>scattering experiments that shed light on the structure of protons and 
>neutrons.
>
>
>
>Bob Cook
>
>
>
>Sent from Mail for Windows 10
>
>
>
>
>From: mix...@bigpond.com 
>Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 12:59:00 PM
>To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>Subject: Re: [Vo]:The PP fusion reaction in LENR
>
>In reply to  Andrew Meulenberg's message of Tue, 22 May 2018 05:36:11 -0400:
>Hi Andrew,
>
>I have been thinking about this since Bob mentioned relativistic mass a few
>posts back. It occurred to me that quarks probably move rapidly within 
>nucleons,
>lending relativistic mass to the particle. Now you mention them here below and
>that tends to solidify my thoughts. We could account for all mass changes 
>during
>nuclear reactions by assuming that the velocity of quark motion changes during
>the process. E.g. suppose that all the quarks in a nucleus both create and
>reinforce a resonant field. As nucleons are added to the nucleus the size of 
>the
>entire system increases physically. Maybe that increases the time constant of
>the resonance (lowers the frequency), implying that they all move more slowly,
>releasing energy as they slow down. IOW a nucleus rings like a bell. The larger
>the bell, the lower the tone.
>
>>I am glad to see a discussion of changes in mass depending on environment.
>>I feel that this is fundamental to the CF story of D-D => 4He and many
>>other observables.
>>
>>Rest mass (stationary, isolated in space, and with zero potentials) is
>>constant. Add velocity and the effective mass increases. Add
>>fields/potentials, and the effective mass (not the rest mass) increases or
>>decreases.
>>
>>Adding an electron to a proton orbit decreases the atomic mass to below the
>>combined rest masses of a proton and electron. The electron effective mass
>>increases from its increase in velocity. The remaining atomic mass (that of
>>the proton) must decrease as a photon is released.
>>
>>The Klein-Gordon and Dirac equations predict deep electron orbits with
>>binding energy of > 0.5 MeV. The
>>resulting femto-atom will have that much less mass. The femto-hydrogen
>>electron will be relativistic (~ 1 or ~100 MeV depending on the model
>>used). The nucleus (a proton) mass must be reduced by at least that amount.
>>In either model, the atomic mass changes by the same amount (~ 0.5 MeV).
>>This change in nuclear mass has a major impact on how we calculate things
>>and claim what is possible or not in this new regime.
>>
>>The basis for the nuclear change comes from the nucleon interactions in a
>>compound nucleus and in the quark interactions in even a single proton.
>>These charged components are greatly affected by the strong fields of a
>>proximate (fermi distance of a) deep-orbit electron.
>>
>>Andrew M.
>>
>>
>>On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 3:35 AM, Russ  wrote:
>>
>>> Redefining the language in mid-stream always makes exchanging ideas
>>> difficult. The long standing convention is that all neutrons have the same
>>> mass, the binding energy in collections of nucleons in different nuclides
>>> varies.
>>>
>>> Everything gains mass as it approaches the speed of light.
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: mix...@bigpond.com 
>>> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 10:42 PM
>>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:The PP fusion reaction in LENR
>>>
>>> In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 21 May 2018 11:00:54 -0400:
>>> Hi,
>>> [snip]
>>> >Russ  wrote:
>>> >
>>> >Might you point to a reference where the mass of neutrons in deuterium vs.
>>> >> other nuclides is said to be different.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >I do not understand. Is the claim here that a neutron in deuterium is
>>> >heavier or lighter than a neutron in some other element?
>>>
>>> Yes (heavier), that's what I'm suggesting.
>>>
>>> > There are
>>> >different kinds or neutrons, or entering deuterium changes the mass?
>>>
>>> The latter. The energy release from the nuclear reaction has to came from
>>> somewhere. I am simply saying that it comes from the conversion of part of
>>> the mass of the constituent particles.
>>>
>>> >

Re: [Vo]:The PP fusion reaction in LENR

[Axil Axil]

 electron scattering experiments which polarized the electrons in terms of
this helicity, either right handed or left handed helicity shows that the
quarks inside the nucleons have spin that are chiral. The quarks are
entities that conform to conservation laws and physical constants that
apply to the strong and electromagnetic forces but not the weak force. In
light of this complex behavior, we must conclude that they are physical
entities.

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 1:47 AM, bobcook39...@hotmail.com <
bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Robin—
>
>
>
> Quarks are merely a mathematical scheme to help make sense of high energy
> physics.  IMHO the do not exist.  I will send you a separate study of
> electron scattering experiments that shed light on the structure of protons
> and neutrons.
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail  for
> Windows 10
>
>
> --
> *From:* mix...@bigpond.com 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 22, 2018 12:59:00 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The PP fusion reaction in LENR
>
> In reply to  Andrew Meulenberg's message of Tue, 22 May 2018 05:36:11
> -0400:
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> I have been thinking about this since Bob mentioned relativistic mass a few
> posts back. It occurred to me that quarks probably move rapidly within
> nucleons,
> lending relativistic mass to the particle. Now you mention them here below
> and
> that tends to solidify my thoughts. We could account for all mass changes
> during
> nuclear reactions by assuming that the velocity of quark motion changes
> during
> the process. E.g. suppose that all the quarks in a nucleus both create and
> reinforce a resonant field. As nucleons are added to the nucleus the size
> of the
> entire system increases physically. Maybe that increases the time constant
> of
> the resonance (lowers the frequency), implying that they all move more
> slowly,
> releasing energy as they slow down. IOW a nucleus rings like a bell. The
> larger
> the bell, the lower the tone.
>
> >I am glad to see a discussion of changes in mass depending on environment.
> >I feel that this is fundamental to the CF story of D-D => 4He and many
> >other observables.
> >
> >Rest mass (stationary, isolated in space, and with zero potentials) is
> >constant. Add velocity and the effective mass increases. Add
> >fields/potentials, and the effective mass (not the rest mass) increases or
> >decreases.
> >
> >Adding an electron to a proton orbit decreases the atomic mass to below
> the
> >combined rest masses of a proton and electron. The electron effective mass
> >increases from its increase in velocity. The remaining atomic mass (that
> of
> >the proton) must decrease as a photon is released.
> >
> >The Klein-Gordon and Dirac equations predict deep electron orbits with
> >binding energy of > 0.5 MeV. The
> >resulting femto-atom will have that much less mass. The femto-hydrogen
> >electron will be relativistic (~ 1 or ~100 MeV depending on the model
> >used). The nucleus (a proton) mass must be reduced by at least that
> amount.
> >In either model, the atomic mass changes by the same amount (~ 0.5 MeV).
> >This change in nuclear mass has a major impact on how we calculate things
> >and claim what is possible or not in this new regime.
> >
> >The basis for the nuclear change comes from the nucleon interactions in a
> >compound nucleus and in the quark interactions in even a single proton.
> >These charged components are greatly affected by the strong fields of a
> >proximate (fermi distance of a) deep-orbit electron.
> >
> >Andrew M.
> >
> >
> >On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 3:35 AM, Russ  wrote:
> >
> >> Redefining the language in mid-stream always makes exchanging ideas
> >> difficult. The long standing convention is that all neutrons have the
> same
> >> mass, the binding energy in collections of nucleons in different
> nuclides
> >> varies.
> >>
> >> Everything gains mass as it approaches the speed of light.
> >>
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: mix...@bigpond.com 
> >> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 10:42 PM
> >> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:The PP fusion reaction in LENR
> >>
> >> In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 21 May 2018 11:00:54 -0400:
> >> Hi,
> >> [snip]
> >> >Russ  wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Might you point to a reference where the mass of neutrons in deuterium
> vs.
> >> >> other nuclides is said to be different.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >I do not understand. Is the claim here that a neutron in deuterium is
> >> >heavier or lighter than a neutron in some other element?
> >>
> >> Yes (heavier), that's what I'm suggesting.
> >>
> >> > There are
> >> >different kinds or neutrons, or entering deuterium changes the mass?
> >>
> >> The latter. The energy release from the nuclear reaction has to came
> from
> >> somewhere. I am simply saying that it comes from the conversion of 

RE: [Vo]:The PP fusion reaction in LENR

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Nygel--

How do you reconcile the Stubbs evaluation of real probe data?

Bob




From: Nigel Dyer 
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2018 9:10:57 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The PP fusion reaction in LENR


Bob

Up until a year or so ago I might have gone along with the idea that quarks do 
not exist.  However, my son has produced a nice paper from which the 
fundamental particles (electrons, neutrinos and quarks) emerge in such a 
beautiful way that I am now completely convinced that they are real.   The 
challenge is to get the paper accepted, something this group will be well 
familiar with

Nigel

On 23/05/2018 06:47, bobcook39...@hotmail.com 
wrote:

Robin—



Quarks are merely a mathematical scheme to help make sense of high energy 
physics.  IMHO the do not exist.  I will send you a separate study of electron 
scattering experiments that shed light on the structure of protons and neutrons.



Bob Cook



Sent from Mail for Windows 10

Re: [Vo]:The PP fusion reaction in LENR

[H LV]

Thoughts undoubtedly exist. The existence of anything else can be doubted.
At least no one has shown otherwise.

harry

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 12:10 PM, Nigel Dyer  wrote:

> Bob
>
> Up until a year or so ago I might have gone along with the idea that
> quarks do not exist.  However, my son has produced a nice paper from which
> the fundamental particles (electrons, neutrinos and quarks) emerge in such
> a beautiful way that I am now completely convinced that they are real.
> The challenge is to get the paper accepted, something this group will be
> well familiar with
>
> Nigel
> On 23/05/2018 06:47, bobcook39...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Robin—
>
>
>
> Quarks are merely a mathematical scheme to help make sense of high energy
> physics.  IMHO the do not exist.  I will send you a separate study of
> electron scattering experiments that shed light on the structure of protons
> and neutrons.
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail  for
> Windows 10
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:The PP fusion reaction in LENR

[JonesBeene]

Without getting too Clintonesque, the resolution to any disagreement here most 
likely depends on the meaning of “exist”… (or what is ‘is’)...

If the lifetime is sufficiently short, then either stance is viable. A ‘meme’ 
exists for quarks, which if nothing else, guarantees (almost) eternal life.

There is one huge advantage in favor of the Stubbs alternative model. It 
provides a universe with an equal amount of matter and antimatter. 

The disparity between the two (matter vs antimatter) has always been the main 
criticism of the standard model. The is no satisfactory alternative for a large 
disparity. Stubbs handles that most basic problem elegantly enough that if 
nothing else, he has created a new meme which will strengthen over time.

In the same way that other dualities are rationalized, this one can be handled 
the same way. Waves and particles coexist. Quarks and neutrinos, which began 
life as mathematical constructs, can likewise be both real and imaginary… as 
can phonons, phasons, magnons and so on. In many ways, quasiparticles are more 
real than so-called real particles, since they can explain details that are 
otherwise mysterious if not incomprehensible. 

Bottom line: when neither ‘either’ nor ‘or’ are sufficient, we must find a way 
to accept ‘both,’ as distasteful as that may be.


From: Nigel Dyer

Bob
Up until a year or so ago I might have gone along with the idea that quarks do 
not exist.  However, my son has produced a nice paper from which the 
fundamental particles (electrons, neutrinos and quarks) emerge in such a 
beautiful way that I am now completely convinced that they are real.   The 
challenge is to get the paper accepted, something this group will be well 
familiar with
Nigel
bobcook wrote:  Robin—
 
Quarks are merely a mathematical scheme to help make sense of high energy 
physics.  IMHO the do not exist.  I will send you a separate study of electron 
scattering experiments that shed light on the structure of protons and neutrons.
 

Re: [Vo]:The PP fusion reaction in LENR

[Nigel Dyer]

Bob

Up until a year or so ago I might have gone along with the idea that 
quarks do not exist.  However, my son has produced a nice paper from 
which the fundamental particles (electrons, neutrinos and quarks) emerge 
in such a beautiful way that I am now completely convinced that they are 
real.   The challenge is to get the paper accepted, something this group 
will be well familiar with


Nigel

On 23/05/2018 06:47, bobcook39...@hotmail.com wrote:


Robin—

Quarks are merely a mathematical scheme to help make sense of high 
energy physics.  IMHO the do not exist.  I will send you a separate 
study of electron scattering experiments that shed light on the 
structure of protons and neutrons.


Bob Cook

Sent from Mail  for 
Windows 10

Re: [Vo]:The PP fusion reaction in LENR

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Dear Robin,

I believe that quarks and their constituent parts move rapidly within the
nucleus. The parts (I would hold to be leptons) are definitely highly
relativistic. If they slow down in the presence of external fields, then
their effective mass would definitely decrease.

I also agree with your concept of the nucleus and its components as
resonators.

Bob Cook's statement of Quarks being mathematical constructs is correct.
However, that does not prevent them from leading to the understanding of a
physical 'reality'. I would be interested in the paper that he mentioned.
(I may already have the one to which he is referring. If so, it has some
good and some weak points.)

Andrew M.

_ _ _ _

On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 3:59 PM,  wrote:

> In reply to  Andrew Meulenberg's message of Tue, 22 May 2018 05:36:11
> -0400:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> I have been thinking about this since Bob mentioned relativistic mass a few
> posts back. It occurred to me that quarks probably move rapidly within
> nucleons,
> lending relativistic mass to the particle. Now you mention them here below
> and
> that tends to solidify my thoughts. We could account for all mass changes
> during
> nuclear reactions by assuming that the velocity of quark motion changes
> during
> the process. E.g. suppose that all the quarks in a nucleus both create and
> reinforce a resonant field. As nucleons are added to the nucleus the size
> of the
> entire system increases physically. Maybe that increases the time constant
> of
> the resonance (lowers the frequency), implying that they all move more
> slowly,
> releasing energy as they slow down. IOW a nucleus rings like a bell. The
> larger
> the bell, the lower the tone.
>
> >I am glad to see a discussion of changes in mass depending on environment.
> >I feel that this is fundamental to the CF story of D-D => 4He and many
> >other observables.
> >
> >Rest mass (stationary, isolated in space, and with zero potentials) is
> >constant. Add velocity and the effective mass increases. Add
> >fields/potentials, and the effective mass (not the rest mass) increases or
> >decreases.
> >
> >Adding an electron to a proton orbit decreases the atomic mass to below
> the
> >combined rest masses of a proton and electron. The electron effective mass
> >increases from its increase in velocity. The remaining atomic mass (that
> of
> >the proton) must decrease as a photon is released.
> >
> >The Klein-Gordon and Dirac equations predict deep electron orbits with
> >binding energy of > 0.5 MeV. The
> >resulting femto-atom will have that much less mass. The femto-hydrogen
> >electron will be relativistic (~ 1 or ~100 MeV depending on the model
> >used). The nucleus (a proton) mass must be reduced by at least that
> amount.
> >In either model, the atomic mass changes by the same amount (~ 0.5 MeV).
> >This change in nuclear mass has a major impact on how we calculate things
> >and claim what is possible or not in this new regime.
> >
> >The basis for the nuclear change comes from the nucleon interactions in a
> >compound nucleus and in the quark interactions in even a single proton.
> >These charged components are greatly affected by the strong fields of a
> >proximate (fermi distance of a) deep-orbit electron.
> >
> >Andrew M.
> >
> >
> >On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 3:35 AM, Russ  wrote:
> >
> >> Redefining the language in mid-stream always makes exchanging ideas
> >> difficult. The long standing convention is that all neutrons have the
> same
> >> mass, the binding energy in collections of nucleons in different
> nuclides
> >> varies.
> >>
> >> Everything gains mass as it approaches the speed of light.
> >>
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: mix...@bigpond.com 
> >> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 10:42 PM
> >> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:The PP fusion reaction in LENR
> >>
> >> In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 21 May 2018 11:00:54 -0400:
> >> Hi,
> >> [snip]
> >> >Russ  wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Might you point to a reference where the mass of neutrons in deuterium
> vs.
> >> >> other nuclides is said to be different.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >I do not understand. Is the claim here that a neutron in deuterium is
> >> >heavier or lighter than a neutron in some other element?
> >>
> >> Yes (heavier), that's what I'm suggesting.
> >>
> >> > There are
> >> >different kinds or neutrons, or entering deuterium changes the mass?
> >>
> >> The latter. The energy release from the nuclear reaction has to came
> from
> >> somewhere. I am simply saying that it comes from the conversion of part
> of
> >> the mass of the constituent particles.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >That seems extremely unlikely to me.
> >>
> >> Then you need to explain where the fusion energy comes from. (I'm
> counting
> >> addition of a neutron to a nucleus as a form of fusion).
> >>
> >> Note that the formation of D from a free proton & a free neutron
> releases
> >> only
>