Re: [Vo]:Indian Summer

[Andrew Meulenberg]

The term "Indian Summer" may come from the American Indians apparent
indifference to cold weather. In historical novels, one can find reference
to this, where the Indians would wonder why the white men would bundle up,
just because there was snow on the ground.

In graduate school, I had a girlfriend whose family had just moved back
from a 2 year tour in Thule (north-west Greenland, ... a tundra
 climate
 (ET
) with
long, severely cold winters lasting most of the year and short and cool
summers.). She would walk across Campus (in Tennessee) during a snow-storm
in just a short-sleeve summer dress. We are more adaptable than we think!

Andrew
_ _ _

On Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 8:27 PM MSF  wrote:

>
>
> On Thursday, September 19th, 2024 at 12:09 PM, Robin <
> mixent...@aussiebroadband.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > In the US, you sometimes get an "Indian Summer" around this time of
> year. So do we in Australia.
> > That's strange because the seasons here are reversed.
> > IOW it happens to the whole planet at the same time of year. What
> happens on an annual basis? We go around the Sun. So
> > maybe there is a particular spot on the Sun that radiates more than
> elsewhere, and we just go past it around this time
> > of year?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Robin van Spaandonk
> >
>
>
> Hello, Robin
>
> Unless I'm misinterpreting, you are saying that your "Indian Summer"
> happens in the Australian spring in order to be simultaneous with the
> American equivalent in the autumn.
>
> The sun itself rotates at approximately once every 30 days, depending on
> the solar latitude. So there is no hot spot to be exposed toward the earth
> at any given time. Indian summer is a cultural interpretation of nice warm
> weather in the autumn. Why it should be associated with native Americans
> I'm not sure.
>
> M.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Repeatable COP of ~1.5 seems to be reported by many

[Andrew Meulenberg]

At low external temperatures, many heat pump systems switch over to ohmic
heating.  Do they turn off the heat pump or do they heat the input to the
pump? Either way, using a CF source (w COP of 1.5) *and* its output could
be useful, if it were both cheap and reliable enough.

On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 3:32 PM Jones Beene  wrote:

> The interesting point is that despite lack of market value for the tech,
> it seems to actually violate long standing physical laws plus there seems
> to be an intrinsic window where the actual gain is around 50 percent over
> input
>
> The heat pump, in contrast,  merely taps environmental heat and there is
> no physical anomaly
>
> This situation is somewhat like the Griggs pump scenario of many decades
> ago...
>
> ... in that there apparently is a real anomaly but only a small market for
> low grade heat
>
> To my knowledge, the cavitation tech and real gain of Griggs has never
> been debunked
>
>
>   Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>
> Nicholas Palmer  wrote:
>
> If it can only manage a COP of 1.5-2.5, it's not as effective  as a heat
> pump...
>
> Yes. 1.5 has no practical use. Still, 50 W excess is good because it can
> be measured with confidence. I think they said the results are
> "consistent." If they can make it happen every time, "consistently" with
> about the same magnitude, then I would say it is important progress.
>
> One of the articles says it is not ready for practical applications yet. I
> suppose they realize that 100 W in, 150 W out has no useful applications.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The First Room-Temperature Ambient-Pressure Superconductor

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Phonons are important to the CF process; but, the ultrasound might provide
organized pressure waves to align defects into CF productive structures.

On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 10:34 AM Terry Blanton  wrote:

> I think there have been studies on phonons in CF.  You might search Jed's
> web site.
>
> On Mon, Aug 7, 2023, 10:57 AM Andrew Meulenberg 
> wrote:
>
>> Robin, Good suggestion in your BTW.
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 5, 2023 at 2:57 PM Robin 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In reply to  Andrew Meulenberg's message of Sat, 5 Aug 2023 14:41:18
>>> -0500:
>>> Hi Andrew,
>>> [snip]
>>> >Robin, Your strained lattices might also be the answer to useful CF.
>>>
>>> Please feel free to pursue it. It's way beyond my means to do so.
>>>
>>> BTW, it can be enhanced by introducing a forced ultrasound vibration
>>> that resonates in the lattice at a frequency that
>>> encourages vibration in the plain.
>>>
>>> Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.
>>>
>>>

Re: [Vo]:The First Room-Temperature Ambient-Pressure Superconductor

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Robin, Good suggestion in your BTW.

On Sat, Aug 5, 2023 at 2:57 PM Robin 
wrote:

> In reply to  Andrew Meulenberg's message of Sat, 5 Aug 2023 14:41:18 -0500:
> Hi Andrew,
> [snip]
> >Robin, Your strained lattices might also be the answer to useful CF.
>
> Please feel free to pursue it. It's way beyond my means to do so.
>
> BTW, it can be enhanced by introducing a forced ultrasound vibration that
> resonates in the lattice at a frequency that
> encourages vibration in the plain.
>
> Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The First Room-Temperature Ambient-Pressure Superconductor

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Robin, Your strained lattices might also be the answer to useful CF.
_ _ _

On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 3:38 PM Robin 
wrote:

> In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Wed, 26 Jul 2023 19:32:07 +
> (UTC):
> Hi,
>
> You may recall that years ago, I suggested on this list that strained
> lattices might result in a preferential vibration
> direction for the atoms of the lattice (Bose condensate of phonons). That
> in turn leads to vibration primarily in a
> single plain. When that happens, ballistic conduction of electrons might
> be possible parallel to those vibration plains,
> since the passage of the electron would rarely be interrupted.
>
> [snip]
> >This story turns out to have been around the net for a long time
> >It appeared in the record as a compound named LK-99 = Lee-Kim (1999):
> >IOW - they discovered it nearly a quarter of a century ago.. makes one
> wonder if this post is not an odd troll
> >
> >Not to mention, an unreasonable time to isolate, confirm and cook up;
> patents filed in 2021, and granted in 2023—hence only now the public
> articles and trademark applications ... which likely means it is not robust
> or usable.and they are grasping at straws
> >
> >This according to Reddit
> Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:EVOs, Hutchison, and ancient megalithic tech

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Interference between synchronous laser beams provides the basis for an
optical lattice. The eccentric weights gives this on a macroscale.

On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 2:58 PM Robin 
wrote:

> >Hi,
>
> PS - the dimensions of the solid should be such that it is resonant for
> the frequency of the sound.
> Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:EVOs, Hutchison, and ancient megalithic tech

[Andrew Meulenberg]

When the vertical component of the centrifugal force of the rotating
eccentric load exceeds the weight of the brick, the brick will move off the
ground. Non-vertical components will drive the brick horizontally every
time the net force exceeds the weight of the brick. Two small synchronous
motors, if properly aligned and fixed to a 1 ton rigid load, could allow it
to be moved by another small motor. No wheels are required!

US Patent office refused a patent on this concept, despite seeing an
operating system with a small example.

On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 2:11 PM MSF  wrote:

> This is one of my favorite subjects. Not Hutchison, but speculation about
> how the ancients were able to cut and transport those huge blocks of stone.
> It might be that electrical effects are involved, but I'm not sure that's
> necessary. Hutchison effects might be real, but those videos he made had
> some rather obvious primitive video fakery. At least that's my opinion.
>
> Here's an experiment I did longer ago than I care to remember. It's
> simplicity itself. I epoxied a small DC motor to the top of a brick and
> placed it in a sandbox. The motor had an eccentric weight attached to the
> shaft. Connected to the motor was a variable DC power supply. Obviously,
> the frequency of vibration could be controlled by varying the current to
> the motor. As the RPM of the motor increased to a certain level, the brick
> began to move. Depending upon small adjustments of the current, the brick
> might rotate in one direction or the other or shift slightly. When
> stabilized, the brick could be moved with the touch of a finger.
>
> You could see light under the brick through the oscillating sand. This
> doesn't exactly constitute levitation, but you could see how it could be
> interpreted that way. There are so many ways of creating sonic frequencies,
> it's hard to say how ancient peoples did it.
>
> There you have it. I encourage anyone reading this to replicate my little
> experiment and tell us what happened.

Re: [Vo]:Electricity "fromthin air"

[Andrew Meulenberg]

They might come up with $6M for thermal control inside satellites.

On 5/30/23, MSF  wrote:
> We're digressing from the subject at hand, but it allows me some
> self-indulgent nostalgia.
>
> As you are no doubt aware, even black paint made to coat the interior of
> optical instruments has the problem of a quite high glancing angle
> reflectance. My nanoporous aluminum film has a very low glancing angle
> reflectance.
>
> I seriously doubt anyone would cough up 6 million bucks to produce this
> material in quantity. Maybe someone could be convinced to provide the
> capital based on the possibility of making a superior hydrovoltaic film. Not
> bloody likely.
>
> As a boy I used to make and modify all sorts of strange and unusual
> microscopes and telescopes.  I was bedeviled by the reflections from the
> interior of the tubes. My solution was simple. I would deposit carbon black
> inside the tubes. A flaming q-tip soaked in motor oil and attached to a
> stick could deposit enough soot to eliminate almost all of the reflections
> from the inside of the tubes. You can even do this to the inside of
> cardboard tube if you are careful. Since I knew no one would be taking these
> gadgets apart but me, I had no worries about the surface being disturbed.
> There now. More than you wanted to know.
>
>
>
> --- Original Message ---
> On Tuesday, May 30th, 2023 at 6:27 PM, Andrew Meulenberg
>  wrote:
>
>
>> I no longer have the instruments to measure the absorptance and
>> reflectance of materials; but, most optical instruments have black
>> paint on the inside walls. A new source of very black films or sheets
>> could be a useful addition because, over the years, the paint turns
>> grey.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Electricity "fromthin air"

[Andrew Meulenberg]

I no longer have the instruments to measure the absorptance and
reflectance of materials; but, most optical instruments have black
paint on the inside walls. A new source of very black films or sheets
could be a useful addition because, over the years, the paint turns
grey.

On 5/30/23, MSF  wrote:
> I haven't the equipment or the time to measure the degree and spectrum of
> the "blackness". Suffice it to say, you can still see a very dim spot if you
> shine a variety of lasers of different wavelengths onto the surface.
> Naturally, the substrate, PET film, heats up and burns when you do this.
>
> I made this material in 2013 and there has been no noticeable change in its
> properties since then.
>
> Fabricated by a continuous process, this film could be made for a few cents
> per square meter. A machine designed for this specific application would
> cost about 6 million dollars US.
>
> I would like to be more specific, but this material was made under an NDA
> with a large semiconductor company and I'm not sure if this application
> would be covered under it.
>
> --- Original Message ---
> On Tuesday, May 30th, 2023 at 2:33 PM, Andrew Meulenberg
>  wrote:
>
>
>> depending on its degree and spectrum of "blackness" (and cost?), it
>> could have many applications. Did it retain its properties as the
>> oxide grew?
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Electricity "fromthin air"

[Andrew Meulenberg]

depending on its degree and spectrum of "blackness" (and cost?), it
could have many applications.  Did it retain its properties as the
oxide grew?

On 5/29/23, MSF  wrote:
> Thanks. That's an informative analysis
>
> The nanoporous aluminum layer I made was approx. 400 nm thick. It could be
> made thicker or thinner as required. I haven't had the setup to make this
> stuff for quite some time, but I'm tempted to do it again. I was making it
> in 600 mm square sheets, but it could be turned into a continuous process.
>
>
>
> --- Original Message ---
> On Monday, May 29th, 2023 at 8:15 PM, Robin
>  wrote:
>
>
>> In reply to MSF's message of Mon, 29 May 2023 18:48:52 +:
>> Hi,
>>
>> If you follow the link to the original article, then download the
>> supporting materials pdf, the original experiment
>> reported at best about 250 nW / cm^2. This may not seem like much, but the
>> layer could be made very thin, perhaps 1
>> micron thick (?), which IINM would give a power density of about 2.5 kW /
>> m^3.
>> This would vary with the humidity of the air.
>>
>> (Strangely perhaps this is reminiscent of Mills' CIHT.)
>>
>> > https://www.umass.edu/news/article/engineers-umass-amherst-harvest-abundant-clean-energy-thin-air-247
>>
>> [snip]
>> Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:This could relate to the Mills/Holmlid effect

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Axil Axil,

When a free electron falls into a deep atomic orbit, it gains kinetic
energy and a photon of the same amount is emitted. Both energies are
provided from decay of the nuclear mass.

Is this what you call, or equivalent to, vacuum decay?

Andrew

On 5/29/23, Axil Axil  wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmLsF5yEd9o
>
>
> *Garett Moddel has patented (it actually works) a device that extracts
> energy from the vacuum. *
>
> An experiment that show energy extraction from the vacuum
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rgn-10sSJI
>
> In his product development, Moddel has found that extracting energy from
> the vacuum causes unavoidable decay of the matter that his device is
> constructed from. This decay is called vacuum decay and is seen in all LENR
> devices that produce energy. Ths decay is a significant issue that must be
> overcome before LENR can be used as a reliable power source.
>
>
>
> On Sun, May 28, 2023 at 3:12 PM Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> The premise is that entangled behavior is a feature of an expanded ground
>> state— the goal being to  harvest zero-point energy from a system whose
>> ground state naturally features entanglement and redundancy
>>
>>
>> https://www.wired.com/story/the-quest-to-use-quantum-mechanics-to-pull-energy-out-of-nothing/?bxid=5cec25cb3f92a45b30ed10b5&cndid=46300417&esrc=Wired_etl_load&source=Email_0_EDT_WIR_NEWSLETTER_0_DAILY_ZZ&utm_brand=wired&utm_mailing=WIR_Daily_052823
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:ARPA-E announces funding for 8 cold fusion projects

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Jed,

Do we get a chance to see what other projects were proposed (at least
titles)? It may be that these eight were the best of a poor selection.

On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 10:04 AM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> I put this DoE announcement in the LENR-CANR.org News section. Today I
> added this somewhat pessimistic note:
>
> Some cold fusion researchers feel that these eight projects were poorly
> chosen. The goals are framed as if cold fusion is the same as plasma
> fusion. People made this mistake in 1989. For example, several projects
> focus on neutrons. The first one says, “University of Michigan will provide
> capability to measure hypothetical neutron, gamma, and ion emissions from
> LENR experiments.” Some cold fusion experiments have produced neutrons, but
> most do not. It seems likely that neutrons are a secondary effect with a
> prosaic cause such as fractofusion, rather than being a primary signature
> of the reaction. Excess heat correlated with helium, or tritium production,
> can occur without neutrons, so looking for neutrons is not a fruitful way
> to detect or analyze a cold fusion reaction.
>

Re: [Vo]:Solar cell lifetime in space

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Things have gone beyond simple UV protection. At a quick glance, I found
this from 2014:
"Ion exchange doping of solar cell coverglass for sunlight down-shifting"
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?url=https://www.academia.edu/download/39434467/Ion_exchange_doping_of_solar_cell_coverg20151026-13237-11ddof9.pdf&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jkyiY7KwAY6yyATvqZyoBQ&scisig=AAGBfm2yTEGoICv5hlwEB0RulQA-SecuDg&oi=scholarr

On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 4:59 PM MSF  wrote:

>
> I was working with this method of surface treatment of glass more decades
> ago than I care to remember. You simply  immerse ordinary glass into a bath
> of molten potassium nitrate and the sodium Ions at the surface are replaced
> with potassium ions, resulting in a highly impact resistant glass. These
> days it's called gorilla glass, but I was using this technique long before
> Corning.
>
> I see that  cerium doped sheet is just glass, not fused silica. So it may
> be that no cerium ions could be implanted into pure silica by the molten
> salt technique.
>
> I recently discovered a method of depositing a layer of silica on any
> given surface using a ridiculously simple and inexpensive technique. This
> is something that should have been discovered 200 or so years ago, but
> wasn't. I've searched for months trying to find out if this was done
> before, but I find no reference to it. The silica layer deposited is only a
> few tens of microns thick, but the process can be repeated. Other compounds
> can be included; so far I've only tried copper. This is a solid transparent
> well adhered layer, not some powdered composite.  I really don't know what
> to do with this, probably nothing. Thought you might be interested anyway.
>
> --- Original Message ---
> On Tuesday, December 20th, 2022 at 10:00 PM, Andrew Meulenberg <
> mules...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Foster,
> You have raised an interesting possibility. I have been out of the loop
> for 25 years, so my info may be dated. However, the cerium was included in
> the melt, with the quantity a djusted for the optimum UV absorption for the
> coverslide thickness.
>
> Use of a doped layer rather than the bulk could possibly provide some
> improved optical matching in the "STACK". It would have to be tested for
> stability during the thermal cycles. If the surface doping (by dipping or
> by ion implantation) is a reliable process, this might be worth mentioning
> it to the appropriate people (who I no longer know).
>
> Andrew
>
> -- Forwarded message -
>
>
> I guess this is getting off into the weeds a bit, but is the quartz layer
> doped with cerium in the mass? Or is the cerium diffused into the surface
> by immersion in a molten cerium compound?
>
> --
> On Tuesday, December 20th, 2022 at 2:26 AM, Andrew Meulenberg <
> mules...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Solar cell lifetime in space

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Foster,
You have raised an interesting possibility. I have been out of the loop for
25 years, so my info may be dated. However, the cerium was included in the
melt, with the quantity a djusted for the optimum UV absorption for the
coverslide thickness.

Use of a doped layer rather than the bulk could possibly provide some
improved optical matching in the "STACK". It would have to be tested for
stability during the thermal cycles. If the surface doping (by dipping or
by ion implantation) is a reliable process, this might be worth mentioning
it to the appropriate people (who I no longer know).

Andrew

-- Forwarded message -
From: MSF 
Date: Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 1:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Solar cell lifetime in space
To: 


I guess this is getting off into the weeds a bit, but is the quartz layer
doped with cerium in the mass? Or is the cerium diffused into the surface
by immersion in a molten cerium compound?

--- Original Message ---
On Tuesday, December 20th, 2022 at 2:26 AM, Andrew Meulenberg <
mules...@gmail.com> wrote:

Robin,

The whole deal is a set of tradeoffs that depends on the environment to be
encountered. At some altitudes, the Van Allen Belts have too much
penetrating radiation to allow solar cells to be used for long-term
missions.

Addition of coverslides makes the solarcell assembly vulnerable to solar
ultra-violet radiation. It is necessary to use high-purity fused silica for
the coverslides to prevent themselves from being damaged by the UV. But
these coverslides allow the UV to damage the adhesive that holds them to
the solar cells. Thus, it is necessary to put a UV filter on these
coverslides. The UV filters can be damaged by the trapped-proton
environment if there is a manufacturing error. Cerium-doped microsheet
(CMS) is generally used for coverslides because it does not transmit the UV
that can damage the special adhesives (flexible conformal coatings) that
can function through the thermal excursions experienced when the spacecraft
enters and exits the Earth's shadow. However, the CMS cutting out the
damaging UV also lowers the starting efficiency of the solar arrays that
can derive energy from the UV.

It is a tradeoff that must even recognize the possibility of solar flares
that, when extreme and aimed at the earth, can cause more damage (in days)
than all of the other sources of degradation over the rest of the mission.
The tradeoff is further complicated by the variety of cells and materials
(filters and coverslides) available. There is also the mission variables
that are sometimes of greatest concern. Sometimes it is more important to
have max power at the beginning of a mission; sometimes at the end.

It was a portion of my job for nearly 30 years.

Andrew
_ _ _

On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 12:41 PM Robin 
wrote

> In reply to Andrew Meulenberg's message of Mon, 19 Dec 2022 00:25:20 -0600:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> I'm sure it does, however the high energy particles from other sources are
> also present, so it seems to be fairly
> effective against them too? Otherwise surely it would have been noticed
> that cells in space deteriorate rapidly?
>
>
> >Robin,
> >
> >This thickness of coverslide stops the low-energy trapped protons of the
> >Van Allen belts that would cut the cell efficiency by ~30% in not too many
> >months.
> >
> >Andrew
> [snip]
> Cloud storage:-
>
> Unsafe, Slow, Expensive
>
> ...pick any three.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Solar cell lifetime in space

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Robin,

The whole deal is a set of tradeoffs that depends on the environment to be
encountered. At some altitudes, the Van Allen Belts have too much
penetrating radiation to allow solar cells to be used for long-term
missions.

Addition of coverslides makes the solarcell assembly vulnerable to solar
ultra-violet radiation. It is necessary to use high-purity fused silica for
the coverslides to prevent themselves from being damaged by the UV. But
these coverslides allow the UV to damage the adhesive that holds them to
the solar cells. Thus, it is necessary to put a UV filter on these
coverslides. The UV filters can be damaged by the trapped-proton
environment if there is a manufacturing error. Cerium-doped microsheet
(CMS) is generally used for coverslides because it does not transmit the UV
that can damage the special adhesives (flexible conformal coatings) that
can function through the thermal excursions experienced when the spacecraft
enters and exits the Earth's shadow. However, the CMS cutting out the
damaging UV also lowers the starting efficiency of the solar arrays that
can derive energy from the UV.

It is a tradeoff that must even recognize the possibility of solar flares
that, when extreme and aimed at the earth, can cause more damage (in days)
than all of the other sources of degradation over the rest of the mission.
The tradeoff is further complicated by the variety of cells and materials
(filters and coverslides) available. There is also the mission variables
that are sometimes of greatest concern. Sometimes it is more important to
have max power at the beginning of a mission; sometimes at the end.

It was a portion of my job for nearly 30 years.

Andrew
_ _ _

On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 12:41 PM Robin 
wrote

> In reply to  Andrew Meulenberg's message of Mon, 19 Dec 2022 00:25:20
> -0600:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> I'm sure it does, however the high energy particles from other sources are
> also present, so it seems to be fairly
> effective against them too? Otherwise surely it would have been noticed
> that cells in space deteriorate rapidly?
>
>
> >Robin,
> >
> >This thickness of coverslide stops the low-energy trapped protons of the
> >Van Allen belts that would cut the cell efficiency by ~30% in not too many
> >months.
> >
> >Andrew
> [snip]
> Cloud storage:-
>
> Unsafe, Slow, Expensive
>
> ...pick any three.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Solar cell lifetime in space

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Robin,

This thickness of coverslide stops the low-energy trapped protons of the
Van Allen belts that would cut the cell efficiency by ~30% in not too many
months.

Andrew


On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 6:38 PM Robin 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> ESA apparently place a 0.1 mm layer of glass before their solar cells, to
> protect them from radiation. This gives them a
> projected lifetime of 15 years according to
>
> https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Space_Engineering_Technology/Inside_a_solar_cell
>
> Cloud storage:-
>
> Unsafe, Slow, Expensive
>
> ...pick any three.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Sun spot cycle

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Robin,

Do you have a link for this? I proposed something similar at MIT about 40
years ago. I looked at the direct relationships and many resonances but
could not find one. I did not have time (could not rationalize taking the
time) to look at the accelerations (as in tidal influences). It certainly
looked as if there should be some correlations.

Andrew
_ _ _

On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 4:41 PM Robin 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> There have been a number of papers recently on the correlation between
> planetary motion and the sunspot cycle, some
> without an explanation of the mechanism.
>
> My take on the matter is this. Motion of the Sun about the barycenter of
> the solar system causes the solar plasma to
> "slosh" as would water in a bucket if you wobble the bucket. If you get
> the frequency right then the water in the bucket
> will rotate. In the case of the Sun, the resulting rotation is one and the
> same as the rotation of the Sun about it's
> axis. This rotation of the plasma creates the solar magnetic field. The
> whole thing is completely causal. Ergo changes
> in planetary positions, produce equivalent changes in the motion of the
> Sun, which in turn alter the plasma flow, which
> in turn alters its magnetic field.
> Cloud storage:-
>
> Unsafe, Slow, Expensive
>
> ...pick any three.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Sean,

You asked "Is it meaningful to speak of "resonance" when something is
rotating in only one direction?"

Consider a car engine. Ignoring any internal resonances, it has a max-power
point at some frequency. If you add a muffler, you have modified the
external environment to the engine (most strongly at a given frequency).
The engine+ muffler now has a resonant frequency that may differ from that
of the muffler alone (e.g. with a different source). The muffler+engine
resonance can be "tuned" to alter the max-power point (increase power at a
given frequency or spread the max-power point to a larger frequency range).

To address the issue of resonance of bodies at the sub-micron scale:

Both classical and quantum physicists get fixed within their own framework.
"To a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

To consider an electron to be a rotating rigid body creates problems with
experimental evidence.
Relativity changes the shape of the electron *E*-field and thus creates a
magnetic field. The electron, being an EM creature, thus changes its shape
and properties with velocity. *Spin is one of those properties.* It does
not change in magnitude (except under extreme conditions - e.g.,
annihilation or combination); but, it does change direction. When an
electron is accelerated, its spin axis nutates (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutation) and precesses about the velocity
vector. When at high velocities (but w/o acceleration), its nutation will
be "pure" (nodding,  but with no precession).

This precession and nutation exists at all v > 0. The nutation can be
considered to be the basis of the deBroglie wavelength, where the
wavelength is determined by the distance traveled in a single nutation
cycle (my own definition). For a bound electron, which is accelerating all
of the time, precession of the spin axis about the axis of rotation is a
given. For a closed path in a conservative potential, an electron's total
energy is conserved and is constant at the resonance point(s) of the orbit
and precession. Thus, relativity, which also causes the magnetic field of a
moving charge at v>0, is the "exterior" environment that produces the
resonance for a stable orbit. The resonance is between the orbital
frequency and the frequency of precession (causing the deBroglie
wavelength). This resonance establishes the constant-total-energy orbits of
atomic electrons.

Understanding this and the resonances leading to photons and leptons
provides a basis for gravitation and the possibility of null-gravity (as in
photons), even if anti-gravity cannot be attained.

Andrew
_ _ _

On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 9:57 PM Sean Logan  wrote:

> I have a question about things that rotate:  Is it meaningful to speak of
> "resonance" when something is rotating in only one direction (Clockwise,
> for example)?  When I think of "resonance", I think of a guitar string
> vibrating back and forth, or a parallel LC circuit, with the current
> flowing back and forth.  In both cases, the stuff is moving first one way,
> then the other.  We can talk about how many "back and forths" it makes in a
> given amount of time.  But what if you are spinning a flywheel in just one
> direction?  Is there some particular angular frequency which is
> special, based upon other parameters of the system (maybe the flywheel's
> mass)?  I don't think I'd call it a "resonant frequency", but I would call
> it something.  I mean, is there a particular diameter or rate of rotation
> at which a tornado can form and be stable -- any slower or faster and it
> would fly apart?  It sounds like that is what you are getting at with the
> electron, Andrew.
>
> An old mechanic I used to live with said something to me once to this
> effect:  That there was a particular RPM of the flywheel in an engine at
> which it was "resonant".  That the engine and transmission worked best and
> were happiest when the flywheel was rotating around this particular RPM.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 5:01 AM Andrew Meulenberg 
> wrote:
>
>> I like your derivation. It appears to be another indication of the
>> resonance giving stability to the electron at a specific "size". A similar
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..

[Andrew Meulenberg]

I don't know.

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 8:46 PM Sean Logan  wrote:

> Dear Andrew,
>
>Thank you for the information on Falaco Solitons.  Is Cartan the one
> who introduced the idea of "rotating spacetime" into the theory of
> Relativity?
>
>>

Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Sean,

You ask " Do you think we could make a macroscopic electron?  I mean, one
that's a couple feet across?"

You have asked the right question. Sarfatti, at the end of his "update" (
https://www.academia.edu/s/18395c2bc3?source=ai_email ), includes his
equations for a macroscopic wormhole. He attributes the UFO properties to
this phenomenon.

The immediate formation of an electron/positron pair creates a wormhole
(perhaps the smallest possible?). A macroscopic simulation of this wormhole
is seen in the Falaco soliton (http://www22.pair.com/csdc/car/carfre3.htm).
This structure is simple to create and study. It is very instructive and
teaches much about angular momentum.

Some studies of wormholes indicate extreme energies required for their
macroscopic formation. However, the ease of forming the Falaco soliton in
water may indicate otherwise, if the correct "tool" is found for properly
"moving" space.

Andrew
_ _ _

On Sun, Jul 17, 2022 at 12:36 AM Sean Logan  wrote:

> Oh, excuse me :)  That message was meant for "Vibrator !"
>
> I like what you have to say about electrons.  Do you think we could make
> a macroscopic electron?  I mean, one that's a couple feet across?
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 9:10 PM Andrew Meulenberg 
> wrote:
>
>> just an interested bystander
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..

[Andrew Meulenberg]

just an interested bystander

On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 10:00 PM Sean Logan  wrote:

>
> Are you on the welcoming committee?
>
> Perhaps it's time you made liaison with the box orb pilots.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Did you check out https://www.academia.edu/s/18395c2bc3?source=ai_email ?

On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 7:04 PM Vibrator !  wrote:

> I didn't put any on tick tok.
>
> I didn't 'put' any anywhere.
>
> Again, every day for the last few weeks i've come home from work and
> checked YouTube for the last 24 hrs' UAP uploads.
>
> I skip the dross, and categorise the rest.  So, 'this one goes under this
> header, this one belongs on that list, this is the same type from that vid
> last week', etc. etc.
>
> This very basic methodology - a simple case of 'having to start somewhere'
> with such an enormous data set available - has revealed that most
> sightings, currently, if not historically, are of these mysterious box-orbs.
>
> This is a new type of UFO, to me, anyway.  In fact, i don't see ANYONE
> else describing it as a widespread phenomenon - as i say, most only seem to
> get reported, and commented upon, as if they were unique examples - no one
> else has made the link that they're actually ubiquitous!
>
> This thus qualifies as a new scientific discovery, one that directly
> speaks to the deepest, most profound questions of natural philosophy (not
> least conservation of momentum and energy).
>
> So i'm here presenting that list - primarily drawing attention to the
> prevalence of these hitherto unheard-of 'box-orb' captures.
>
> What's so stunning is that most of the boxes / cubes are caught in broad
> daylight, or at least, twilight.
>
> This enables us to clearly identify that they're the same type of craft -
> obviously harder to do when all you can see is a glowing orb at night.
>
> If you click on the link to the list in the first post, it'll pop up a
> test file full of URL's - all you need do is copy-paste them into a
> browser.  What you'll see is DOZENS of independent video captures of flying
> fish-tanks in broad daylight.
>
> Mostly, they're cubes by day, and glowing orbs by night.  However this
> rule is not absolute - some vids show cubes by night, and orbs by day.
> Most orbs are orange or white, yet many other colours are seen;  some are
> seen changing colour.  Some behaviours seem colour-typed.
>
> So the Tik Tok link you actually clicked on - the one, single link i
> hadn't truncated (how lazy are we?) - i only referenced because it's a
> second example of two box-orbs linked by a tether.  If you complete the YT
> link of the other example, you'll see the same thing, different time and
> place.
>
> I'm well aware all of the comments on Tik Tok identify it as fire lanterns
> - social media is for numbskulls, i've never had any social media accounts
> and never will, it's a horde of mindless ignoramuses and no one else has
> seen this list of related examples;  like me when i saw what i thought were
> fire lanterns, it seems the most likely explanation if you don't know any
> better - Chinese lanterns are a thing, and UFO's are woo - precisely your
> logic too, perfectly rational response - but the whole point of this list
> is to PROVIDE that context necessary for proper analysis, ie. comparison
> with other phenomenon.
>
> Show me a type of fire lantern that looks anything like these things..  i
> mean, it's a glassy, iridescent, semi-opaque box or rectangle -  a
> hexahedron, bashically - sometimes appearing dark-metallic or titanium-like
> - often seen rotating or tumbling on all three axes, that momentarily
> disappears then reappears as it flies.  When seen in groups, this optical
> 'phasing in/out' sometimes synchronises between objects.
>
> After adding dozens of examples to the list, last week YT threw up the
> first one showing a tethered pair.  I'll repeat the full link here so you
> can just click on it (sorry if this is video-bombing the page for anyone
> else):
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZubVcEHtBlw
>
> Note how, like the others, they phase in and out in sync - again, use
> comma and period keys (< and >) for frame advance/back while paused.  These
> are categorically the same type of craft seen in many of the other links.
> The only difference is that clearly-visible tether.
>
> People see tethered flying boxes and think "fire lanterns!" by default -
> as i say, i would've too, if i didn't know any better.  Getting folks
> informed, in order to be able to analyse these things in their proper
> context, is my whole raison d'etre, here..
>
> But that was just one, perhaps freak, example of the tethering behaviour -
> maybe one had broken down and was under tow or something.  So you can
> appreciate my excitement when i found another, again on YT, this time in a
> compilation video.  That video referenced its sources, and the segment
> showing this second tethered pair happened to come from Tik Tok, so, since
> it didn't require a sign-up to view, i linked the source rather than the
> timestamped YT video segment..
>
> So, while everyone else is stuck on "what is it?" and "it's fire
> lanterns!", i'm the only person (apparently) aware of this broader context,
> and other rela

Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Dear Sean,

I like your derivation. It appears to be another indication of the
resonance giving stability to the electron at a specific "size". A similar
exercise gives its angular momentum to be 1/2 that of the photon
simultaneously forming it and the positron.

I think of a sphere of the classical radius (~2.8 fm) as enclosing some
large percentage of the electron mass (its electromagnetic energy) and that
of the 386 fm radius (the reduced deBroglie wavelength and the wavelength
of the 511 keV photon forming it) as being the range of the potential where
it is reduced to some small value of the electron's maximum electrostatic
potential.

Andrew

On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 2:44 PM Sean Logan  wrote:

>
> Dea Robin,
>
>I ran the numbers, and the radius comes out even larger than the
> "Classical Electron Radius".  Here I wrote up my work in Latex so it's easy
> to read:
>
> https://spaz.org/~magi/appendix/electron-latex.html
>
>
>
> I got an electron radius of:
>
>  r = 3.863395 x 10^-13 meters
>
> Whereas the CODATA value for the "Classical Electron Radius" is:
>
> r_e = 2.817 940 3262 x 10^-15  meters
>
> which is 2.8 times the radius of a Proton!
>
>
> Please let me know if I made a mistake in my calculations.  I thought
> maybe I did something unsavory with the angular frequency, Omega.  But on
> second thought it all seems legit.
>
> Robin sez:
>
>> I think that's only if you make the electron smaller than it actually is.
>> Try doing the reverse. Assume that the maximum
>> is the speed of light, then calculate the size of the electron that would
>> be needed to satisfy the equations.
>> If no one clicked on ads companies would stop paying for them. :)
>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:Reversing global warming and removing carbon from the atmosphere with cold fusion

[Andrew Meulenberg]

 Dear Jed,

Among the advantages of my system is the ability to provide a low-cost (yet
ecologically sound

and man-rated) mass-transfer system as a low-earth-orbit "waystation" that
can then provide

massive boosts to interplanetary transportation (e.g. to L1). The ability
to transfer people from

earth to space (and back), as well as to support a "tunable" sunshade,
would make it a

permanent fixture. In addition to reducing global warming (and preventing
methane release),

the shade rings would greatly reduce the global energy needs (details in
the papers). Nevertheless,

I agree with you that man's continuing thirst for energy must be ultimately
satisfied by technological

advances (e.g. CF). On the other hand, with uncontrolled population growth,
even CF-derived

electrical-energy production will have excessive waste-heat production. It
might ultimately be

necessary to move (even CF) electrical-energy production off-earth. But,
perhaps by that time,

population control and moving people and much industry off-planet will have
solved that problem.


Andrew

_ _ _


On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 8:53 PM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> That is great stuff! Thanks. Your proposal is low earth orbit. I have
> heard of others like this. The one linked to at BBC.com is for a very
> distant space umbrella, at earth-sun L1. I don't understand how that would
> work. It seems harder to set up. But the technical details and astronomy
> are over my head. I think the experts (including you) can work out
> something.
>
> I regard this as a stopgap solution. It should be done if needed, but if
> we are going to keep emitting CO2 it will eventually stop working. I think
> it would buy time for a more permanent solution.
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 8:23 PM Andrew Meulenberg 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Dear Jed,
>>
>> You included this link, which I thought might have been referring to my
>> papers since some of the numbers agreed with mine.
>>
>>
>> https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20160425-how-a-giant-space-umbrella-could-stop-global-warming
>>
>>
>>
>> * On closer look, I saw that the author did not suggest some of my
>> solutions to problems mentioned.*
>>
>> *1.  Meulenberg, A. and Karthik Balaji P.S., “The LEO Archipelago: A
>> System of Earth-Rings for Communications, Mass-Transport to Space, Solar
>> Power, and Control of Global Warming <http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.4043>,”
>> Acta Astronautica 68 (2011), iss. 11-12 Jun 2011 pp. 1931-1946,
>> doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2010.12.002 arXiv:1009.4043v1
>> <http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.4043v1>.*
>>
>>
>> *2.  Meulenberg, A. and Wan, T., C., “LEO-Ring-Based Communications
>> Network,” Proceedings of Space, Propulsion & Energy Sciences International
>> Forum (SPESIF-11, March 15-17, 2011), Physics Procedia
>> <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/18753892>, Volume 20
>> <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_hubEid=1-s2.0-S1875389211X00123&_cid=277348&_pubType=JL&view=c&_auth=y&_acct=C12438&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10404588&md5=947de3420691c5f1f0035a2a52ef0f5e>,
>> 2011, Pages 232-241, edited by Glen A. Robertson.3.  Meulenberg, A. and
>> Poston, T., “Sling-on-a-Ring: Structural elements for a Space Elevator to
>> LEO,” Proc. of SPESIF-11, March 15-17, 2011, Physics Procedia
>> <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/18753892> Volume 20
>> <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_hubEid=1-s2.0-S1875389211X00123&_cid=277348&_pubType=JL&view=c&_auth=y&_acct=C12438&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10404588&md5=947de3420691c5f1f0035a2a52ef0f5e>,
>> 2011, pp 222-231, Space, Propulsion & Energy Sciences International Forum
>> edited by Glen A. Robertson.*
>> *4. A. Meulenberg, R. Suresh, S. Ramanathan, "LEO-based optical/microwave
>> terrestrial communications," Presented at the 59th International
>> Astronautical Congress, Glasgow, Scotland, (2008). IAC-08-B2.5.2 Available
>> from:
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46587815_Leo-Based_OpticalMicrowave_Terrestrial_Communications
>> <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46587815_Leo-Based_OpticalMicrowave_Terrestrial_Communications>*
>> These papers provide a path to space that would not only pay for itself;
>> but, it would be a major profit source. Had these ideas been implemented a
>> decade ago, we would now  have relatively cheap transport to space and a
>> means of major shipping to and from space that would not blow a growing
>> hole in the ozone layer.
>>
>> Andrew
&

Re: [Vo]:Reversing global warming and removing carbon from the atmosphere with cold fusion

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Dear Jed,

You included this link, which I thought might have been referring to my
papers since some of the numbers agreed with mine.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20160425-how-a-giant-space-umbrella-could-stop-global-warming



* On closer look, I saw that the author did not suggest some of my
solutions to problems mentioned.*

*1.  Meulenberg, A. and Karthik Balaji P.S., “The LEO Archipelago: A
System of Earth-Rings for Communications, Mass-Transport to Space, Solar
Power, and Control of Global Warming ,”
Acta Astronautica 68 (2011), iss. 11-12 Jun 2011 pp. 1931-1946,
doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2010.12.002 arXiv:1009.4043v1
.*


*2.  Meulenberg, A. and Wan, T., C., “LEO-Ring-Based Communications
Network,” Proceedings of Space, Propulsion & Energy Sciences International
Forum (SPESIF-11, March 15-17, 2011), Physics Procedia
, Volume 20
,
2011, Pages 232-241, edited by Glen A. Robertson.3.  Meulenberg, A. and
Poston, T., “Sling-on-a-Ring: Structural elements for a Space Elevator to
LEO,” Proc. of SPESIF-11, March 15-17, 2011, Physics Procedia
 Volume 20
,
2011, pp 222-231, Space, Propulsion & Energy Sciences International Forum
edited by Glen A. Robertson.*
*4. A. Meulenberg, R. Suresh, S. Ramanathan, "LEO-based optical/microwave
terrestrial communications," Presented at the 59th International
Astronautical Congress, Glasgow, Scotland, (2008). IAC-08-B2.5.2 Available
from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46587815_Leo-Based_OpticalMicrowave_Terrestrial_Communications
*
These papers provide a path to space that would not only pay for itself;
but, it would be a major profit source. Had these ideas been implemented a
decade ago, we would now  have relatively cheap transport to space and a
means of major shipping to and from space that would not blow a growing
hole in the ozone layer.

Andrew
_ _ _ _


On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 9:39 AM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> I have discussed these topics here from time to time. I am preparing a
> talk on them. I propose to stop global warming using cold fusion in two
> steps:
>
>1. Stop emitting carbon dioxide by using cold fusion energy.
>2. Remove excess carbon from the atmosphere by growing billions of
>trees. When they are old, cut them down and bury them underground in
>abandoned open-pit coal mines.
>
> Item 2, reforestation to sequester carbon, has been suggested by many
> experts. I have taken their ideas and shown how the project can be enhanced
> with cold fusion.
>
> I cannot fit the following into the talk, but here are three interesting
> things I have learned in the last few years.
>
>
> 1. The experts do not agree how much carbon this could be removed from the
> atmosphere with this method. The experts also do not agree whether
> old-growth forests continue to sequester carbon or not. Some say
> that leaves on large, mature trees sequester a great deal of carbon. Others
> disagree. Quote:
>
> “[W]hether carbon accumulation continues or peaks when net additional wood
> growth is minimal (in “old-growth” forests) is disputed.”
>
> - Gorte, R.W., *U.S. Tree Planting for Carbon Sequestation*. 2009, U.S.
> Congress: Congressional Research Service.
>
>
> Here are some recent articles about carbon sequestration by reforestation.
> I have highlighted some disagreements among experts, and some aspects of
> the project that cold fusion would enhance.
>
> Reforest Action, Contribute to the Global Carbon Neutrality . . . by
> Funding the creation and preservation of Forests,
> https://www.reforestaction.com/en/contribution-climate, 19 million trees
> planted
>
> University of Aukland, Can reforestation help reverse the extinction
> crisis?
> https://www.thebigq.org/2019/06/12/can-reforestation-help-reverse-the-extinction-crisis
>
> Congressional Research Service, U.S. Tree Planting for Carbon
> Sequestration, https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R40562.pdf
>
> Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Planting trees to mitigate
> climate change: Policy incentives could lead to increased carbon
> sequestration, https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/61873
>
> YOUNG TREES ARE BETTER!
>
> World Resources Institute, Young Forests Capture Carbon Quicker than
> Previously Thought,
> https://www.wri.org/insights/young-forests-ca

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]: ​small hydrogen

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Jurg,

You state "In SOP we show that the electron is a resonance of the proton."
Since I believe that the proton is composed of relativistic leptons and
leptons of EM fields (expressed as photons?), you have presented something
that will take me time to examine. I hope to do so - eventually.

Andrew
_ _ _

On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 5:22 PM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> Andrew
>
>
> Just one thing:
>
> I assume that you mean the atom (including the bound electron) is neutral.
> If you mean that the bound electron (in its interaction with the nuclear
> Coulomb field) is uncharged EM field only, then this would be one of our
> incompatible assumptions. However, I am certainly looking at the
> interaction of its spin component and the electron orbit about a proton as
> a possible source of such fusion in the neutron. So we may not be that far
> apart.
>
>
> In SOP we show that the electron is a resonance of the proton. In fact we
> can derive the electron mass directly from the proton structure and also
> the electron g-factor can be derived from the proton mass metric. The later
> is very astonishing as it delivers a polygon of order 3 as a solution. If I
> add the Mills-Metric (2:2) for proper space time then the precision is as
> good as the measurement (12 digits  done in Maple).
>
> All nuclear flux is mutually bound by topological charge. As the electron
> gets added to the proton the flux "binding charge" is a joint production.
> As you may note, there cannot be opposite charge among two different EM
> flux topology as the EM mass binds (Lorenz force) not the charge. I know it
> will take time to reset your brain to "nucleus internal view" as it is the
> exact opposite we know from external EM theory.
>
> So not charge-charge defines the force  - EM bound by charge is the force.
> And never forget. A solution only works on a stable minimal Lagrangian
> surface what a (2,3) sphere never can be.
>
> It's all about thinking about the proper situation. It took me at least a
> year to understand it or even 3 years from the beginning - but I had to
> find everything. You can take the solution and start to reason about it.
> There is no doubt that the core of SOP will define the next level of basic
> physics.
>
> J.W.
>
>
> On 29.04.2022 05:38, Andrew Meulenberg wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 3:15 PM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:
>
>> Andrew,
>>
>> I started to dig deeper the last few months and it became clear that most
>> of the classic physics approaches are Kindergarten level physics based on
>> wrong understanding of basic physics rules.
>> On 25.04.2022 17:53, Andrew Meulenberg wrote:
>>
>> Jurg,
>>
>> Thank you for the comments. It helps us to understand the reasons behind
>> rejection of the concept of deep-orbit electrons.
>>
>> Comments below
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 9:25 AM Jürg Wyttenbach 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Andrew,
>>>
>>> I could give you a very long list. First problem: *The Dirac equation
>>> itself is only working for fields and never for mass. *
>>>
>> Do you have a source for this comment? I'm not sure that I understand
>> it. Perhaps Jean-Luc, as an applied mathematician, could address the
>> point.
>>
>> For me all mass is EM mass. But dense EM mass has a different topology
>> than EM mass from radiation fields.
>>
> I agree with the words. We'll see about the specifics.
>
>> The Dirac equation has been formulated based on the believe that you can
>> convert e+/- into energy aka waves. But the Dirac equation describes static
>> fields only and EM mass is equivalent only for radiation fields. So you
>> cannot connect the 2 different forms of mass inside one equation.
>>
> A good thought; but, I believe, still to be determined.
>
>> The other problem is that also the symmetric Bra-Ket operator does not
>> help as e+/- almost never decay into 2 photons of the same mass. The 511keV
>> photon is a very rare exception <<<<0.01%. So all Dirac/QED formalism used
>> is pretty unphysical where physical means as seen in experiments.
>>
> I've seen too many spectra with 511 keV peaks from annihilation radiation
> to believe your statement unless you are talking 511.00 keV.
>
>> Radiation fields do 2 rotations, where as mass does 3 (electron) or 5
>> proton. So any equation with one side E other mc depends on the location
>> (field, radiation field, dense mass e/p) used.
>>
> These rotations are from your model(s).  They may or may not be
> consistent with other models or reality.
>
>>
>

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]: ​small hydrogen

[Andrew Meulenberg]

On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 3:15 PM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> Andrew,
>
> I started to dig deeper the last few months and it became clear that most
> of the classic physics approaches are Kindergarten level physics based on
> wrong understanding of basic physics rules.
> On 25.04.2022 17:53, Andrew Meulenberg wrote:
>
> Jurg,
>
> Thank you for the comments. It helps us to understand the reasons behind
> rejection of the concept of deep-orbit electrons.
>
> Comments below
>
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 9:25 AM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:
>
>> Andrew,
>>
>> I could give you a very long list. First problem: *The Dirac equation
>> itself is only working for fields and never for mass. *
>>
> Do you have a source for this comment? I'm not sure that I understand it.
> Perhaps Jean-Luc, as an applied mathematician, could address the point.
>
> For me all mass is EM mass. But dense EM mass has a different topology
> than EM mass from radiation fields.
>
I agree with the words. We'll see about the specifics.

> The Dirac equation has been formulated based on the believe that you can
> convert e+/- into energy aka waves. But the Dirac equation describes static
> fields only and EM mass is equivalent only for radiation fields. So you
> cannot connect the 2 different forms of mass inside one equation.
>
A good thought; but, I believe, still to be determined.

> The other problem is that also the symmetric Bra-Ket operator does not
> help as e+/- almost never decay into 2 photons of the same mass. The 511keV
> photon is a very rare exception <<<<0.01%. So all Dirac/QED formalism used
> is pretty unphysical where physical means as seen in experiments.
>
I've seen too many spectra with 511 keV peaks from annihilation radiation
to believe your statement unless you are talking 511.00 keV.

> Radiation fields do 2 rotations, where as mass does 3 (electron) or 5
> proton. So any equation with one side E other mc depends on the location
> (field, radiation field, dense mass e/p) used.
>
These rotations are from your model(s).  They may or may not be consistent
with other models or reality.

>
> From my view, it doesn't make sense. I consider the electron to be a
> bound photon (and a fermion), so it is both field and has mass. Thus,
> Dirac pertains.
>
> This makes sense. But if the electrons is a bound photon you can only use
> halve of the coulomb gauge as there is no charge potential. But as said the
> bound electron makes 3 - not uniform rotations = 3 waves what is not
> compatible with the solution for the Dirac equation.
>
Charge is a directional *E*-field. Photons are also composed of directional
fields. When appropriately bound and twisted, the photon field can be
uniquely inwardly and outwardly directed. The inward-directed field is
concentrated and becomes your "dense EM mass." An outward-directed field
has reduced field density outside the bound photon and is a "stable" field,
but would still correspond to your "EM mass from radiation fields". The
lepton charge is determined by whether the *E*-field is directed in or out.
Charge conservation and the means of forming it depends on equal splitting
of the photon fields into lepton pairs with net zero charge.

This is close to my model of the photon/lepton picture:
(PDF) A new linear theory of light and matter - ResearchGate
<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333976356_A_new_linear_theory_of_light_and_matter>
Note that the two leptons are both a torus.

> The inclusion of the relativistic mass simply is an error made by a
>> mathematician with no clue of physics.
>>
>> The Einstein equation (E=mc^2) has been guessed  from the Poincaré
>> equation dm= E/c2. But Einstein did misunderstand this (Poincaré)
>> conclusion as it only works for radiation fields not for static fields. So
>> the Einstein and later the Dirac equation are plain nonsense. There are
>> other more severe reasons why the Einstein equation fails. I'm just
>> finishing a paper about this.
>>
> I would be interested in your paper even tho I believe we may be starting
> with incompatible assumptions for our models.
>
> Do you consider standing waves to be radiation or static fields? Are bound
> fields necessarily "static"? I consider photons to be self-bound fields
> (solitons) that are propagating at the speed of light. However, as such,
> they are emitted radiation, not radiating fields. (I have trouble simply
> expressing the difference between emission and radiation of field energy.)
>
>
> A bound "standing wave" is EM mass. It's not even a wave as the mass orbit
> is following the Clifford torus (CT) and only the projection into real
> space makes

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]: ​small hydrogen

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Jurg,

Thank you for the comments. It helps us to understand the reasons behind
rejection of the concept of deep-orbit electrons.

Comments below

On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 9:25 AM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> Andrew,
>
> I could give you a very long list. First problem: *The Dirac equation
> itself is only working for fields and never for mass. *
>
Do you have a source for this comment? I'm not sure that I understand it.
Perhaps Jean-Luc, as an applied mathematician, could address the point.

>From my view, it doesn't make sense. I consider the electron to be a bound
photon (and a fermion), so it is both field and has mass. Thus, Dirac
pertains.

> The inclusion of the relativistic mass simply is an error made by a
> mathematician with no clue of physics.
>
> The Einstein equation (E=mc^2) has been guessed  from the Poincaré
> equation dm= E/c2. But Einstein did misunderstand this (Poincaré)
> conclusion as it only works for radiation fields not for static fields. So
> the Einstein and later the Dirac equation are plain nonsense. There are
> other more severe reasons why the Einstein equation fails. I'm just
> finishing a paper about this.
>
I would be interested in your paper even tho I believe we may be starting
with incompatible assumptions for our models.

Do you consider standing waves to be radiation or static fields? Are bound
fields necessarily "static"? I consider photons to be self-bound fields
(solitons) that are propagating at the speed of light. However, as such,
they are emitted radiation, not radiating fields. (I have trouble simply
expressing the difference between emission and radiation of field energy.)

> The other problem with deep orbits is the missing force equation that
> should define the limit of such an orbit.
>
The Dirac equation does not address the nucleus beyond a point charge. We
have been exploring the effects of the different potentials from, and
interactions with, the nucleus. These are important; but, so far, we have
not found anything to change more than the energies of the deep orbit. I,
at least, am finding some insight and, I hope, some physical understanding
of the situation.

> Further a bound electron is neutral and behaves as EM mass = waves. So
> beyond the Bohr radius you cannot use the Coulomb formula as an orbit
> equivalent.
>
I assume that you mean the atom (including the bound electron) is neutral.
If you mean that the bound electron (in its interaction with the nuclear
Coulomb field) is uncharged EM field only, then this would be one of our
incompatible assumptions. However, I am certainly looking at the
interaction of its spin component and the electron orbit about a proton as
a possible source of such fusion in the neutron. So we may not be that far
apart.

Feynman expressed the Coulomb potential as valid up to the nuclear region.
In his elementary lectures on the H atom, he did not directly mention the
relativistic aspects of it.

> Real physics is not defined by mathematical fantasies. Look at SOP (SO(4)
> physics). There is show the simple (all 10 digits exact) solution for the
> e-p basic orbit energy. I also show the nature and exact energy of the
> H*-H* p-p bond. All this is based on magnetic mass resonance energies.
>
I am too old and too slow in my mathematics to go thru your SOP model.
Nevertheless, I *am* interested in magnetic and resonance effects. However,
since I agree with the statement that "magnetic fields are just
relativistic effects of electrodynamics", I am not sure that I would find a
major difference from the path I am pursuing.

> Initially I too liked the idea of deep orbits, but then I did understand
> that charge/Coulomb is just a secondary effect of magnetic mass and a basic
> solution can never be based on it.
>
I am appreciative of your ability to do the math and of finding important
connections. I don't presently understand your statement about not basing a
solution on the magnetic "mass". I assume that, if I had the time and
capability of properly understanding your model I would see your reasoning.

Andrew
_ _ _

> J.W.
>
>
> On 25.04.2022 16:02, Andrew Meulenberg wrote:
>
> Jurg,
>
> I would be interested in what physical laws you think are violated by the
> deep-orbit electrons. Without the Dirac equation's "anomalous orbit"
> results, I don't think that we would have looked for the relativistic
> effects that make the deep orbits (and nuclear forces?) possible.
>
> Andrew
> _ _ _
>
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 6:18 PM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:
>
>> I just want to remind some folks here that H*-H*, the only existing from
>> of dense hydrogen (besides D*-D*) has been measured by multiple methods by
>> Randal Mills, now some 3 years ago. Also Holmlid tried to measure the H*H*
>> bond energy 

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]: ​small hydrogen

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Jurg,

I would be interested in what physical laws you think are violated by the
deep-orbit electrons. Without the Dirac equation's "anomalous orbit"
results, I don't think that we would have looked for the relativistic
effects that make the deep orbits (and nuclear forces?) possible.

Andrew
_ _ _

On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 6:18 PM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> I just want to remind some folks here that H*-H*, the only existing from
> of dense hydrogen (besides D*-D*) has been measured by multiple methods by
> Randal Mills, now some 3 years ago. Also Holmlid tried to measure the H*H*
> bond energy but he did work with clusters of H* that suffer from multiple
> bonds.
>
> The deep orbit models from Vavra, Meulenberg or others are just
> mathematical fantasies, that violate basic physical laws. It's not
> mathematics e.g. the Dirac equation that defines physics - its the other
> way round physics defines the math that must fit.
>
>
> So if you are interested in real physics check out R.Mills paper or
> Holmlid.
>
>
> (R.MILLS, Brilliant Light Power Shareholder_Meeting_040319 ;
> BRLP_Analytical_Presentation_060419.pdf, R.Mills, p.108)
>
> J.W.
>
>
> On 23.04.2022 21:22, Jones Beene wrote:
>
>
> On the possibility of "dense helium" - shall we call it the "alpharino" ?
>
> Helium, unlike hydrogen, will not diffuse through metals - so long as the
> metal is nonporous. The first step in densification is (probably)
> diffusion... but that problem may not be the end-of-story.
>
> Raney nickel for instance is porous enough to pass helium and is also is
> catalytic - as in the hydrino world of Randell Mills and his Rydberg
> values. If Va'vra is right about helium shrinkage then a few possibilities
> are opened up in the search for how that feat can be accomplished.
>
> An interesting experiment would simply look for anomalous heat as helium
> is pumped through a Raney nickel membrane.
>
>
>
> HLV wrote:
>
> A simple argument that small hydrogen may exist
>
> Physics Letters B Volume 794, 10 July 2019, Pages 130-134
>
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269319303624
>
>
> Thanks for posting this. One curious observation is that there are a few
> other atoms besides hydrogen which may 'densify' : Presumably  the dense
> version would provide anomalous heat.
>
> Quote "Our calculation also shows that other fully ionized “small-*Z*
> atoms” can form small-radius atoms... This would create atoms, where one
> electron is trapped on a small radius, effectively shielding one proton
> charge of  the nucleus,.."
>
> Comment/question: Doesn't this finding open up the possibility for
> extracting anomalous heat from Helium?
>
> There could be secondary advantages to using Helium over H - due to
> inertness leading to ability to reuse the gas over and over ...
>
> Is there any indication of a catalyst for forming dense helium ??
>
>
>
> I don't know, but I have begun to wonder if frigorific radiation could
> play a role in forming such atoms.
> Also, for atoms below the ground state, I propose the term depressed atom.
> This would compliment the term excited atom for atoms above the ground
> state.
>
> Harry
>
> --
> Jürg Wyttenbach
> Bifangstr. 22
> 8910 Affoltern am Albis
>
> +41 44 760 14 18
> +41 79 246 36 06
>
>

Re: [Vo]:OT: Why Chernobyl ?

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Excellent talk and pertains to the present as well.

On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 7:34 AM  wrote:

> Jurg,
>
>
>
> You might watch this professor of international affairs who is very
> learned about the Ukraine. https://youtu.be/JrMiSQAGOS4
>
>
>
> Russ
>
>
>
> *From:* Jürg Wyttenbach 
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 24, 2022 5:04 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:OT: Why Chernobyl ?
>
>
>
> Putin is obviously suffering from Chemotherapy!
>
>
>
> The videos from the most recent meetings did show that he has problems
> with walking/coordination. It also did fear infection.
>
> So the question is whether his brain is damaged or he just wants a revenge
> for all his failed politics like Maidan.
>
> Tschernobyl is an empty space thus an ideal protected basis. All reactors
> are shut since quite some time (2015).
>
> J.W.
>
> On 24.02.2022 22:52, bobcook39...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> It is u[ wind of Russia and Bellarus and a threat if it leaks into staging
> areas for the invas
>
>
>
> FRC
>
>
>
> *From: *Jones Beene 
> *Sent: *Thursday, February 24, 2022 1:38 PM
> *To: *vortex 
> *Subject: *[Vo]:OT: Why Chernobyl ?
>
>
>
> Many observers were surprised that one of the first Ukraine invasion
> targets for Russia was the cursed Chernobyl site.
>
>
>
> Why ?
>
>
>
> Given that the bottom line is going to be very costly for Putin - there
> must be a hidden agenda here.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Jürg Wyttenbach
>
> Bifangstr. 22
>
> 8910 Affoltern am Albis
>
>
>
> +41 44 760 14 18
>
> +41 79 246 36 06
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Electron Transition Atomic Mass Change Quantified

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Terry,

Thank you for the link.

It is obvious that, if an excited atom emits a photon, it will become
lighter. The ground state is lighter than an excited state. This new
technique might somehow be able to distinguish the mass-loss to the nucleus
alone rather than to the atom (ion) as a whole. Such an ability could
provide strong evidence for cold fusion mechanisms via deep-orbit electrons.

Andrew



On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 12:33 PM Terry Blanton  wrote:

> A new door to the quantum world has been opened: When an atom absorbs or
> releases energy via the quantum leap of an electron, it becomes heavier or
> lighter. This can be explained by Einstein's theory of relativity (E =
> mc2). However, the effect is minuscule for a single atom. Nevertheless, the
> team of Klaus Blaum and Sergey Eliseev at the Max Planck Institute for
> Nuclear Physics has successfully measured this infinitesimal change in the
> mass of individual atoms for the first time. In order to achieve this, they
> used the ultra-precise Pentatrap atomic balance at the Institute in
> Heidelberg. The team discovered a previously unobserved quantum state in
> rhenium, which could be interesting for future atomic clocks. Above all,
> this extremely sensitive atomic balance enables a better understanding of
> the complex quantum world of heavy atoms.
>
>
> https://phys.org/news/2020-05-successfully-infinitesimal-mass-individual-atoms.html
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Aetheric Science - Invitation to take part

[Andrew Meulenberg]

I was deliberately vague because that might have been your intention also.
If not, then:


   1. does it matter what kind of screen the image is created on?
  - vacuum tube gives an electrostatic charge that can be felt
  - laser print does too?
  - laptop screens may or may not produce charge effects; however,
 - image is predominantly white background and hands have heat
 sensors that are much more sensitive to changes in environment than to
 absolute values.
 - would inverted image (black background) produce similar effect,
 if one is observed.
 - etc.

2. hand motion:

   - how fast/slow?
   - prior testing of sensitivity:
  - like the eyes adapt to the light levels available, so does the
  various sensors in the hands.
  - with a little practice, one can "feel" the wind, or the change in
  air pressure on the fingertips as one moves the hand.
  - this could provide a positive for your test even if no image were
  present.


   - does hand occlude image or not?
   - does brisk rubbing of hands prior to test alter observed effects?
  - I have observed this to increase probability of another person
  sensing the direction of motion of your fingers above their palm
(even with
  their eyes closed).
   - does hand dominance (right or left) affect result?

3. eye motion

   - are you supposed to look at the image or the hand during the test?
   - does closing your eyes alter the effect if one is observed?

4 etc.

If the effect you are seeking is so robust that 50% of subjects respond
(independent of test conditions/instructions), then details may not be
important. While my initial trial did not sense anything, I am sure that I
could "tune" my system to respond to the motion even without the image or
the screen (and even with the eyes closed). Is it worth the trouble to
determine if the image has an effect (with eyes open and closed)?

AM
_ _ _

On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 9:12 PM Jonathan Berry  wrote:

> Your objection is also  inadequately specified.
>
> Do you mean my failing to mention that the energy could remain for some
> time after removal from the screen?
>
> Well, in that event, it has been remedied now, if the inadequacy is
> anything else I'm not sure what it might be, please clarify.
>
> Thanks.
>
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 2:41 PM Andrew Meulenberg 
> wrote:
>
>> The experiment is inadequately specified (unless the goal is to see the
>> number of people who will respond).
>>
>> AM
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 5:53 PM Jonathan Berry 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> TLDR:  Keep an open mind, open this image: https://ibb.co/S75gccz
>>> place tour hand to face the image for a minute as you move your hand in and
>>> out.  Sounds impossible but you might feel something, please report back
>>> either way, this science holds unprecedented promise for mankind, there are
>>> numerous ways almost anyone can contribute to this.
>>>
>>>
>>> Back about 2013 I posted about this on Vortex, a few people tried and
>>> some of those could feel the energy from my images.
>>> Roughly 50% do.
>>> It is not in the mind, but a very real phenomena, though I am sure many
>>> here are too closed minded to even try it.
>>>
>>> Though it is hard to believe, yes even for me, what my work "proves" is
>>> that images on a screen, or printed up can affect a little understood field
>>> of energy or substance (the same kind of energy associated with Chi or
>>> Orgone).
>>> My work is incomparably stronger than it was back then.
>>>
>>> This science can be used for accelerated healing, I have already
>>> demonstrated that, but I came to this discovery from researching claims of
>>> Overunity (Free Energy) and Antigravity.
>>>
>>> This science has unlimited utility for mankind, though it's not going to
>>> achieve that as images, please understand that images are just "Active
>>> blueprints" which around 50% of people can feel.
>>> It is a proof of principle, great for testing out ideas to gain a better
>>> understanding of how this works at zero cost and rapid development.
>>>
>>> This is a project to make the word better, and there are things anyone
>>> who wants to help this exciting and promising project come to fruition.
>>>
>>> Now, we are given to thinking images can't do anything, but images are
>>> patterns of light.
>>> Light can push matter (Solar sails) cut matter (Lasers) and even laser
>>> fusion fuses matter.
>>> Light is an electromagnetic stress on the medium of spa

Re: [Vo]:Aetheric Science - Invitation to take part

[Andrew Meulenberg]

The experiment is inadequately specified (unless the goal is to see the
number of people who will respond).

AM

On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 5:53 PM Jonathan Berry  wrote:

> TLDR:  Keep an open mind, open this image: https://ibb.co/S75gccz  place
> tour hand to face the image for a minute as you move your hand in and out.
> Sounds impossible but you might feel something, please report back either
> way, this science holds unprecedented promise for mankind, there are
> numerous ways almost anyone can contribute to this.
>
>
> Back about 2013 I posted about this on Vortex, a few people tried and some
> of those could feel the energy from my images.
> Roughly 50% do.
> It is not in the mind, but a very real phenomena, though I am sure many
> here are too closed minded to even try it.
>
> Though it is hard to believe, yes even for me, what my work "proves" is
> that images on a screen, or printed up can affect a little understood field
> of energy or substance (the same kind of energy associated with Chi or
> Orgone).
> My work is incomparably stronger than it was back then.
>
> This science can be used for accelerated healing, I have already
> demonstrated that, but I came to this discovery from researching claims of
> Overunity (Free Energy) and Antigravity.
>
> This science has unlimited utility for mankind, though it's not going to
> achieve that as images, please understand that images are just "Active
> blueprints" which around 50% of people can feel.
> It is a proof of principle, great for testing out ideas to gain a better
> understanding of how this works at zero cost and rapid development.
>
> This is a project to make the word better, and there are things anyone who
> wants to help this exciting and promising project come to fruition.
>
> Now, we are given to thinking images can't do anything, but images are
> patterns of light.
> Light can push matter (Solar sails) cut matter (Lasers) and even laser
> fusion fuses matter.
> Light is an electromagnetic stress on the medium of space, space on which
> electromagnetic fields are embedded, the electric permativity and magnetic
> permeability of space.
>
> In short this results in images being able to impress a pattern into the
> aether, and then aetheric energies flow through the stressed aether.
>
> About half of the recipients (though I doubt many will read even to this
> point) of this if they try it should be able to feel the energy from the
> images.
>
>
> https://ibb.co/S75gccz
>
>
> To feel the energy, just place your palm infront of the image like you are
> making a stop sign, and move your hand towards and away, it might take a
> minute for the energy to become tangible.
> You might begin to feel warmth, cool, pressure, tingle, burning.
>
> The images I make now are at minimum many hundreds of times stronger than
> the images I was making back in 2013, though people insensitive to the
> energy don't always become sensitive to the energy with more, but it is
> more compelling.
>
> If you want to be a part of this project, one option is you could join
> this email group I just created: https://groups.io/g/AethericSciences
>
> And, if you want to help, there are endless ways to do so:
> Ideas
> Emotional support.
> Testing the device, does it make plants grow faster, can I use it to heal
> X, does it kill this virus or this bacteria, or make it grow based on
> changes/details.
> Working on the theory, the science of it
> Donating money or raising money
> Feedback of which images you feel (best), and what you feel, some also
> hear and see things.
> Donating resources, equipment, materials to test this.
> Suggesting contacts
> Managing some sort of organization to further this science.
> Promoting this technology
> Helping with strategy.
>
> The fact is that while this technology is weird, and at an early stage
> still, when it is embodied physically and given electrical and thermal and
> acoustic and kinetic and other energies which is can become mixed with, the
> world will have a technology which can open humanity to abundance, to the
> stars, and to environmental rejuvenation, to healing and much much more.
>
> This is huge, and the difference might come down to your support, this
> needs a pioneering spirit, so do you want to do something hugely positive
> for the world?  Make a massive difference?
>
> As long as you have the desire to contribute to this, there should be a
> way for you to do so.
>
> I hope I see all of you on my list:  https://groups.io/g/AethericSciences
>
> Regards,
> Jonathan Berry
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Superconducting Metal Hydride

[Andrew Meulenberg]

BOB,

Your 3 questions below can all be answered in the context of a "nuclear
electron".

On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 1:38 PM bobcook39...@hotmail.com <
bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Is a free neutrino a magnetic resonance or magnetic flux rotation?
>
>
>
> And why do neutrinos seem to emanate from nuclear/nucleon reactions?
>
>
>
>   And why is the parameter “angular momentum” only observed in discrete
> quanta or as a discrete differential values on an otherwise continuous
> scale of space and time?
>

   1. I propose that the neutrino is to beta decay as a photon is to
   atomic-electron orbit decay. However,
   2. the neutrino is EM plus mass (EMM?) oscillation from a bound
   relativistic electron. And, just as a photon does not have a fixed electric
   or magnetic field, I do not believe that neutrino mass is a fixed quantity.
   Since mass interaction is always attractive, a non-zero average mass might
   be measured, even if it oscillates equally along the time axis from matter
   to antimatter.
   3. Angular momentum is discreet for the same reason that electron orbits
   are quantized. Integration along a closed path in a conservative system has
   delta E = 0 (from one path to the next). The path closure depends on all
   degrees of freedom. The direction of a body's ang mom axis, which
   precesses, as a result of its motion (a relativistic effect that gives the
   deBroglie relation) and from its binding potential (providing a torque),
   must be cyclic (just as the body's position and momentum must be cyclic for
   a stable path) if path closure is to be achieved.

Item 3 is the classical basis for QM. Items 1 & 2 are not yet considered
for the neutrino in nuclear and QM physics.

Andrew
 _ _ _

> (Maybe space and time are also discrete quanta on an otherwise continuous
> scale of a classical geometric math abstraction from Newton on.)
>
>
>
> Axil’s  familiarity with SM may be able to answer these simple questions.
>
>
>
> IMHO Jurg’s SO(4) physics model with no universal time scale—only discrete
> differential frequencies associated with magnet flux rotation in distinct
> discrete volumes---may help explain the angular momentum quanta deduced
>  from experimental observations.
>
>
>
> As Russ George has noted, Jurg’s different nuclear magnetic resonance
> calculations stemming from the SO(4) Physics model of specific nuclear
> isotopes has borne fruit in designing good LENR fuel systems, subject to
> magnetic manipulations in a reactor.
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: a*Js ones Beene 
> *Sent: *Wednesday, February 5, 2020 9:16 AM
> *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject: *Re: [Vo]:Superconducting Metal Hydride
>
>
>
> Jürg
>
>
>
> This is very interesting assuming one can use this information to engineer
> proton disintegration with minimal input energy.
>
>
>
> To that end, it would seem necessary to know the resonance wavelengths in
> question (or frequency of the 1/7th and 1/9th waves). From that
> information, one could presumably try to maximally disrupt that resonance,
> possibly with a beat wave.
>
>
>
> Would this be the basic 53 MeV resonance you mention or is there a lower
> value which works?
>
>
>
> In the standard model, the scattering cross-section of the proton is
> around 1.5 fm (or 11 MeV) IIRC so there is a big gap there with available
> lasers.
>
>
>
> Presumably Holmlid is doing this kind of disintegration with a laser.
> Holmlid may have stumbled onto an effective wavelength which is not
> optimum. Who knows? Perhaps his laser somehow stimulates a much shorter
> wavelength.
>
>
>
> Jones
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:
>
>
>
> > The allowed torus resonances are 7 and 9 waves.  The proton base state
> has 9 waves The Holmlid proton split seen from the proton is: One out
> of 9 proton waves starts the an orthognal 1/7 resonances what leaves behind
> a (2x2)x(2x2) wave structure without the biding glue of the 3D/4D waves.
> This wave pack (4x4) is repulsive as seen in 8-Be. The basic energy 53MeV
> for the split is delivered from the resonant 8H* --> 2 4-He (or 8-Be)
> conversion.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:cannon balls and curling stones

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Harry,

I'm glad that people are reexamining models of the motion of trapped
"bodies" on the surface of a "sphere".

Your comment about the varying weight density of the stone may touch on the
explanation of the Goos-Hanchen and Imbert-Federov effects on total
internal reflection at the optical level.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goos%E2%80%93H%C3%A4nchen_effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imbert%E2%80%93Fedorov_effect
I consider these effects to be important in the total-internal-reflection,
bound-photon, model of the electron.

Andrew
_ _ _

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 8:36 PM H LV  wrote:

> Andrew,
>
> Andrew,
>
> This is amazing. I have been pondering what puts the curl into a curling
> stone for over 15 years and this week my intuition has been bolstered by
> letting the entire surface of a planet be a curling rink and reading about
> the work of Eötvös. The physics of curling is a controversial area of
> physics with competing theories. However, I don't think anyone has
> considered what effect the rotation of the planet might have on the weight
> of the stones as they move.
>
> I don't know about GR but some interesting things would happen if the disc
> also spins as it slides over the surface like a curling stone on ice.
> The weight-density of the disk will vary around it even if it is of
> uniform mass-density. This because the contact velocity also varies around
> the stone do to combination of its orbital and spin motion. If the surface
> is frictionless but supple (not perfectly rigid) the reactionary force
> around the disk will vary and be a maximum where the weight density is a
> maximum which will result in a orbit that isn't a great circle.
> Alternatively if the surface is perfectly rigid but does have friction this
> could generate some non-circle paths as well before the disk comes to rest.
>
> Harry
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 2:06 PM Andrew Meulenberg 
> wrote:
>
>> Harry,
>>
>> You are touching on an important area that I am also contemplating. Your
>> frictionless, smooth, planet provides a constraint to the motion of a disk
>> on its surface. It is a real (physical) constraint, independent of frame of
>> reference and disk velocity. What about the nuclear hard core or the
>> centrifugal force?  The centrifugal force is frame dependent and only
>> provides a virtual potential. I don't know if the nuclear hard core has
>> been adequately defined yet.
>>
>> However, if your disk is traveling fast enough to not touch the surface
>> and then slows down just enough to touch the surface, then its interaction
>> with a "weight-measuring" device would indicate it to have no weight prior
>> to touch down and a very small weight afterward. In GR, a small deviation
>> from a geodesic (where "weight" would be zero) would result in a small
>> restoring force. Thus, as the disk slows down, its geodesic changes. If the
>> planet surface prevents the alteration of the disk's path to follow the
>> changing geodesic, then it experiences a slight force from the attempt to
>> alter the path to get the disk back to its geodesic. This small force on a
>> measuring device would certainly not correspond to the weight of the disk
>> if it were stationary on the surface.
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 12:01 PM H LV  wrote:
>>
>>> I don`t think it matters if the planet is rotating since the surface is
>>> frictionless.
>>>
>>> Of course measuring a change of weight in the real  world that is
>>> exclusively due to the rotation of earth is complicated by many variables.
>>> The link you provided on the reactive centrifugal force could be one of
>>> those variables as well as the coriolis force. If a spring balance is used
>>> to measure weight, wouldn't the length of an unloaded spring be affected by
>>> the rotation? If so they could give the impression of weight change when
>>> the spring is loaded.
>>>
>>> Harry
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 8:19 AM Andrew Meulenberg 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Harry,
>>>>
>>>> For your ice covered planet, you may need to indicate if it is rotating
>>>> or not and then, depending on your frame of reference, address Coriolis
>>>> forces.
>>>>
>>>> This link addresses the weight at poles vs that at the equator.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_force#Weight_of_an_object_at_the_poles_and_on_the_equator
>>>>
>>>> T

Re: [Vo]:cannon balls and curling stones

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Harry,

You are touching on an important area that I am also contemplating. Your
frictionless, smooth, planet provides a constraint to the motion of a disk
on its surface. It is a real (physical) constraint, independent of frame of
reference and disk velocity. What about the nuclear hard core or the
centrifugal force?  The centrifugal force is frame dependent and only
provides a virtual potential. I don't know if the nuclear hard core has
been adequately defined yet.

However, if your disk is traveling fast enough to not touch the surface and
then slows down just enough to touch the surface, then its interaction with
a "weight-measuring" device would indicate it to have no weight prior to
touch down and a very small weight afterward. In GR, a small deviation from
a geodesic (where "weight" would be zero) would result in a small restoring
force. Thus, as the disk slows down, its geodesic changes. If the planet
surface prevents the alteration of the disk's path to follow the changing
geodesic, then it experiences a slight force from the attempt to alter the
path to get the disk back to its geodesic. This small force on a measuring
device would certainly not correspond to the weight of the disk if it were
stationary on the surface.

Andrew


On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 12:01 PM H LV  wrote:

> I don`t think it matters if the planet is rotating since the surface is
> frictionless.
>
> Of course measuring a change of weight in the real  world that is
> exclusively due to the rotation of earth is complicated by many variables.
> The link you provided on the reactive centrifugal force could be one of
> those variables as well as the coriolis force. If a spring balance is used
> to measure weight, wouldn't the length of an unloaded spring be affected by
> the rotation? If so they could give the impression of weight change when
> the spring is loaded.
>
> Harry
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 8:19 AM Andrew Meulenberg 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Harry,
>>
>> For your ice covered planet, you may need to indicate if it is rotating
>> or not and then, depending on your frame of reference, address Coriolis
>> forces.
>>
>> This link addresses the weight at poles vs that at the equator.
>>
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_force#Weight_of_an_object_at_the_poles_and_on_the_equator
>>
>> The difference between* centrifugal force* vs the *reactive* centrifugal
>> force[41]
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_force#cite_note-Bowser-41>[42]
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_force#cite_note-Angelo-42> is
>> interesting.
>>
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_centrifugal_force#Difference_from_centrifugal_pseudoforce
>>
>> Andrew
>> _ __ _
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 11:30 PM H LV  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 4:46 PM H LV  wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 12:21 PM H LV  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 10:15 AM H LV  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> This is an illustration from Newton's Principia of his famous cannon
>>>>>> thought experiment. It shows how a cannonball fired horizontally from a
>>>>>> mountain top (assuming no air resistance) will orbit the Earth without
>>>>>> falling to the ground if it is fired with sufficient speed.
>>>>>> https://imgur.com/gallery/dzSLWaa
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now imagine an ice covered planet which is perfectly smooth, with no
>>>>>> mountains or valleys. On the surface rests a curling stone of a given
>>>>>> _weight_. If the curling stone is propelled horizontally with sufficient
>>>>>> speed it will orbit the planet while sliding over the surface. At this
>>>>>> velocity it will be in free fall so its weight will be effectively zero.
>>>>>> The question is does the weight of the curling stone gradually increase 
>>>>>> as
>>>>>> the horizontal velocity gradually decreases or does the curling stone
>>>>>> resume its full weight for any velocity less than the orbital velocity?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Harry
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> To answer my own question... the classical prediction is the weight of
>>>>> the stone should increase, because the centrifugal force is decreasing in
>>>>> the frame of reference of the stone. However, if gravity in General
>>>>> Relativity is not a force then a correspo

Re: [Vo]:cannon balls and curling stones

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Harry,

For your ice covered planet, you may need to indicate if it is rotating or
not and then, depending on your frame of reference, address Coriolis
forces.

This link addresses the weight at poles vs that at the equator.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_force#Weight_of_an_object_at_the_poles_and_on_the_equator

The difference between* centrifugal force* vs the *reactive* centrifugal
force[41]
[42]
 is
interesting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_centrifugal_force#Difference_from_centrifugal_pseudoforce

Andrew
_ __ _

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 11:30 PM H LV  wrote:

>
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 4:46 PM H LV  wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 12:21 PM H LV  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 10:15 AM H LV  wrote:
>>>
 This is an illustration from Newton's Principia of his famous cannon
 thought experiment. It shows how a cannonball fired horizontally from a
 mountain top (assuming no air resistance) will orbit the Earth without
 falling to the ground if it is fired with sufficient speed.
 https://imgur.com/gallery/dzSLWaa

 Now imagine an ice covered planet which is perfectly smooth, with no
 mountains or valleys. On the surface rests a curling stone of a given
 _weight_. If the curling stone is propelled horizontally with sufficient
 speed it will orbit the planet while sliding over the surface. At this
 velocity it will be in free fall so its weight will be effectively zero.
 The question is does the weight of the curling stone gradually increase as
 the horizontal velocity gradually decreases or does the curling stone
 resume its full weight for any velocity less than the orbital velocity?

 Harry

>>>
>>> To answer my own question... the classical prediction is the weight of
>>> the stone should increase, because the centrifugal force is decreasing in
>>> the frame of reference of the stone. However, if gravity in General
>>> Relativity is not a force then a corresponding a centrifugal force does not
>>> arise. Therefore, if GR is true, the weight of the stone should jump to its
>>> full weight for any value less than the orbital speed. (Actually I think
>>> there is argument to be made that even Newtonian gravity is not a force and
>>> is just an acceleration).
>>> Harry
>>>
>>
>> Just a follow up. Since a body sitting at the equator is moving faster
>> than the same body near the pole it should weigh less due to the greater
>> centrifugal force caused by the Earth's rotation. Until  recently I don't
>> think anyone had tried to measure this predicted effect and it was just
>> taken for granted to be true. (There have been tests on the equivalence of
>> inertial mass and gravitational mass but this is a different test).
>> However arguments between Flat-Earthers and Anti-Flat earthers have
>> resulted in amateur empirical investigations of the matter. Flat Earther's
>> contend the weight should be constant since they hold the earth is flat and
>> does not rotate.  The results so far seem to be open to interpretation. I
>> am not a Flat- Earther but it is interersting how this fringe community has
>> turned it into an empirical question.
>>
>> Harry
>>
>
>
> So it seems Eotvos in the first decade of the 1900s used Earth's rotation
> and centrifugal force to explain observed differences in some weights on
> ships moving in opposite directions. Until now I was only familiar with his
> work on the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass in 1889. see
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%C3%B6tv%C3%B6s_effect
>

Re: [Vo]:Looking for feedback on gravity control experiment

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Thx Jed.  I did look closer and found I could read the book.

On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 3:14 PM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Andrew Meulenberg  wrote:
>
> I suspect that, like me few have bothered with Kindle readers.
>>
>
> Kindle readers are great! But you don't need one to read a Kindle book.
> You can read it with any browser on a PC, a Mac, Chromebook, etc.
>
> Amazon sells about half of all books in U.S. Amazon does not report what
> fraction of books are ebooks, but in overall market they are supposedly
> 20%. I expect Amazon sells more than 20% ebooks.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Looking for feedback on gravity control experiment

[Andrew Meulenberg]

I suspect that, like me few have bothered with Kindle readers.

On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 12:16 PM Frank Znidarsic  wrote:

> Only 10 free Kindle books were downloaded.  In the past a free sale would
> have generated a download of at least 20 or more Kindle books.  No relevant
> comments came from this group.  There is no interest in this line of work
> an interest in LENR has faded.
>
> Frank Znidarsic
>

Re: [Vo]:Looking for feedback on gravity control experiment

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Jurg,

I'm sorry that I do not have the time to look at your model (nor perhaps do
I even have the math capability). However, your mention of the "electron
perturbative mass" rang a bell. I look at the situation from a physical
view-point.

Every s-orbital atomic electron transits its nuclear region and is
relativistic during that time. During that time, its EM-field energy grows
greatly and alters its "shape". As such, it distorts space and alters the
electron's effective mass (and gravitational attraction). However, in that
process, it takes energy from the nucleus, which may be >95% relativistic
mass itself. Thus, while there is no net change in the energy of an atom,
there may be a change in the net-mass component.

This may be reflected in your equation below. (I hope to be able to look at
it more closely at some point.) You see that "gravitation is an EM *force*".
I would phrase it slightly differently. I would say that gravitation is an
EM *effect*, being associated with the *difference* between the
relativistic EM-field energies when different velocities are considered in
combination (e.g., those of the electron and of the nuclear components).
Without proof, I would attribute the differences to the non-linearity of
gamma. For a lepton, free in space, the difference would be between its net
velocity and the internal velocity associated with its spin component.

Andrew
_ _ _

On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 5:20 PM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> Gravity is mediated by the electron perturbative mass.
>
> The "gravity constant" can be exactly calculated from SO(4) physics form
> factors that are: The 4D dense mass radius, the Bohr radius, electron mass,
> proton mass, electron g-factor. The Bohr radius is the location of the
> "electron perturbative mass" (green part of formula) that mediates the
> force. No fudge factors are needed
>
> G = *m**e**c**2***(1-1/e**g**2**)*(rp4D3/a02 )*1FC'5/(2FC*mp)2
>
> 1FC is the weak force constant 2FC the electro strong force constant.
> 1FC'5 is the rest force proportional to any atom spinning in the world
> that couples to any other atom over the electrons. The power of 5 in 1FC'5
> is caused by the the virtual charge that holds all magnetic force together
> as soon as it deviates from the ideal Clifford torus orbit.
>
> From this you immediately see that gravitation is an EM force and caused
> by spinning EM mass.
>
> For shielding gravitation you must manipulate the electron perturbative
> mass, what is not as easy as people believe...
>
> J.W.
>
>
> Am 02.01.20 um 21:19 schrieb bobcook39...@hotmail.com:
>
> Gravity waves appear to travel at c associated with the velocity of
>
> EM waves.  Thus the parameters of space that influence the EM waves would
> also appear to be operative in the same way for gravity as a reasonable
> assumption.
>
>
>
> Recent gravity shield/thrust generation devices seem to be based on
> controlled magnetic fields.
>
>
> A recent technical paper from a Group in Romania suggests that gravity is
> the combined effect  of magnetic dipole fields at a distance (and close up
> as well.)  The magnetic dipoles of nucleons and all isotopes when
> considered in mass looks like gravity at a distance.  The sum of all
> magnetic dipoles that make up matter of a given mass (those of positrons,
> neutrinos and electrons to identify known primary particle) are the
> magnetic dipoles to consider in a “gravitating” mass.
>
>
>
> Screening a local magnetic dipole field may allow demonstration of the
> loss of “gravitation” between two laboratory masses that would otherwise be
> attracted, but are not so attracted because of the magnetic field shield.
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
>
> n
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail  for
> Windows 10
>
>
>
> *From: *Jacob Helvey 
> *Sent: *Saturday, December 28, 2019 2:43 PM
> *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject: *[Vo]:Looking for feedback on gravity control experiment
>
>
>
> I'm currently trying to conduct an experiment in-line with Frank
> Znidarsic's work in hopes to observe some anomalous gravitational behavior.
>
>
>
> It seems this group has some insight into this area of research. I would
> very much appreciate some feedback regarding the link below and would be
> happy to answer any questions regarding my approach.
>
>
>
> Jake
>
>
>
> https://www.frontiergravity.com/active-projects/
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jürg Wyttenbach
> Bifangstr.22
> 8910 Affoltern a.A.
> 044 760 14 18
> 079 246 36 06
>
>

Re: [Vo]:X17, UDH and a fifth force (or dark matter)

[Andrew Meulenberg]

While the presence of a ~17 MeV decay path, from excited 4He could explain
aspects of the D+D => 4He of CF by avoiding both the fragmentation and lack
of >20 MeV photons from this fusion, there are other problems with this
solution. The main problem is the lack of 511 keV annihilation radiation
from the positrons posited. An associated problem is the quantity of lepton
energy, required to produce the observed excess heat, would mean vast
quantities of the positrons to produce said radiation.

On the other hand, there are arguments for why such a decay path could be
possible for CF, if we consider the two ~100 MeV deep-orbit electrons
created in the fusing of the deuterium pair.

A better test of the X17 hypothesis might be the photo-excitation to the
first excited states of 4He. Present results of such work yield the
dominant proton + tritium fragmentation of those excitations. However, it
is unlikely that such experiments sought, or were even equipped to
selectively detect and identify, the energetic leptons proposed for the X17
model

Andrew
_ _ _
On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 9:56 AM Jones Beene  wrote:

> As fate would have it, the identity of a "fifth force" of nature is
> becoming closely tied to LENR and the findings of Holmlid about proton
> annihilation.
>
> Five years ago in Hungary, Attila Krasznahorkay at the Hungarian Inst.for
> Nuclear Research presented evidence for a previously undescribed light
> boson (17 MeV) - which is about 34 times heavier than the electron. This
> particle is similar to what Holmlid suggests are muons. Muons are 200 times
> heavier but there is some doubt about what Holmlid has found and it could
> be that there is a connection between the two.
>
> Here is the announcement which it should be noted was not subject to peer
> review.
>
>
> https://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-claim-a-they-ve-found-even-more-evidence-of-a-new-force-of-nature
>
> In short, the prior X17 finding was updated in a new context and is still
> being promoted as a related fifth force. BTW - Wiki now has an entry on
> the X17 particle.
>
> In the new work, the proposed (fifth) force (or particle) may better
> explain a known muon anomaly and also provide a dark matter candidate, so
> it seems that several disparate phenomena are being merged into a single
> line of research. Krasznahorkay has now observed the anomaly in helium
> atoms similar to what had been observed in beryllium-8, strengthening the
> case for the X17 particle's existence - and also stronger but not mentioned
> is a further cross-connection to cold fusion since Be-8 has for 25 years or
> more been proposed as the reaction pathway way to expalin the absence of a
> strong gamma in the P-F effect.
>
> The implications of the possible merger of the X17 particle and a fifth
> force and ultra dense hydrogen and dark matter into a single phenomenon
> would be astounding. It would answer so many questions, previously written
> off as "pathological science" that it is easy to get excited about this
> additional finding.
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Dense hydrogen may facilitate water splitting

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Jones,

You have raised an interesting point. In comparing the sub-atom-sized
hydrino with the nuclear-sized femto-H, we might see growth (to a
steady-state) of "compact" molecules and of heavier nuclei (via
nucleo-synthesis) in a non-stellar environment. I think that there is room
for both species to exist and to "hide" in the terrestrial environment.

Andrew

On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 9:32 AM JonesBeene  wrote:

>
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
> Windows 10
>
>
>
> *From: *Andrew Meulenberg 
>
>
>
>- I am presently writing a paper on the transition from a femto-H atom
>to a neutron (as a proton with an occupied deeper-electron orbit), so my
>responding to your comments has been useful in my thinking. Thank you.
>
>
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
> Another related topic to this is the ubiquitous nature of hydronium, and
> whether dense hydrogen can be a natural component of our oceans..
>
>
>
> At any given moment in all the worlds oceans, water is technically not H2O
> but instead  consists of a known percentage of hydronium, even though the
> pH of the ocean itself is alkaline. This should not be possible in theory
> since the alkalinity should cancel out the positive charge immediately.
>
>
>
> One wonders if Mills conception of “hydrino hydride” or a version of it -
> would explain this situation since hydronium in the form of a stable anion
> would be both dense and charged with greater than expected lifetime as an
> ion in solution. This also offers and explanation of where all the hydrinos
> (which are made in the solar corona and transported to earth via the solar
> wind) accumulate.
>
>
>
> Jones
>

Re: [Vo]:Dense hydrogen may facilitate water splitting

[Andrew Meulenberg]

 Bob,

Since I have been working on the deep-electron orbit model and its
consequences (e.g., femto-H and femto-molecules) for the last decade, most
of your questions have already been answered (see the links below - from
ICCF-21- and the references therein).
http://coldfusioncommunity.net/pdf/jcmns/v29/353_JCMNS-Vol29.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6zQXb-L7L8&t=136s

Your suggestion about dense water is clearly an interesting extension of
this work. However, the dense water would be only marginally denser since
the molecule formed with femto-H and 16O could act as a 18O halo nuclide
(not yet found, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_nucleus). The fact
that 17O and 18O are stable nuclei means that either halo nucleus
(femto-molecules) is less stable than the heavier isotopes.

A study of the individual halo nuclides and their decay modes (e.g.,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_boron#Boron-19 vs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_boron#Boron-8) can give
information about the nature of the femto-molecular bond formed between the
femto-H and a heavier nucleus.

I am presently writing a paper on the transition from a femto-H atom to a
neutron (as a proton with an occupied deeper-electron orbit), so my
responding to your comments has been useful in my thinking. Thank you.

Andrew

On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 8:11 PM bobcook39...@hotmail.com <
bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Dense hydrogen may react with some other elements to form useful dense
> compounds—maybe dense water.  That may be a problem for biological systems,
> however.  However it may be a good heat transfer medium with a high boiling
> point and a high triple point above that for light water.
>
>
>
> In the mid 60’s I remember an incident of the identification of dense
> water—that was the term used by the physics folks I worked with then-- and
> I didn’t think it was fake news.  The subject went dark shortly
> thereafter.
>
>
>
> If dense H can be accelerated by its magnetic moment—I assume it has
> one—then it may act more like a neutron at some energy and fuse at
> relatively low energies.  Dense D or T may even work to fuse at lower
> temperatures.
>
>
>
> I wonder if Mills has done the calculations for a D-heavy—D-heavy fusion?
> T-heavy may not have a decay mode with the close valence electron keeping
> the extra nuclear electrons in tact.  (This assumes the structure of the T
> isotope includes many electrons and positrons as proposed by P. Hatt and
> validated by high energy electron scattering experiments, analyzed by W.
> Stubbs.
>
>
>
> I assume he would call this duetrino fusion.  I would hope the temperature
> of a deutrino plasma would be high enough to avoid a run-away fusion
> reaction.
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
>
> *From: *Jones Beene 
> *Sent: *Sunday, December 22, 2019 6:42 AM
> *To: *vortex 
> *Subject: *[Vo]:Dense hydrogen may facilitate water splitting
>
>
>
> This water fuel development and another one similar to it - does not
> mention "dense hydrogen" - only efficient water splitting.
>
>
>
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-13415-8
>
>
>
> This technique is claimed to be the most efficient electrolysis/
> water-splitting cell yet discovered.
>
>
>
> The catalyst used - a mix of iron oxide and nickel are both associated
> with dense hydrogen - either the Mills effect of the Holmlid effect.
>
>
>
> Thus, there is a decent chance that in addition to normal splitting water
> - this technique involves the densification of some of the H2 gas as it
> evolves. No attempt is made to collect it, of course, since the mainstream
> does not accept the findings of Mills or Holmlid, so using the output gas
> itself as secondary catalyst  or excess energy source - was not considered.
>
>
>
> Given the future importance of hydrogen - even migrating to a possible
> "hydrogen economy" in the future - additional catalysis or energy derived
> from utilizing dense hydrogen should be looked at closer (under the
> assumption that UDH is now only an incidental or unplanned part of the
> process and not optimized).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

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

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Nigel,

About 3 decades ago, someone was proposing the use of diamonds as
appropriate platforms for neutrino emitters and detectors for a
"thru-the-earth" communications system. I believe that the model was based
on "large" coherent structures as you suggest.

Andrew

On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 8:26 AM Nigel Dyer  wrote:

> My hunch is that normally the interaction of neutrinos with dense mass is
> indeed next to zero but that the exception is where there are a large
> number of particles that interact with exch other such that they exchibit a
> macroscopc coherence.  This experiment appears to show one such example:
>
> https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0954-3899/40/5/055201/meta
>
> I beleive that there are others, where different forms of interactions
> result in different, but still effective as far as neutrino interactions
> are concerned, forms of coherence. Most of the matter in e.g. the earth is
> not in this state, so neutrinos pass almost straight through.
>
> Nigel
> On 07/08/2019 14:01, Jürg Wyttenbach wrote:
>
> We very well know from experiments that the interaction of neutrinos with
> dense mass is close to zero. If you now postulate the opposite you have
> also to show why the experiments are wrong.
>
> On the other side it is obvious why the standard model fails to describe
> the neutrino, because it still assumes that gravitational mass is different
> from EM mass, what is blatantly wrong.
>
>
> Jürg
>
>
>
> Am 07.08.19 um 05:09 schrieb 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
>> <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,
>>
>

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

[Andrew Meulenberg]

If my model of the neutrino is correct, then neutrinos have low probability
of interacting with non-relativistic charges. If my model of quarks is
correct, then they are composed of relativistic charges. Nevertheless.
there is still the problem of frequency differences between neutrinos and
the quark components, as well as the possibility that there are no
accessible excited states of the quark components.

Andrew
_ _ _

On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 9:01 AM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> We very well know from experiments that the interaction of neutrinos with
> dense mass is close to zero. If you now postulate the opposite you have
> also to show why the experiments are wrong.
>
> On the other side it is obvious why the standard model fails to describe
> the neutrino, because it still assumes that gravitational mass is different
> from EM mass, what is blatantly wrong.
>
>
> Jürg
>
>
>
> Am 07.08.19 um 05:09 schrieb 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
>> <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 pote

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
> <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 <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
> Windows 10
&g

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

[Andrew Meulenberg]

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 with emission of a
>
> gamma ray or particle to conserve angular momentum. If you want to avoid this,
>
> then you need to provide an actual physical mechanism by which the angular
>
> momentum is transferred to the lattice, and specifically what it is in the
>
> lattice that it couples to. Furthermore, what is it that makes this method
>
> preferable above the usual methods (e.g. gamma emission)?
>
>
>
> ANSWERS:
>
>
>
>1. A  coherent system is adiabatic system of energy, including local
>packets of energy—electrons positrons and neutrinos---that are coupled by a
>EM field that responds very quickly (less than 10e-30mseconds) to energy
>additions or losses by changing the space relation of the energy packets.
>A good example is a semi conductor crystal that absorbs an electron packet
>of energy and very quickly changes the allowable energy state of conduction
> electrons.  There is no apparent delay associated with the allowed energy
>state across the macroscopic rang of the semi conductor.  Systems which
>harbor phonic energy are coherent systems, since the lattice acts as a
>whole without any time dely.
>
>
>
> The energy of the coherent system is constrained by  small quanta of
> energy and angular momentum in accordance with Planck’s theory of quantized
> energy and quantized angular momentum.  In addition the coherent system
> will adjust the relative positions of energy packets to increase their
> relative motions (kinetic energies) and reduce their total potential energy
> increasing entropy per the second law of thermodynamics..
>
>
>
>1. As noted above the coherent system is coupled by EM
>fields—primarily magnetic fields that connect electron orbital angular
>momentum with nuclear angular momentum, including energy packet intrinsic
>spin  angular momentum which  reflects the magnetic moment associated with
>those packets of energy.
>
>
>
>1. There is no gamma emission within the coherent system—only
>instanteous changes of  angular momentum  and/or energy between between
>locations within the coherent system.  (Later in time adjacent coherent
>systems may conduct heat between them selves via radiant EM coupling or
>other coupling involving phonic energy changes of the original coherent
>system.  Too much phonic energy will destroy the lattice of the system in
>question.
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:This could be an indication of "dense hydrogen" from solarorigin

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Of course Dirac, Klein, and Gordon should head the list, since their
relativistic QM equations started much of this over 80 years ago. While
they were not snubbed, the deep-orbit electron level was certainly rejected
by the mainstream.

You should add Jean-Luc Paillet to the list since he is confirming and
improving the deep Dirac levels that Va'vra and Maly presented (along with
those of Klein and Gordon) to the CMNS community in 1993 - 1995.

Jon Naudts, in 2005, proposed the deep-electron orbit for CF based on the
Klein-Gordon (relativistic Schrodinger) equation for spinless particles.
Including spin (via the Dirac equations) only changed the binding energy of
these orbits by ~ 2 keV. Every decade since 1959 has someone publishing on
the deep-electron orbits of the Dirac and/or Klein-Gordon equations. Just
as regularly, the mainstream pushed the idea down to preserve the status
quo.

Schwinger was also "scorned" when he proposed that nuclear energy could be
shared with bound electrons since this could lead to deeper orbits and
fusion.
_ _ _

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:11 PM JonesBeene  wrote:

>
>
> How low can you go?
>
>
>
> Picometers are so passe’…
>
>
>
> The $64 question… what is the densest of the dense?
>
>
>
> Has anyone ever put together a table which lists the various theories of
> dense hydrogen and also lists the diameter of the densest species supported
> by the theory?
>
>
>
> This could be an opportune time to start such a table.
>
>
>
> Here are some names that come to find who have written specifically on
> dense hydrogen with size estimates. Please provide corrections and
> additions.
>
>
>
> It is fully realized that a few of these researchers have provided far
> more effort and insight than others, not to mention many more publications.
>
>
>
> But this is not a contest, yet it is intriguing to me that most of this is
> high quality work – yet still snubbed by the mainstream.
>
>
>
>
>
> Randell Mills
>
> A.O Barut
>
> Leif Holmlid
>
> Nabil Lawandy
>
> Jerry Vavra
>
> Yoshiaki Arata
>
> Friedwardt Winterberg
>
> Cerofolini
>
> Andrew Meulenberg
>
> F.J. Mayer
>
> George Miley
>
> Jacque Dufour
>
> Horace Heffner
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> Jürg Wyttenbach
>
>
>
> And others to be added///
>
>
>
> The next column would be the  smallest version of proton bound to an
> electron in picometers/femtometers.
>
>
>
> Other relevant columns should be added.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:This could be an indication of "dense hydrogen" from solar origin

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Jean-Luc Paillet and I are interested in this 2nd link “A simple argument
that small hydrogen may exist”

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269319303624,

because we think that 5 (out of 6) sections support our contention that
deep-orbit electrons are the theoretical basis for cold fusion. Its
author, Va’vra
at Stanford/SLAC, was one of two authors of two papers (refs 4 & 5 in the
link) that are the best on the topic of deep-orbit electrons. This most
recent paper (unlike refs 4 & 5) appears to have been done in a hurry,
because there are lapses in his arguments and development. We intend to
write a response, or 2nd paper, to this journal supporting his conclusions
and correcting and strengthening his arguments.


For those more interested in his astronomical speculations, I suggest
looking at his earlier papers in the arXiv:  (See abstracts in
https://arxiv.org/search/astro-ph?searchtype=author&query=Va%27vra%2C+J )


Andrew M.

_ _ _ _

On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 10:56 AM JonesBeene  wrote:

>
>
>
>
> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190606101831.htm
>
>
>
> Magnetism seen in Earth’s mantle attributed to iron oxide (hematite) in
> this study, but they did not consider another candidate.
>
>
>
> Given that hematite is a catalyst/storage medium in Holmlid’s work on the
> densification of hydrogen, there is the likelihood that the anomalous
> geological magnetism described in this article is related to hematite - but
> not alone – instead to it is hematite which is loaded with dense hydrogen.
>
>
>
> Dense hydrogen would be created in the solar corona and transported to
> earth in the solar wind. Mills has espoused this hypothesis. It would have
> an extremely high Curie point. Because of the high density and magnetism of
> this isomer of hydrogen, it should migrate and accumulate in the deep ocean
> trenches of Earth’s oceans over the millennia  and eventually attach to
> dissolved  iron (prevalence 3 PPB) and gradually sink into the mantle –
> thus providing the anomalous magnetic fields which are attributed to
> hematite alone.
>
>
>
> As for pinpointing the possible ways to validate this hypothesis, look for
> anomalous magnetism in lava or thermal vents in the ocean. This could also
> be a way to extract or mine UDH for commercial use.
>
>
>
> As mentioned else where there is a recent article from Va’vra at
> Stanford/SLAC  “A simple argument that small hydrogen may exist” which
> offers his perspective.
>
>
>
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269319303624
>
>
>
> The historical introduction for this species  is most interesting and not
> widely appreciated.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Planckian dissipation phenomenon

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Dear Jones,

I suspect that it will take a convergence of ideas to solve the CF problem.
I haven't the time, presently, to come up to speed on Jurg's model (I may
have to make the time at some point).

I was unaware that spintronics can increase the effective mass of
electrons. However, I suspect that is in the context of a lattice; if so,
such an increase would not be surprising. Just as charged particles are
trapped in the Van Allen belts by "mirroring" in the Earth's mag field
gradient, this could happen to conduction electrons within a lattice. This
would certainly add to the increase in effective mass from the E-field
barriers of the lattice.

Right now, I am toying with Jean-Luc Paillet's concept of ~100 MeV
relativistic electrons in deep orbits to act as muons and pions and a
potential source of nuclear forces. As a consequence of deep-orbit
interactions (e.g., spin-spin interaction between nucleons, quarks, and
electrons), we may be able to understand the additional SS interactions, if
a second such electron (or a positron) is present (as I suspect may be the
case in the structure of neutrons - or even quarks).

I would not be surprised if Holmlid's work (and spintronics) can contribute
to new (or, at least, modified) models of nuclear and atomic physics.

Andrew
_ _ _

On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 9:20 AM JonesBeene  wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From: *Andrew Meulenberg 
>
>
>- A possible weakness in the ICCF-14 model is the assumption that the
>increased effective mass of a lattice electron would be valid for
>atomic-hydrogen spacings (dimensions) below that of the lattice.
>
>
>
> Andrew,
>
>
>
> There is an interesting and possibly unplanned convergence of your
> thinking with that of Jürg Wyttenbach relative to electron effective mass
> and spin… which curiously also turns up at the basis of “spintronics”.
> Perhaps LENR will move in that direction. After all, the “effective mass”
> of electrons is a well studied detail in that context.
>
>
>
> In the case of Holmlid -- and taken to the extreme (far extreme) - the
> large change in electron "effective mass" which can be engineered in
> spintronics may point to the origin of what Holmlid detects as “muons”.
> After all, the strongest objection to his work is the actual annihilation
> of hydrogen, supposedly into muons.
>
>
>
> It may not be completely out of the question to suggest that he is somehow
> seeing the scattering of transitory remnants from massively increased
> (effective mass), rather than annihilation.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Planckian dissipation phenomenon

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Jones,

In answer to your question about the "known binding energy for spin-paired
electrons," KP Sinha and I have some theoretical papers that provide some
information that would support the application of spin-paired electrons to
CF. KP's early work on the pair includes published references to them and
KP coined the phrase for the pair as a local-charged boson (the Lochon)
that can be found in [K. P. Sinha, Infinite Energy 29, 54 (2000)]. An
extension of this model is in:

K. P. Sinha and A. Meulenberg, “A Model for Enhanced Fusion Reaction in a
Solid Matrix of Metal Deuterides,” Proceedings of the 14th International
Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF-14) 10-15 August 2008 Washington DC p.
633,   http://coldfusioncommunity.net/pdf/conf/ICCF-14/633_ICCF-14.pdf

These papers were prior to our deep-orbit electron models, but the concept
can still be useful in helping to get electrons into those deep orbits. A
possible weakness in the ICCF-14 model is the assumption that the increased
effective mass of a lattice electron would be valid for atomic-hydrogen
spacings (dimensions) below that of the lattice. However, the assumption
that the hydrogen would be in a linear sub-lattice, which could "shrink",
lent some credence to that assumption. This later led to a model of a
lattice-bound, linear-H, molecule being an option for populating the
deep-electron orbits and producing CF:

A. Meulenberg, K.P. Sinha, “Composite model for LENR in linear defects of a
lattice,” ICCF-18, 18th Int. Conf. on Cond. Matter Nuclear Science,
Columbia, Missouri, 25/07/2013, Abstract and presentation slides at
http://hdl.handle.net/10355/36818, video at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcTSUJUCRHE

Andrew
_ _ _
On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 6:49 PM Jones Beene  wrote:

> Jürg Wyttenbach wrote:
> > In contrast to QM SO(4) physics gives the exact relation of
> forces/energies of spin-paired electrons, what is the first step of
> condensation of matter below Bohr radius.
>
> Hi,
> If you have a minute - what is the exact relation that you mention? Is
> there a known binding energy for spin-paired electrons that is supported by
> this theory ?
>
>

Re: [Vo]:superluminal wave propagation

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Thank you Axil.. Good references!

On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 2:04 PM Axil Axil  wrote:

> Revised with references added
>
> Quote
>
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-08735-8
>
> Optical space-time wave packets having arbitrary group velocities in free
> space
>
> This article has shown experimentally that light can travel at speeds that
> exceed the speed of light (30C).
> Quote
>
> https://www.nature.com/articles/lsa2017119
>
> Superluminal X-waves in a polariton quantum fluid
>
> The ability to twist light in a way so that its waveform can be separated
> from its energy so that its wave front can travel at superluminal speed is
> indispensable to the LENR reaction.
>
> I have been doing some research into tachyons and have been trying to
> understand faster than light wave propagation, specifically x-waves. Here
> is something interesting about how special relativity and superluminal wave
> propagation relate:
>
> http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Superluminal.html
>
> Portions of this entry contributed by Waldyr A. Rodrigues, Jr.
>
> A superluminal phenomenon is a frame of reference traveling with a speed
> greater than the speed of light c. There is a putative class of particles
> dubbed tachyons which are able to travel faster than light.
> Faster-than-light phenomena violate the usual understanding of the "flow"
> of time, a state of affairs which is known as the causality problem (and
> also called the "Shalimar Treaty").
>
> It should be noted that while Einstein's theory of special relativity
> prevents (real) mass, energy, or information from traveling faster than the
> speed of light c (Lorentz et al. 1952, Brillouin and Sommerfeld 1960, Born
> and Wolf 1999, Landau and Lifschitz 1997), there is nothing preventing
> "apparent" motion faster than c (or, in fact, with negative speeds,
> implying arrival at a destination before leaving the origin). For example,
> the phase velocity and group velocity of a wave may exceed the speed of
> light, but in such cases, no energy or information actually travels faster
> than c. Experiments showing group velocities greater than c include that of
> Wang et al. (2000), who produced a laser pulse in atomic cesium gas with a
> group velocity of -310c. In each case, the observed superluminal
> propagation is not at odds with causality, and is instead a consequence of
> classical interference between its constituent frequency components in a
> region of anomalous dispersion (Wang et al. 2000).
>
> Keith Fredericks has an opinion that strange radiation is a tachyon. This
> SR quasiparticle might be tacjyonic is that it is most likely based on the
> polariton. The polariton does generate superluminal light in the form of
> x-waves.
>
> https://www.nature.com/articles/lsa2017119
>
> Superluminal X-waves in a polariton quantum fluid
>
> This article shows that a polariton can naturally produce superluminal
> light (X-waves) when excited with a pulsed laser.
>
> This unexpected behavior of light may explain how Strange radiation (SR)
> can be considered a tachyon, a superluminal particle.
>
> If the SR is composed of excited entangled polaritons that are producing
> superluminal light, the SR could be generating a tachyonic field.
>
> A  tachyonic field is a field that has its maximum energy potential at the
> instant of its creation and and upon perturbation releases that energy
> instantaneously.
> Quote
>
> tachyonic field
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyonic_field
>
> Also. this ability for the polariton to generate superluminal light
> (X-waves) could also be at the root of the polariton's dark mode mechanism.
> This dark mode behavior of SR that has been discovered by Ken shoulders in
> what he termed  as a black EVO could be based on the polariton's ability to
> generate superluminal light via X-waves. Only a superluminal light vortex
> can produce a light based black hole that can trap and hold onto a photon.
>
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 1:56 PM Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> The ability to twist light in a way so that its waveform can
>> be separated  from its energy so that its wave front can travel at
>> superluminal speed is indispensable to the LENR reaction.
>>
>>
>> I have been doing some research into tachyons and have been trying to
>> understand faster than light wave propagation, specifically x-waves. Here
>> is something interesting about how special relativity and superluminal wave
>> propagation relate:
>>
>>
>> http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Superluminal.html
>>
>>
>>
>> Portions of this entry contributed by Waldyr A. Rodrigues, Jr.
>>
>>
>> A superluminal phenomenon is a frame of reference traveling with a speed
>> greater than the speed of light c. There is a putative class of particles
>> dubbed tachyons which are able to travel faster than light.
>> Faster-than-light phenomena violate the usual understanding of the "flow"
>> of time, a state of affairs which is known as the causality problem (and
>> also called the "Shal

Re: [Vo]:The Casimir force can be tuned and even reversed

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Dear Axil,

In pursuing an enhanced thermo-photovoltaic device at Draper Labs at  the
turn of the century, our group developed and utilized a computer code for
optical coupling between surfaces. I noticed at the time that the code
output included the force between the plates and that, when the optical
emission exceeded the blackbody emission limit (by frustrated total
internal reflection at fractional wavelength spacings of the plates), the
force between the plates was repulsive. This was for thermally-generated
emission of a randomly-polarized light spectrum; but, it could be tuned and
enhanced by proper selection of material properties and thin-film coating
thicknesses (see  "Spectral selectivity from resonant-coupling in
microgap-TPV," A. Meulenberg, K. P. Sinha for details).

arXiv:0911.0860 
This fits with the concept of the Casimir force (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect) by greatly increasing the
wave-energy content between the plates over that on the outside of the
plates. The effect is strongly temperature dependent (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation#Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law);
but, it is not limited to electrical conductors. (If the receiving plate
surface is optically tuned to the selective emission of the "hot" plate,
the force between them may become attractive instead of repulsive. I never
checked on that detail of the model.)

Since, as an engineering lab, we were application oriented, we did not look
at the forces between the plates. We were concerned about developing a
means of uniformly forcing two 2x2 cm flat plates together within a
fraction of a micron without their making thermal-phonon contact. We lost
our government funding (in 2005) and closed the internally-funded project
down. It was spun off to become MTPV (https://www.mtpv.com/products/) and I
retired to work on CF and other projects.

If I had time, I suppose a reply to the paper in Phys Rev D would be
appropriate. However, I'll write Bob Dimatteo, who was the project head at
Draper and founder of MTPV Corp., to see if anyone still has that code.

Andrew
_ _ _

On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 6:26 PM Axil Axil  wrote:

> The Casimir force can be tuned and even reversed by placing a chiral
> optical material between two similar surfaces – according to calculations
> by  Qing-Dong Jiang 
>  and Frank Wilczek
>  at the
> University of Stockholm. The duo’s finding gets around a famous “no-go”
> theorem, which says that the Casimir force between two similar surfaces
> must always be attractive. The research could be of practical use because
> the Casimir force can inhibit the operation of nanomechanical devices.
>
>
>
> https://physicsworld.com/a/chiral-material-reverses-casimir-force-say-physicists/
>
>
> Chiral Casimir Forces: Repulsive, Enhanced, Tunable
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.07994
>
>

Re: [Vo]:D. Alexandrov, Proposal for the development of an LENR reactor

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Dear Bob,

Point charge is only a mathematical convenience, valid for isotropic
sources or conductors when measured beyond any of their charge
distribution. We are taught in freshman physics how to treat the static
fields inside a charge distribution. That said, the problem gets more
difficult when dynamics are considered, and even more so for relativistic
dynamics (where Jean-Luc has been working), and even further when the test
region has a strong influence on the source distribution and fields.

If I remember correctly, Feynman, in his Lectures, stated that the 1/r
Coulomb potential was valid up to the nuclear radius. I might agree down to
about 10 fm. Below that, I might argue with him unless he limits the
statement to static, spinless, charges. Because of our interest in the
deep-electron orbits, we are presently exploring the real nuclear region in
our papers. Nevertheless, we are still using approximations, valid for
large distances as initial approximations and then applying corrections for
relativistic and proximity effects as we see them. There is little to no
useful literature for such corrections in this region. Further in, it was
easier to start from scratch and nuclear physics took over when spin-spin
effects became stronger than spin-orbit effects. Cold fusion and the
deep-orbits are caught in the quagmire region between atomic and nuclear
physics.

I doubt that there will be any easy answers. I still ask the question "when
do two fermions combine to become a boson?" We look at the H atom,
positronium, and deuteron as bosons; but, the neutron is a fermion (because
a neutrino is added or subtracted?). What is the femto-H atom?

Andrew
_ _ _

On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 12:03 PM bobcook39...@hotmail.com <
bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I think the relativistic considerations eliminate the reality of a “point
> charge”  assumption for electrons, particularly in the nuclear dimensional
> zones and smaller.
>
>
>
> Andrew—If this is correct you might identify the range (distance) over
> which your theory applies and, otherwise,  clarify the question of “point
> charge” assumptions.
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
> Windows 10
>
>
> ------
> *From:* Andrew Meulenberg 
> *Sent:* Friday, March 1, 2019 10:01:01 PM
> *To:* VORTEX; Andrew Meulenberg
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:D. Alexandrov, Proposal for the development of an
> LENR reactor
>
> Dear Jones,
>
> Thanks for asking about our work. We have published this since JCMNS -Vol
> 24.
>
> J-L Paillet, Andrew Meulenberg, "Deepening Questions about Electron Deep
> Orbits of the Hydrogen Atom," J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. *26* (2017)
> 54–68, http://coldfusioncommunity.net/pdf/jcmns/v26/54_JCMNS-Vol26.pdf
>
> and are continuing to publish (from ICCF-21 presentations)
>
> 1.  J-L Paillet, A. Meulenberg, "On highly relativistic deep
> electrons," ICCF-21, 21st International Conference for Condensed Matter
> Nuclear Science, 3 - 8 June, 2018,  Fort Collins, CO USA, to be published
> in JCMNS, 2019,
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxPrXqfNS5Q&feature=youtube
> http://viXra.org/abs/1902.0398
>
> 2.  A. Meulenberg, J. L. Paillet, "Nuclear-waste remediation with
> femto-atoms and femto-molecules," ICCF-21, 21st International Conference
> for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, 3 - 8 June, 2018,  Fort Collins, CO
> USA, to be published in JCMNS, 2019, if I have time to get it finished.
> and to-be-published papers from two workshops and a chapter in a book.
>
> We have not published anything on the other models; although I did include
> a variation on Ed Storms' "crack" model as the basis for:
>
> A. Meulenberg, K.P. Sinha, “Composite model for LENR in linear defects of
> a lattice,” ICCF-18, 18th Int. Conf. on Cond. Matter Nuclear Science,
> Columbia, Missouri, 25/07/2013, Presentation slides at
> http://hdl.handle.net/10355/36818, video at
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcTSUJUCRHE
> I have been too busy looking at the Deep Dirac Levels with J-L Paillet
> since ICCF-18 to even write up this important paper, much less examine in
> detail models, which look at bound levels between the atomic ground-states
> and the relativistic deep levels. We are presently pursuing the
> relativistic deep-orbit electrons, which Jean-Luc has described so well,
> and their interaction with the nucleus. At least I will also be looking at
> the possibility that the relativistic-electron effects could lead to
> intra-nuclear components and interactions.
>
> Before 1995, I did derive (classically) the "fractional" orbits below the
> atomic ground state, but did not think these 1/

Re: [Vo]:D. Alexandrov, Proposal for the development of an LENR reactor

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Dear Jones,

Thanks for asking about our work. We have published this since JCMNS -Vol
24.

J-L Paillet, Andrew Meulenberg, "Deepening Questions about Electron Deep
Orbits of the Hydrogen Atom," J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. *26* (2017)
54–68, http://coldfusioncommunity.net/pdf/jcmns/v26/54_JCMNS-Vol26.pdf

and are continuing to publish (from ICCF-21 presentations)

1.  J-L Paillet, A. Meulenberg, "On highly relativistic deep electrons,"
ICCF-21, 21st International Conference for Condensed Matter Nuclear
Science, 3 - 8 June, 2018,  Fort Collins, CO USA, to be published in JCMNS,
2019, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxPrXqfNS5Q&feature=youtube
http://viXra.org/abs/1902.0398

2.  A. Meulenberg, J. L. Paillet, "Nuclear-waste remediation with
femto-atoms and femto-molecules," ICCF-21, 21st International Conference
for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, 3 - 8 June, 2018,  Fort Collins, CO
USA, to be published in JCMNS, 2019, if I have time to get it finished.
and to-be-published papers from two workshops and a chapter in a book.

We have not published anything on the other models; although I did include
a variation on Ed Storms' "crack" model as the basis for:

A. Meulenberg, K.P. Sinha, “Composite model for LENR in linear defects of a
lattice,” ICCF-18, 18th Int. Conf. on Cond. Matter Nuclear Science,
Columbia, Missouri, 25/07/2013, Presentation slides at
http://hdl.handle.net/10355/36818, video at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcTSUJUCRHE
I have been too busy looking at the Deep Dirac Levels with J-L Paillet
since ICCF-18 to even write up this important paper, much less examine in
detail models, which look at bound levels between the atomic ground-states
and the relativistic deep levels. We are presently pursuing the
relativistic deep-orbit electrons, which Jean-Luc has described so well,
and their interaction with the nucleus. At least I will also be looking at
the possibility that the relativistic-electron effects could lead to
intra-nuclear components and interactions.

Before 1995, I did derive (classically) the "fractional" orbits below the
atomic ground state, but did not think these 1/n states to be important
because they could not be reached by photonic processes. When I later found
out what Mills had been doing, I emailed him my warning about these levels
having too little angular momentum to form photons. He never responded, so
he may have figured that out for himself and, much to his credit, he chose
other approaches, which I considered a big step. However, I thought that he
made a mistake going for plasma rather than solid state as a base. (If he
were to use a UV light source or other means to invert the lowest hydrogen
atomic levels and "seed" the mixture with annihilation radiation for
stimulated emission, he might get a significant deep-level (not a
fractional-level) population. However, without mirrors at that energy, the
system is unlikely to lase.) I did not think much of the non-photonic
options for my own CF models until I had looked more closely at cold fusion
products (late in 2008).

Andrew
_ _ _
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 9:00 AM Jones Beene  wrote:

> Question for Andrew. The citation that comes up on Google for your most
> recent paper seems to be:
>
> http://coldfusioncommunity.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/230_JCMNS-Vol24.pdf
>
> Excellent, but it does not try to integrate similar concepts which are
> floating around, such as those of Holmlid, Arata and Mills.
>
> Have you published anything which takes a look at the entire spectrum of
> "deep electrons" ?
>
> Jones
>
>
>   Andrew Meulenberg wrote:
>
> > It takes something more to make relativistic electrons. That is where
> the deep-electron orbits enter the picture. They can have binding energies
> in the hundreds of keV and kinetic energies in the 100s of MeV. This would 
> *not
> *give hot-fusion type results. Strangely enough, the deep orbits are long
> predicted by relativistic quantum mechanics. They just were not believed
> because nobody had seen them, or their results. With cold fusion, we can
> now see their results.
>
> Andrew
>
>

Re: [Vo]:D. Alexandrov, Proposal for the development of an LENR reactor

[Andrew Meulenberg]

I have rejected the common concept of "heavy" electrons as applicable to
LENR by simple reasoning. The definition of electron and hole effective
mass in a semiconductor refers to the acceleration in that material from a
force applied, m =* F/a*). This mass increase does not apply *within* a
confinement site and, particularly, not at the nuclear level. Nevertheless,
spatial confinement can significantly distort atomic orbital shapes and
energy levels and this could lead to unusual effects. Also, confinement
allows an increase in electron kinetic-energy levels and thus a decrease in
average proximity of the electron to a nucleus. Nevertheless, the increased
energy levels are on the eV level, not even at the 10s of eV level.

On the other hand, such confinement, while not as great as that produced by
the higher mass of a muon, can have a significant effect (nearly an
order-of-magnitude) on the number of interactions per second with, and on
the tunneling probability of atomic electrons into, nuclei in the
confinement region. Unfortunately, any nuclear reaction induced by such
electrons will be limited and of the "hot" fusion type.

It takes something more to make relativistic electrons. That is where the
deep-electron orbits enter the picture. They can have binding energies in
the hundreds of keV and kinetic energies in the 100s of MeV. This would *not
*give hot-fusion type results. Strangely enough, the deep orbits are long
predicted by relativistic quantum mechanics. They just were not believed
because nobody had seen them, or their results. With cold fusion, we can
now see their results.

Andrew
_ _ _

On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 10:08 PM bobcook39...@hotmail.com <
bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Several leading questions about “heavy electrons”:
>
>
>
>- Do heavy electrons fit in the standard Model?
>- If so, what is their relativistic KE?
>- If relativistic. What keeps them from leaving the semi conductor
>surface?
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
>
>
> --
> *From:* Jones Beene 
> *Sent:* Monday, February 25, 2019 6:28:44 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:D. Alexandrov, Proposal for the development of an
> LENR reactor
>
> Interesting.
>
> Alexandrov's concept of providing "heavy electrons" as apparently are seen
> in semiconductor technology - in order to catalyze the fusion of hydrogen
> and deuterium sounds a lot like muon catalyzed fusion.
>
> In fact the muon is sometimes referred to as a "heavy electron" since it
> is a heavy lepton. Curious that he does not emphasize that connection as it
> would add to the credibility of his concept. Muon catalyzed fusion was
> proved over fifty years ago beyond any doubt.
>
> However, muon catalyzed fusion is "hot". This has no gammas. Is this
> something in between ?
>
> Jones
>
>
> Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>
> See:
>
> http://canadiancor.com/proposal-for-the-development-of-an-lenr-reactor/
>
> QUOTE
>
> Proposal for the development of an LENR reactor
>
> Introduction:
>
> Canadian researcher, Dr. Dimiter Alexandrov, Lakehead University, in his
> semiconductor research laboratory, performed successful replicable LENR
> (Low Energy Nuclear Reaction) experiments considering interactions of both
> deuterium and hydrogen gases with certain metals in a vacuum chamber. The
> products of these LENR experiments were helium (both stable isotopes He-3
> and He-4) and heat. No radiation above the normal background was detected
> during the experiments. He also developed a theory explaining the observed
> experimental outcomes. Based on this early work he has prepared the
> following proposal to develop a LENR reactor which is being submitted for
> the next stage of his R&D. . . .
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Off Topic: climatologist Judith Curry testified this month

[Andrew Meulenberg]

AMEN

On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 9:06 AM H LV  wrote:

> This month before congress climatologist Judith Curry  argued for a
> pragmatic approach to climate change based on her assesment of the actual
> uncertainties and confidence levels contained in the IPCC reports. (Video
> is about 5 minutes)
>
> https://youtu.be/5RIepllnjFA
>
> Harry
>

Re: [Vo]:Reorganized ICCF indexes

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Thank you Jed for a major effort.

I wonder if Jean-Paul could comment if it is appropriate to put these links
into our JCMNS papers' reference lists?

Andrew

On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 1:44 PM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> All of the indexes on one page, organized:
>
> https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=2130
>

Re: [Vo]:Hopping, low-mo, and variable decay neutrons - more than one type

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Robin,

I'm sorry that I don't have time to monitor this site regularly, so I may
have missed the earlier references. However, when you mention shrunken
molecules, do you mean those with deep-orbit electrons, such as modeled in

A. Meulenberg  and J. L. Paillet, “Basis for femto-molecules and -ions
created from femto-atoms,” ICCF-19, 19th Int. Conf. on Cond. Matter Nuclear
Science, Padua, Italy, 15/05/2015, J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. *19*, pp.
202 – 209, (2016)

or

A. Meulenberg, “Femto-Helium and PdD Transmutation
,” ICCF-18, 18th
Int. Conf. on Cond. Matter Nuclear Science, Columbia, Missouri, 25/07/2013,
J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 15 (2015), 106-117

or do you have some other entity in mind (e.g., Storms' prefusion model)?
If the latter, can you point to a ref or two? Either way, I agree with your
story here.

Thx,

Andrew

_ _
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 3:20 PM  wrote:

> Hi Jones,
>
> Consider the possibilities resulting from the existence of a shrunken
> molecule:-
>
> Deuterium molecules that had not shrunk far enough to fuse might easily be
> confused with Helium. They are chemically non-reactive, and very close to
> the
> same mass.
>
> Those that have shrunk far enough to fuse, might fuse in their entirety
> adding 4
> amu to the target nucleus, or they may only add a single deuteron to a
> target
> nucleus, or they may contribute only a neutron (or proton). If the whole
> molecules fuses the addition of two deuterons concurrently may well provide
> sufficient energy to bring about a fission reaction so that the kinetic
> energy
> is shared by the daughter products, again usually creating stable nuclei,
> because the original target nucleus wasn't all that neutron rich to begin
> with.
> (Note that science currently really only has experience with fission
> brought
> about by single neutrons, which is why fission reactions are only seen
> with some
> actinide targets - a single neutron only adds about 6-10 MeV to a nucleus,
> so it
> has to be pretty unstable to start with if it is to fission. OTOH, a well
> shrunken D molecule could add 20-36 MeV, making fission of much lighter
> nuclei
> possible.)
> In each case, heavy particles are left behind which readily share momentum
> &
> kinetic energy, so that the reaction is mostly "clean".
>
> The different sizes, and consequently differing reactions & reaction
> ratios,
> available would provide an explanation as to why the "helium"/energy ratio
> is
> difficult to pin down.
>
> Neutron hopping from a shrunken deuterium molecule should happen very
> readily,
> because the neutron is only bound in the deuterium nucleus by 2.2 MeV,
> whereas
> the binding energy for most other nuclei is about 6-10 MeV. Furthermore the
> shrunken deuterium molecule can get very close to other nuclei, possibly
> reducing the tunneling distance by orders of magnitude, and thus
> increasing the
> tunneling probability astronomically (it's insanely dependent on separation
> distance). Shrunken deuterium *atoms* would also contribute to neutron
> hopping,
> especially if the magnetic field of such an atom binds it to the magnetic
> field
> of the target nucleus, causing it to "stick" long enough for tunneling to
> occur.
>
> Given that the shrinkage process itself is also exothermic, *no* miracles
> are
> required, only a set of circumstances that provide at least one shrinkage
> catalyst. Both Lithium & Potassium can fill this role, and at least one of
> the
> two was often present in early electrolysis based CF experiments.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> local asymmetry = temporary success
>
>

Re: [Vo]:push me, pull you

[Andrew Meulenberg]

The C-O-M motion is monotonic, not constant.

On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 11:34 AM, H LV  wrote:

> Nifty physics demo:
>
> Two carts are connected together on an air track with a spring. Under
> bright lights you can see the coupled oscillation of the carts back and
> forth, but under black lights you can see that the center of mass moves at
> a constant velocity.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amfw2nABke4
>

Re: [Vo]:The PPusion reaction in LENR

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Me too,

If a number of us think the paper is useful, then we could give a
supporting letter to the journal of choice.

Andrew M.
_ _ _ _

On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 4:50 PM,  wrote:

> In reply to  bobcook39...@hotmail.com's message of Thu, 26 Jul 2018
> 04:52:38
> +:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >Nygel---
> >
> >Is you son’s paper available>?   I would like to read it.
>
> Me too! :)
> Regards,
>
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> local asymmetry = temporary success
>
>

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
> >> 2.2 MeV of energy whereas at the other extreme, addition of a neutron
> to a
> >> Ni

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

[Andrew Meulenberg]

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
> 2.2 MeV of energy whereas at the other extreme, addition of a neutron to a
> Ni nucleus releases about 8 MeV of energy. Hence my conclusion that
> neutrons
> in Ni have lower mass than those in D.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> local asymmetry = temporary success
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion Catalyzed Hot Fission - A promising hybrid orjust hand-waving?

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Bob,

The experimentally-determined charge distribution of a neutron shows an
outer "shell" of negative charge and thus the neutron should be
polarizable. Had this been known early on, when the neutron was considered
to be a proton + electron, I think the battle for that view would never
have been lost and the result of  relativistic-QM equations indicating
deep-electron orbits would have been accepted 80 years ago.

[The recently observed 'peak' in negative charge density at the very center
of the neutron would result from the overlap of electron 'charge' density
from the greater than nuclear-size deep-orbit electrons. Of course such
musing of "nuclear electrons" is not allowed in publication because it
would violate holy writ.]

Andrew

On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 10:41 PM, bobcook39...@hotmail.com <
bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Robin
>
>
>
> I did not know neutrons have a negative (I assume negative electric field)
> and hence negative charge in any observable time frame.  st there
> experimental evidence for this feature of a neutron?
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail  for
> Windows 10
>
>
> --
> *From:* mix...@bigpond.com 
> *Sent:* Sunday, April 22, 2018 6:43:00 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion Catalyzed Hot Fission - A promising
> hybrid orjust hand-waving?
>
> In reply to  bobcook39...@hotmail.com's message of Sun, 22 Apr 2018
> 20:30:21
> +:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >
> >Jones—
> >
> >You state:
> >
> >“Coupling is not needed. Neutrons are created in the fission of U,”
> >
> >I doubt this is the case.  Normal understanding is neutrons exist as an
> entity in the a nucleus.
>
> ...he obviously means "free neutrons" as opposed to bound neutrons.
>
> >
> >Further you state:
> >
> >“No mystery there. The free neutrons  start out fast….”
> >
> >I assume you mean they have linear momentum before the reaction that
> carries over and stays with them.
> >
> >I doubt it.
>
> ...he means that they acquire energy from the fission reaction. However
> you are
> obviously trying to emphasize the fact that neutral particles should be
> difficult to accelerate using electrostatics only. That could be true,
> were it
> not for the fact that neutrons have a negative near field, and are in close
> proximity to many charged nucleons. Furthermore as you previously
> mentioned, the
> magnetic field probably also plays a role, perhaps even the dominant role.
> Regards,
>
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> local asymmetry = temporary success
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The Purcell Effect

[Andrew Meulenberg]

About 20 years ago, I read an article in Physics Today that could have
referred to the Purcell effect (I don't remember). It talked of suppression
of atomic decay in a waveguide too small to support the photon that would
normally be emitted. Decay did not occur until the excited atom exited the
waveguide. This was one of those major events in my physics education. I am
surprised that more has not been made of it in terms of understanding the
nature of light.

Axil Axil's mention of acceleration of nuclear photonic decay by resonance
surprised me, until I thought about it. This appears to be a form of
stimulated atomic emission and nuclear-photonic excitation. The
implications are as immense as those of the suppression mechanism.

To me, a major importance to LENR is in the mode of induced decay from the
hydrogen groundstate to its deep-electron orbit via resonant coupling to
the low-lying (hundreds of keV) 1st excited states of the 7Li nucleus, to
some odd-A Ni isotopes and to some, particularly the even-A, Pd isotopes.
If it is as important as I think, then many other materials might become
active candidates for cold fusion.

Andrew M.
_ _ _ _ _

On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 3:14 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Purcell effect
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purcell_effect
>
>
> For particle physicists whose entire standard model assumes that decay
> rates cannot be influenced by external factors, the Purcell effect is a
> puzzle.
>
>
> The Purcell effect is a condition that has perplexed science which lays
> smack dab in the middle of one of the miracles of the LENR reaction. In
> science, It has long been asserted that nuclear decay rates are constant
> and cannot be affected by anything.
>
>
> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141010083857.htm
>
> *Old textbook knowledge reconfirmed: Decay rates of radioactive substances
> are constant*
>
>
>  This assertion has been used by the critics of the LENR reaction to
> undercut the validity of what experiments have shown when the LENR reaction
> was in progress.
>
>
> But the Purcell effect discounts the logic of this LENR criticism. The
> Purcell effect states that the decay rate of a radioactive isotope is
> affected by light trapped in an optical cavity. This nuclear decay rate can
> either increase or decrease by a factor up to 50 times.
>
>
> https://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.122501
>
> *Controlling the Rate of Nuclear Decay*
>
>
> The maximum effect is achieved when a dark mode of light emissions from
> the optical cavity is achieved. This mode is when light is maintained
> inside the cavity and does not radiate out. An important condition that
> must exist in both the LENR reaction and the Purcell effect is that this
> effect exists in nano-cavities in metal.
>
>
> But what is more disconcerting is that the nuclear decay rate can either
> increase or decrease by a factor of 50.
>
>
> There is something that exists in an optical cavity that can affect
> nuclear processes. What can it be and how does it do it.
>
>
> Well it is our old LENR friend, the Surface Plasmon Polariton (SPP). The
> SPP can produce nuclear effects and does it best when it is in dark mode.
> But how can the SPP stop a radioactive isotope from decaying?
>
>
> The SPP is formed by two counter rotating currents of polaritons. These
> currents are polarized in terms of handedness. Right-handed particles don’t
> decay, only left-handed particles decay.
>
>
> https://www.nature.com/articles/524008b
>
> *Particle physics: Only left-handed particles decay*
>
>
> When a radioactive nucleus is converted by the SPP into a right handed
> particle, it cannot decay. But when the nucleus is converted by the SPP
> into a left handed particle, it decays so fast that the radioactive nucleus
> stabilizes immediately.
>
>
> The chirality of particles explains how LENR can stabilize radioactive
> waste. LENR is all about the handedness (chirality) of particles.
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Amazing and overlooked: the big picture of Grid Energy in the USA

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Has anyone looked at the impact of fracking on the data? Heating is a major
energy sink and the difference in gas vs electric heating costs (even with
heat pumps) could be a major driver in new builds.

Andrew
_ _ _ _ _

On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 6:31 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> JonesBeene  wrote:
>
> Not to mention the electric car. Tesla alone “should have” increased the
>> demand for electrical power. This has not happened.
>>
>
> I have not looked at the numbers, but I kind of doubt that Tesla alone
> could have a measurable effect. Perhaps Tesla + Leaf + plug-in hybrids
> could. Tesla has sold 250,000 cars I think. That sounds like a lot but
> electric cars do not consume much electricity. About as much as a large air
> conditioner, I think. 250,000 air conditioners more or less would not have
> a measurable impact on U.S. consumption.
>
> From what I have seen, the major factors in reduced consumption are, from
> big to small:
>
> Increased efficiency, especially in things like lighting (illumination),
> HVAC equipment, refrigerators, and Energy Star compliant equipment. (The
> Energy Star program is completely voluntary -- it just gives manufacturers
> bragging rights with a sticker they put on equipment. But it is highly
> popular with the public and it has had a large impact, which I suppose is
> why the Trump administration want to kill it.)
>
> Large scale private cogeneration with natural gas, especially in large
> buildings, campuses factories and so no. This is more common in Japan, I
> think, but it is catching on in the U.S.
>
> "Distributed" solar, a.k.a. small scale solar photovoltaic. That is,
> small scale PV solar, on roofs, for example. Large scale solar is done by
> power companies so it does not reduce grid power consumption. It resembles
> wind turbine power generated by power companies. Small scale solar is
> having a big impact in Hawaii. The power companies are in bad shape because
> of it. But it is not having an impact elsewhere as far as I know. The Trump
> administration and the power companies are determined to keep it from
> having an impact, for example, by charging customers who have their own
> solar exorbitant amounts for getting any grid power at all to supplement it.
>
> I may have that wrong. That was the situation a few years ago. The EIA is
> the place to go to get information on things like this. See:
>
> https://www.eia.gov/
>
> Distributed solar began to show up in the stats, just above the noise
> level, in 2015:
>
> https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=23972
>
> Here is net generation of electricity from all sources, distributed and
> grid:
>
> https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/
>
> You can play around with this graph in many ways to see what is happening.
> Change it to years to smooth out seasonal fluctuations. You can see solar
> (bottom teal line) *just beginning* to leave the noise level in 2014. In
> 2017 4Q small scale solar photovoltaic it is 1,476 thousand megawatt hours.
> Total generation was 345,939, so that's 0.4%.
>
> In the right-hand box, select "Net generation by energy source: electric
> utilities." You do not see a dramatic reduction. Seasonal variation makes
> it hard to spot. Try the Annual version, "Index to start as value." That
> does show a distinct decline:
>
> https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/topic/0?agg=2,0,1&fuel=vvg&;
> geo=g&sec=8&linechart=ELEC.GEN.ALL-US-1.A~ELEC.GEN.COW-
> US-1.A~ELEC.GEN.NG-US-1.A~ELEC.GEN.NUC-US-1.A~ELEC.GEN.
> HYC-US-1.A&columnchart=ELEC.GEN.ALL-US-1.A~ELEC.GEN.COW-
> US-1.A~ELEC.GEN.NG-US-1.A~ELEC.GEN.NUC-US-1.A~ELEC.GEN.
> HYC-US-1.A&map=ELEC.GEN.ALL-US-1.A&freq=A&chartindexed=2&
> ctype=linechart
> ("United States: all fuels (utility-scale)" blue line goes below -250,000)
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: CMNS: Re: [Vo]:Metallic hydrogen does not exist

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Brian,

I would rewrite your statement to read " The *undistorted* molecular
orbitals of h2 and h liquid/solid *can*not support metallic
characteristics."

Nevertheless, if you look at the change and spread in atomic and molecular
orbital parameters as a function of lattice spacing (e.g., in Kittel's
"Solid State Physics, at least in the earlier editions), you can see the
basis for my modification to your statement. Recognition of the fact of
orbital modification in a generic lattice certainly opens the way to seek
specific changes in specific environments.

Molecular orbitals could be considered as metallic extensions of atomic
orbitals. Combining multiple H atoms or H2 molecules in a common potential
well should certainly provide the opportunity to form multi-atom H
molecules, which would be metallic in nature.

Andrew
_ _ _ _


On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 2:46 PM, Brian Ahern  wrote:

> The molecular orbitals of h2 and h liquid/solid do not support metallic
> characteristics.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Feb 24, 2018, at 10:27 AM, Edmund Storms  wrote:
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Finally we are describing the same process although in slightly different
> ways.  We agree, a linear structure is required that, thanks to a unique
> resonance process, can gradually dissipate the fusion energy.  Your are in
> a better position than I am to describe the quantum characteristics of this
> process.
>
> This basic idea does not come from any theory but only from how the
> process is observed to behave.  The behavior requires a process that can
> gradually release the mass-energy in order to avoid the energetic radiation
> normally produced by all other nuclear reactions. As I have proposed, this
> reaction can be best described as slow fusion in contrast to fast fusion
> normally observed. The challenge is to find a mechanism that allows slow
> release to take place.
>
> Although the release of mass-energy is called slow, the fusion process
> would be fast by chemical standards and independent of temperature.
> Therefore, the observed amount of power production would require a slow
> process that is influenced by temperature, as is known to be the case. I
> suggest the rate of power production is determined by how fast D can
> diffuse to the sites where fusion can take place. Once D reaches the site,
> fusion starts immediately but with release of mass-energy that is much
> faster than any chemical or diffusion process. In other words, the fusion
> process is controlled by several independent processes having their own
> rates.  This adds complexity that no theory has yet acknowledged.
>
> I  look forwarded to exploring these ideas with you.
>
> Ed
>
>
> On Feb 24, 2018, at 4:13 AM, Andrew Meulenberg wrote:
>
> If we define metals as materials with electrons that are bound to a
> lattice, but not to an individual atoms, then there is another (proposed)
> option for producing metallic H (at least on the sub-lattice level). K.P.
> Sinha, Ed Storms, and I have all proposed linear defects as a potential
> source for LENR.
>
> A. Meulenberg, “Pictorial description for LENR in linear defects of a
> lattice,” ICCF-18, 18th Int. Conf. on Cond. Matter Nuclear Science,
> Columbia, Missouri, 25/07/2013, J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 15 (2015),
> 117-124
> If H atoms are inserted into linear defects of a lattice, the 'random'
> motion of the H2 molecular electrons is constrained. This lateral
> constraint of the electron motion means that, instead of massive pressures
> needed to bring H nuclei close enough together to lower the barrier between
> atoms, the progressive alignment and increasing overlap of the linearized
> electrons will do the same thing at room temperature. Progressive loading
> of H into the lattice defect, may produce a phase change in the H
> sub-lattice, if conditions are right. The proposed conditions are that the
> lattice structure of the linear defect, while strong enough to compress the
> lateral motion of the H electrons, does not strongly impose the lattice
> spacing onto the sub-lattice. The ability of the sub-lattice to
> alter/reduce its periodic structure means that at some point in the loading
> process the aligned-H2 molecular structure changes to that of H(n) and thus
> the local electrons are now bound to the larger molecule, not just to the
> pairs.
>
> If this alignment happens, and if the sub-lattice spacing can shrink, then
> a feedback mechanism of the electron-reduced Coulomb barrier between
> protons becomes dominant and cold fusion is initiated. A question of the
> process is the nature of the Pauli exclusion principle in this formation of
> H(n). Spin pairing,  both between the individual electrons and between
> pairs, changes the fermi repul

Re: [Vo]:Metallic hydrogen does not exist

[Andrew Meulenberg]

If we define metals as materials with electrons that are bound to a
lattice, but not to an individual atoms, then there is another (proposed)
option for producing metallic H (at least on the sub-lattice level). K.P.
Sinha, Ed Storms, and I have all proposed linear defects as a potential
source for LENR.

A. Meulenberg, “Pictorial description for LENR in linear defects of a lattice,”
ICCF-18, 18th Int. Conf. on Cond. Matter Nuclear Science, Columbia,
Missouri, 25/07/2013, J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 15 (2015), 117-124
If H atoms are inserted into linear defects of a lattice, the 'random'
motion of the H2 molecular electrons is constrained. This lateral
constraint of the electron motion means that, instead of massive pressures
needed to bring H nuclei close enough together to lower the barrier between
atoms, the progressive alignment and increasing overlap of the linearized
electrons will do the same thing at room temperature. Progressive loading
of H into the lattice defect, may produce a phase change in the H
sub-lattice, if conditions are right. The proposed conditions are that the
lattice structure of the linear defect, while strong enough to compress the
lateral motion of the H electrons, does not strongly impose the lattice
spacing onto the sub-lattice. The ability of the sub-lattice to
alter/reduce its periodic structure means that at some point in the loading
process the aligned-H2 molecular structure changes to that of H(n) and thus
the local electrons are now bound to the larger molecule, not just to the
pairs.

If this alignment happens, and if the sub-lattice spacing can shrink, then
a feedback mechanism of the electron-reduced Coulomb barrier between
protons becomes dominant and cold fusion is initiated. A question of the
process is the nature of the Pauli exclusion principle in this formation of
H(n). Spin pairing,  both between the individual electrons and between
pairs, changes the fermi repulsion to bosonic attraction of electron pairs.
It is likely that the pairing is spatially (and temporally?) periodic and
this periodicity will introduce resonances between the lattice (fixed) and
sub-lattice (variable) spacing. These resonances, which depend on lattice,
nature of defect, temperature, and loading, could be the critical feature
of amplitude in variations of H(n) nuclear spacing and of rates of cold
fusion.

Andrew M.

Re: [Vo]:Quantized inertia Ted talk removes need for dark matterandexplains the EM drive

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Thank you for the reference (below). I see this as a possible explanation
of the coherent optical (and x-ray?) emission and even the rf emissions
that have been detected in active CF reactions. The intense EM fields
(direct and as photons) associated with nuclear decay via the deep-orbit
electrons (proposed as the operative mechanism for CF effects) act as an
intense 'pump' source to produce microscopic (perhaps plasma-like) lasing
regions:
"... the statistical properties of the emission of a laser with
non-resonant feedback are very close to those of the emission from an
extremely bright
‘black body’ in a narrow range of the spectrum. The emission of such a
laser has no spatial coherence and is not stable in phase."
Nevertheless, linear defects within the lattice (a proposed source of CF)
would provide a basis for spatial coherence.

The reference addresses, and has many sources on, types of lasing that we
generally don't consider.

Andrew M.


On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 9:56 AM, JonesBeene  wrote:

> An interesting but slightly dated paper is available without the usual
> paywall, which covers a number of advanced optics projects which were once
> classified, and may still be partially hidden -  like the photonic bomb…
>
>
>
> https://www.eng.yale.edu/caolab/papers/wrm03.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  "Brian Ahern"  wrote:
>
>  This nanometric laser was developed in 1996 under an AF SBIR Phase II
> contract. I was the  contract monitor. Prof. Nabil Lawandy developed LASER
> PAINT. It incorporated nanopowders that scattered light and resulted in
> stimulated emission  It is widely used today.
>
>
>