Re: [Vo]:FW: coherent system energy states

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Dear Bob C.

I can picture the neutrino as being involved in the interaction between
electron and nucleus. However, my picture is definitely non-standard. At
the short distance of deep-orbits from the nucleus, the neutrino
(considered to be similar to photons) would be in the "longitudinal photon"
mode. I view the neutrino mass as oscillating (probably averaging to zero)
and therefore not subject to accurate measure. This oscillation (if time
dilated) could explain the GSI time anomaly (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino#GSI_anomaly).

With all of the contradictions and problems with present neutrino models, I
would consider alternative models to be nearly as valid as "accepted"
models. I would consider the present concepts of spin, ang mom, mass, and
even charge to be suspect. While what you have added in your most recent
email contributes to my thoughts, I was hoping that you might have
something that was absolutely convincing. I'll make a couple comments there.

Andrew
_ _ _

On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 6:22 PM bobcook39...@hotmail.com <
bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Andrew—
>
>
>
> Neutrinos interact with matter, are considered to have mass and carry spin
> angular momentum.   In addition they are considered to consist as leptons
> of anti and regular matter which can annihilate into pure EM energy like
> many particle anti-particle pairs.
>
>
>
> I consider, as suggested by the Wikipedia link below, neutrinos have a
> magnetic moment, or al least harbor magnetons.   It seems they are much
> like massless photons and travel when not caught up in a nucleon at c. n
> free space (4-D space and time.)  In this regard they are real particles vs
> virtual quarks.
>
>
>
> Their annihilation energy release may be very small considering their
> small rest mass. But nevertheless give this up to atomic electrons as they
> pass thru their electro-magnetic field (or their unique combination of
> space, time, angular momentum and magnetic field dimensions.)
>
>
>
> A, C. Jessup”s theory , documented in a book, *AN IMPERFECT PICTURE,   
> *addresses
> the concepts associated with some of these dimensions.  Nigel Dyer’s family
> blog includes  pertinent excerpts from this book, which is out of print as
> far as I know.
>
>
>
> *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino
> *
>
>
>
> W. Stubbs’ book on nuclear structure, P. Hatt’s  papers and Jurg
> Wyttenbach’s papers address the nucleon structure which seems to involve
> neutrinos.  IMHO the coupling is at the Planck scale and involves magnetic
> fields—no electric fields  associated with intrinsic charge.
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
>
> *fm: *Andrew Meulenberg 
> *Sent: *Saturday, August 3, 2019 6:32 AM
> *To: *VORTEX 
> *Subject: *Re: [Vo]:FW: coherent system energy states
>
>
>
> Bob,
>
>
>
> You have raised some important points in your answers to Robin. Can you
> provide some references to support them?
>
>
>
> In particular, I am interested in the non-photonic transfer of angular
> momentum from the nucleus to a bound electron. I think that it is well
> accepted that the nucleus can transfer energy to bound electrons via the
> Coulomb field. Nevertheless, I think that Schwinger, along with his papers
> on cold fusion, was mocked for suggesting that internal nuclear energy
> could be shared with the potential energy of electrons and thus the
> lattice. However, as a central force, this energy transfer cannot convey
> ang mom.
>
>
>
> My interest is in the interaction of deep-orbit electrons with the
> internal structure of the nucleus such as charged quarks and possible
> sub-components. At close range, these bodies are no longer providing just
> central forces. While the interaction is not photonic in the normal sense
> (i.e., via transverse EM waves), it *can* be considered via longitudinal
> photons. Again, internal conversion, would suggest that no ang mom need be
> transferred in such interactions. This does not suggest that such transfer
> cannot occur, only that it is not observed on the normal scale of hbar. (If
> I am wrong about this, I would appreciate correction.)
>
>
>
> Compound nuclei have ang mom on this level that can be transferred to the
> EM field to form photons. However, is there any information on ang mom of
> quarks? If so, this could lead to speculation about non-scalar coupling
> between a proton and a deep-orbit electron.
>
>
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 4:02 PM bobcook39...@hotmail.com <
> bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail  for
> Windows 10
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Robin—
>
>
>
> You raised the following questions and comments:
>
>
>
> 1) What is this "coherent system", and specifically, in what respect is it
>
> coherent, i.e. which property of the system?
>
> 2) How do you propose that the nuclear energy is actually coupled to the 
> phonic
>
> energy?
>
> 3) Changes in angular momentum of nuclei are usually paired 

RE: [Vo]:Deneum early results

[JonesBeene]

If one were to look closely at the “replication” as it has proceeded thus far – 
there are already several significant variations from Mizuno’s procedure, 
besides the lack of RGA/MS. 

The heater is not the same – the silver solder was not in the original, the 
water used to rinse was not the same, and so on. Should Deneum see significant 
thermal gain – it will not become a true replication, even if they do add a 
mass-spec. That move is an unneeded delay, and actually  seems to be a waste of 
time and resources at this juncture. They should stay the course. 

Let someone else dot every i. There are candidates for that.

My hope therefore  is that Deneum will continue  with repeated similar runs 
over the coming days, basically repeating the general strategy they have come 
up with - and report the results. Much can be learned from this. It is a 
reasonable expectation that there will be improvement over time - and we could 
be in for a pleasant surprise within a week or two - even though it is not a 
true replication.

Perhaps one of the many other experimenters around the globe – the ones who 
received a reactor directly from Mizuno - will be the best candidate to do a 
true replication. 

It is unrealistic and even counter-productive to imagine that Deneum would stop 
everything and  make all of the changes which would be needed for true 
replication when they could be on the verge of seeing something very important 
-  which is similar enough that it will expand the knowledge base greatly.



From: Jed Rothwell


JonesBeene wrote:
 
You seem to be missing the point… and adding a dose of silly pedantry to boot.
The goal here is to clean and completely degas the reactor --- NOT to learn the 
identity of the last bit of gas which was removed.

Mizuno and other experts have told me that without a mass spec, you cannot tell 
whether you have cleaned and degassed the reactor. There may be materials in 
the wall of the reactor or the mesh that come out gradually. Also, if you bake 
it at the wrong stage, you cause materials to stick to the walls which are very 
difficult to get rid of. You need to check for them before you bake.

Mizuno spelled out his methods in the paper. He said to use a mass spec. Other 
experts agreed with him. This experiment is hard enough to do with a mass spec 
and with the other recommended tools. People should not make it harder, or add 
to the unknowns and the guesswork. People who ignore the instructions may 
succeed despite that, but if they fail we will not know why. It is not really 
my business. My only concern is that they and others will say the instructions 
and the original experiment were flawed, even though they did not follow the 
instructions or do the experiment.

Re: [Vo]:Deneum early results

[Jed Rothwell]

JonesBeene  wrote:

>

> You seem to be missing the point… and adding a dose of silly pedantry to
> boot.
>
>
>
> The goal here is to clean and completely degas the reactor --- NOT to
> learn the identity of the last bit of gas which was removed.
>

Mizuno and other experts have told me that without a mass spec, you cannot
tell whether you have cleaned and degassed the reactor. There may be
materials in the wall of the reactor or the mesh that come out gradually.
Also, if you bake it at the wrong stage, you cause materials to stick to
the walls which are very difficult to get rid of. You need to check for
them before you bake.

Mizuno spelled out his methods in the paper. He said to use a mass spec.
Other experts agreed with him. This experiment is hard enough to do with a
mass spec and with the other recommended tools. People should not make it
harder, or add to the unknowns and the guesswork. People who ignore the
instructions may succeed despite that, but if they fail we will not know
why. It is not really my business. My only concern is that they and others
will say the instructions and the original experiment were flawed, even
though they did not follow the instructions or do the experiment.

RE: [Vo]:Deneum early results

[JonesBeene]

You seem to be missing the point… and adding a dose of silly pedantry to boot.

The goal here is to clean and completely degas the reactor --- NOT to learn the 
identity of the last bit of gas which was removed.

If they have a top of the line  vacuum system, as appears to be the case -  and 
they perform an overnight bake-out procedure which effectively cleans the 
reactor – then the mass-spec information they would have  is redundant.

Sure it would be great to do it by-the-letter exactly as Mizuno did it - and in 
a perfect world we would see that  -  but not having a record of the last few 
atoms of gas removed  is not going to matter if they get it clean and 
leak-free. 

It is absurd to suggest  that  they should not proceed at all unless they 
follow every detail precisely.

A successful outcome done slightly differently may add more understanding of 
the process than if done by-the-letter, and if it fails then they know what to 
do next.


From: Jed Rothwell

Yeah? When you are a "credentialed professional" does that mean you can ignore 
the instructions? Do things your way? If it does not work, does that mean we 
should doubt the original result?

It ain't a replication, that's for sure.

Re: [Vo]:Deneum early results

[Jed Rothwell]

JonesBeene  wrote:

It is unwise and too early to belittle this fine effort . . .
>

I am not belittling it. I am pointing out that they are not following the
recipe. They are not doing it the way Mizuno recommended. If it works, more
power to them. If it does not work, we will not know why.



> Apparently - their past success was unknown to those who are quick to be
> critical.
>

Did they achieve their past success by ignoring the instructions?



> These researchers  are credentialed professionals who have had past
> success in LENR.
>

Yeah? When you are a "credentialed professional" does that mean you can
ignore the instructions? Do things your way? If it does not work, does that
mean we should doubt the original result?

It ain't a replication, that's for sure.

RE: [Vo]:Deneum early results

[JonesBeene]

It is unwise and too early to belittle this fine effort, given their recent 
history of success with titanium electrolysis – where Deneum has already 
reported high levels of excess heat.

Apparently - their past success was unknown to those who are quick to be 
critical. 

These researchers  are credentialed professionals who have had past success in 
LENR. What we are seeing  now  is early stage and they chose a strategy to 
learn as they go. Even so,  Deneum can make a valuable contribution without a 
mass spec or RGA. That is the main point.

 If they should fail to  find the robust thermal anomaly – their error is 
correctable. As a practical consideration, the motivation for being critical at 
an early stages can  appear to be self-serving and unnecessary.

In short - Deneum have the skills to see excess heat in the early time frame, 
and even if they do not - it is unwise to be critical of such effort in 
anticipation that it may be null. 

They are unlikely to be  part of some hidden conspiracy - being paid to produce 
a null result.


From: Jed Rothwell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKRt3fa4lfU
 
They are doing a professional  job but nothing anomalous is showing up so far.

At LENR-forum this person stated that they do not have a mass spectrometer. So 
they are not doing a professional job. They are working blind with no idea what 
is going on, and I suppose there is no chance it will work. If it does work, 
the experiment is much easier and more forgiving than Mizuno or I think it is 
is. I wrote this at LENR-forum:
Let me restate this, as clearly as I can: People who are not skilled in the art 
cannot do cold fusion. People who do not have a complete set of instruments 
including a mass spectrometer, and who are not skilled in using these 
instruments, cannot do cold fusion. People who have to ask me or others how to 
set up the plumbing between the vacuum pump and the mass spectrometer, or what 
sort of plumbing to use, cannot do cold fusion. If you have to ask such things, 
you can't do it. That's what three top experts told me recently.

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/6017-mizuno-replication-and-materials-only/?postID=116420#post116420

Re: [Vo]:Deneum early results

[Jed Rothwell]

On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 1:36 PM JonesBeene  wrote:

>
>
>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKRt3fa4lfU
>
>
>
> They are doing a professional  job but nothing anomalous is showing up so
> far.
>

At LENR-forum this person stated that they do not have a mass spectrometer.
So they are not doing a professional job. They are working blind with no
idea what is going on, and I suppose there is no chance it will work. If it
does work, the experiment is much easier and more forgiving than Mizuno or
I think it is is. I wrote this at LENR-forum:

Let me restate this, as clearly as I can: People who are not skilled in the
art cannot do cold fusion. People who do not have a complete set of
instruments including a mass spectrometer, and who are not skilled in using
these instruments, cannot do cold fusion. People who have to ask me or
others how to set up the plumbing between the vacuum pump and the mass
spectrometer, or what sort of plumbing to use, cannot do cold fusion. If
you have to ask such things, you can't do it. That's what three top experts
told me recently.


https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/6017-mizuno-replication-and-materials-only/?postID=116420#post116420

[Vo]:The OA Cancelled by Netflix, let’s bring this masterpiece back.

[danieldiniz]

Olá,

Eu acabei de assinar o abaixo-assinado "The OA Cancelled by Netflix, let’s
bring this masterpiece back." e queria saber se você pode ajudar assinando
também.

A nossa meta é conseguir 25.000 assinaturas e precisamos de mais apoio.
Você pode ler mais sobre este assunto e assinar o abaixo-assinado aqui:

http://chng.it/4PyGkf9JmS

Obrigado!
DANIEL