RE: [Vo]:The ultrafast 6s orbital of certain heavy metals

2018-04-19 Thread bobcook39...@hotmail.com 
Axil—

How do left handed and right handed muons differ in their physical properties?  
Do you have a reference?

Is it the direction of their magnetic moment in a magnetic field or their 
intrinsic spin or maybe their orbital spin if muons are not primary particles, 
but made up if electrons and positrons?

Bob Cook

Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10


From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 4:55:50 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The ultrafast 6s orbital of certain heavy metals

As a produce of radioactive decay. the muon is left handed charal.

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 7:53 PM, JonesBeene 
<jone...@pacbell.net<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>> wrote:


Dunno. Perhaps there is a cross-section for muon absorption and it has a 
resonance – as you say.

Axil posted about chirality change speeding up decay… maybe the 6s electron 
flips the chirality of the muon and it decays much faster thereafter. Thus 
there is an inverse relationship with the thickness of what should be a shield.


From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com>
Jones—

Why do muons react more easily with relativistic electrons in the 6s shell of 
Pb than with less energetic ones?   Is it because of the greater loss of energy 
associated with the lower differential masses, and/or some resonance in the 
energy field coupling between a muon and a heavy  (relativistic) electron?   
Neutral muons should not be affected the same way IMHO.

I wonder what electro chemists have to say about the Swedish/Finish article?

Are there other elements that conduct electricity well that have heavy 
electrons like Pb?  Is it only s shell electrons that become/are sufficiently 
heavy to cause the higher voltage during an oxidation/reduction?   Thorium 
comes to mind as likely having heavy s shell electrons.

Bob  Cook

From: JonesBeene<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>


Interesting...

I have reproduced a version of Vysotskii's undamped thermal waves results which 
he detects using a peizo-electric detector with a high frequency range (which I 
could only get from the states).  The results suggest that whatever is being 
detected is travelling far faster than the velocity of sound.  The detectors 
are made of PZT = lead zirconate titanate.  Could this unusual property of lead 
be a clue to what is going on with the Vysotskii measurements?

Nigel,

Yes that is a distinct possibility. I would imagine that the relativistic 
electrons can transfer quanta of spin energy - following which their velocity 
is replenished by the zero point field.

The spin would initially interact with thermal waves in the THZ or IR range in 
the process of downshifting.

JonesBeene wrote:

Despite its 150 year-old history, the lead-acid battery is not as 
well-understood as one might suspect.  On paper it should hardly work at all.  
Tin – a similar metal to lead will not work when substituted.

More recently, in experiments in 2011 it was demonstrated that most of the 
power of the lead-acid batter: 80%+  – or roughly 10 V out of the 13 V of the 
electrical potential- comes from relativistic electron effects (as opposed to 
redox chemistry) ! This is due to the unusually fast 6s orbital of lead and a 
few other heavy metals. The relativistic electrons (they are paired) could 
relate to why lead shielding (or normal radioactivity) could actually increase 
the signal from muon interaction, rather than shielding against it.

https://phys.org/news/2011-01-car-batteries-powered-relativity.html

Re: [Vo]:The ultrafast 6s orbital of certain heavy metals

2018-04-17 Thread Axil Axil 
As a produce of radioactive decay. the muon is left handed charal.

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 7:53 PM, JonesBeene  wrote:

>
>
>
>
> Dunno. Perhaps there is a cross-section for muon absorption and it has a
> resonance – as you say.
>
>
>
> Axil posted about chirality change speeding up decay… maybe the 6s
> electron flips the chirality of the muon and it decays much faster
> thereafter. Thus there is an inverse relationship with the thickness of
> what should be a shield.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *bobcook39...@hotmail.com
>
> Jones—
>
>
>
> Why do muons react more easily with relativistic electrons in the 6s shell
> of Pb than with less energetic ones?   Is it because of the greater loss of
> energy associated with the lower differential masses, and/or some resonance
> in the energy field coupling between a muon and a heavy  (relativistic)
> electron?   Neutral muons should not be affected the same way IMHO.
>
>
>
> I wonder what electro chemists have to say about the Swedish/Finish
> article?
>
>
>
> Are there other elements that conduct electricity well that have heavy
> electrons like Pb?  Is it only s shell electrons that become/are
> sufficiently heavy to cause the higher voltage during an
> oxidation/reduction?   Thorium comes to mind as likely having heavy s shell
> electrons.
>
>
>
> Bob  Cook
>
>
>
> *From: *JonesBeene 
>
>
>
> Interesting...
>
> I have reproduced a version of Vysotskii's undamped thermal waves results
> which he detects using a peizo-electric detector with a high frequency
> range (which I could only get from the states).  The results suggest that
> whatever is being detected is travelling far faster than the velocity of
> sound.  The detectors are made of PZT = lead zirconate titanate.  Could
> this unusual property of lead be a clue to what is going on with the Vysotskii
> measurements?
>
> Nigel,
>
> Yes that is a distinct possibility. I would imagine that the relativistic
> electrons can transfer quanta of spin energy - following which their
> velocity is replenished by the zero point field.
>
> The spin would initially interact with thermal waves in the THZ or IR
> range in the process of downshifting.
>
>
>
> JonesBeene wrote:
>
>
>
> Despite its 150 year-old history, the lead-acid battery is not as
> well-understood as one might suspect.  On paper it should hardly work at
> all.  Tin – a similar metal to lead will not work when substituted.
>
>
>
> More recently, in experiments in 2011 it was demonstrated that most of the
> power of the lead-acid batter: 80%+  – or roughly 10 V out of the 13 V of
> the electrical potential- comes from relativistic electron effects (as
> opposed to redox chemistry) ! This is due to the unusually fast 6s orbital
> of lead and a few other heavy metals. The relativistic electrons (they are
> paired) could relate to why lead shielding (or normal radioactivity) could
> actually increase the signal from muon interaction, rather than shielding
> against it.
>
>
>
> https://phys.org/news/2011-01-car-batteries-powered-relativity.html
>
>
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:The ultrafast 6s orbital of certain heavy metals

2018-04-17 Thread JonesBeene 


Dunno. Perhaps there is a cross-section for muon absorption and it has a 
resonance – as you say.

Axil posted about chirality change speeding up decay… maybe the 6s electron 
flips the chirality of the muon and it decays much faster thereafter. Thus 
there is an inverse relationship with the thickness of what should be a shield.


From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com
Jones—

Why do muons react more easily with relativistic electrons in the 6s shell of 
Pb than with less energetic ones?   Is it because of the greater loss of energy 
associated with the lower differential masses, and/or some resonance in the 
energy field coupling between a muon and a heavy  (relativistic) electron?   
Neutral muons should not be affected the same way IMHO.

I wonder what electro chemists have to say about the Swedish/Finish article?  

Are there other elements that conduct electricity well that have heavy 
electrons like Pb?  Is it only s shell electrons that become/are sufficiently 
heavy to cause the higher voltage during an oxidation/reduction?   Thorium 
comes to mind as likely having heavy s shell electrons.

Bob  Cook

From: JonesBeene

Interesting...
I have reproduced a version of Vysotskii's undamped thermal waves results which 
he detects using a peizo-electric detector with a high frequency range (which I 
could only get from the states).  The results suggest that whatever is being 
detected is travelling far faster than the velocity of sound.  The detectors 
are made of PZT = lead zirconate titanate.  Could this unusual property of lead 
be a clue to what is going on with the Vysotskii measurements?
Nigel,
Yes that is a distinct possibility. I would imagine that the relativistic 
electrons can transfer quanta of spin energy - following which their velocity 
is replenished by the zero point field.
The spin would initially interact with thermal waves in the THZ or IR range in 
the process of downshifting.

JonesBeene wrote:
 
Despite its 150 year-old history, the lead-acid battery is not as 
well-understood as one might suspect.  On paper it should hardly work at all.  
Tin – a similar metal to lead will not work when substituted. 
 
More recently, in experiments in 2011 it was demonstrated that most of the 
power of the lead-acid batter: 80%+  – or roughly 10 V out of the 13 V of the 
electrical potential- comes from relativistic electron effects (as opposed to 
redox chemistry) ! This is due to the unusually fast 6s orbital of lead and a 
few other heavy metals. The relativistic electrons (they are paired) could 
relate to why lead shielding (or normal radioactivity) could actually increase 
the signal from muon interaction, rather than shielding against it.
 
https://phys.org/news/2011-01-car-batteries-powered-relativity.html
 

Re: [Vo]:The ultrafast 6s orbital of certain heavy metals

2018-04-17 Thread Axil Axil 
I don't think that electrons have anything to do with the production of
NUCLEAR produces as registered by  radiation detectors. To generate these
radiation produces, the nucleus must be excited and a subsequent decay must
occur. This process is sticky fission.

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 7:11 PM, bobcook39...@hotmail.com <
bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Jones—
>
>
>
> Why do muons react more easily with relativistic electrons in the 6s shell
> of Pb than with less energetic ones?   Is it because of the greater loss of
> energy associated with the lower differential masses, and/or some resonance
> in the energy field coupling between a muon and a heavy  (relativistic)
> electron?   Neutral muons should not be affected the same way IMHO.
>
>
>
> I wonder what electro chemists have to say about the Swedish/Finish
> article?
>
>
>
> Are there other elements that conduct electricity well that have heavy
> electrons like Pb?  Is it only s shell electrons that become/are
> sufficiently heavy to cause the higher voltage during an
> oxidation/reduction?   Thorium comes to mind as likely having heavy s shell
> electrons.
>
>
>
> Bob  Cook
>
>
>
> *From: *JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net>
> *Sent: *Tuesday, April 17, 2018 12:43 PM
> *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject: *RE: [Vo]:The ultrafast 6s orbital of certain heavy metals
>
>
>
> *From: *Nigel Dyer <l...@thedyers.org.uk>
>
>
>
> Interesting...
>
> I have reproduced a version of Vysotskii's undamped thermal waves results
> which he detects using a peizo-electric detector with a high frequency
> range (which I could only get from the states).  The results suggest that
> whatever is being detected is travelling far faster than the velocity of
> sound.  The detectors are made of PZT = lead zirconate titanate.  Could
> this unusual property of lead be a clue to what is going on with the Vysotskii
> measurements?
>
> Nigel,
>
> Yes that is a distinct possibility. I would imagine that the relativistic
> electrons can transfer quanta of spin energy - following which their
> velocity is replenished by the zero point field.
>
> The spin would initially interact with thermal waves in the THZ or IR
> range in the process of downshifting.
>
>
>
> JonesBeene wrote:
>
>
>
> Despite its 150 year-old history, the lead-acid battery is not as
> well-understood as one might suspect.  On paper it should hardly work at
> all.  Tin – a similar metal to lead will not work when substituted.
>
>
>
> More recently, in experiments in 2011 it was demonstrated that most of the
> power of the lead-acid batter: 80%+  – or roughly 10 V out of the 13 V of
> the electrical potential- comes from relativistic electron effects (as
> opposed to redox chemistry) ! This is due to the unusually fast 6s orbital
> of lead and a few other heavy metals. The relativistic electrons (they are
> paired) could relate to why lead shielding (or normal radioactivity) could
> actually increase the signal from muon interaction, rather than shielding
> against it.
>
>
>
> https://phys.org/news/2011-01-car-batteries-powered-relativity.html
>
>
>
> Possibly - the relativistic electron effect has relevance to LENR in the
> form of trace elements found in electrodes by chance-  and there are a few
> candidate elements which have the 6S electron. But palladium or nickel do
> not.
>
>
>
> Yet from the earliest days of P, some electrodes worked better than
> others of the same nominal composition. In their hero effort in France only
> 2 of 7 Pd electrodes worked. In commercial metallurgy – anything less than
> 1% contamination is seldom reported since it is either not deemed to be
> critical or the alloy assay techniques are not accurate for low percentages.
>
>
>
> In fact, “Coolessence” the Colorado Lab now defunct, did some interesting
> work with lead and palladium. No one took notice.
>
>
>
> The element mercury is another candidate dopant which has the relativistic
> 6s electrons. There are at least 4 metals of interest.
>
>
>
> Mercury is found in palladium ore (temagamite
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temagamite>) and could inadvertently be
> present as a trace element in Pd electrodes as a fractional percent but
> never mentioned. The reason Hg is a liquid relates to the relativistic
> orbital which is also found in the element bismuth. It is possible that
> traces of mercury, lead or bismuth could be  the “mystery element” – the
> hidden  reactant in certain palladium electrodes which work better than
> pure metal. BTW - Silver does not have the relativistic electrons but gold
> does.
>
>
>
> The “inert pair ef

RE: [Vo]:The ultrafast 6s orbital of certain heavy metals

2018-04-17 Thread bobcook39...@hotmail.com 
Jones—

Why do muons react more easily with relativistic electrons in the 6s shell of 
Pb than with less energetic ones?   Is it because of the greater loss of energy 
associated with the lower differential masses, and/or some resonance in the 
energy field coupling between a muon and a heavy  (relativistic) electron?   
Neutral muons should not be affected the same way IMHO.

I wonder what electro chemists have to say about the Swedish/Finish article?

Are there other elements that conduct electricity well that have heavy 
electrons like Pb?  Is it only s shell electrons that become/are sufficiently 
heavy to cause the higher voltage during an oxidation/reduction?   Thorium 
comes to mind as likely having heavy s shell electrons.

Bob  Cook

From: JonesBeene<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 12:43 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: [Vo]:The ultrafast 6s orbital of certain heavy metals

From: Nigel Dyer<mailto:l...@thedyers.org.uk>


Interesting...

I have reproduced a version of Vysotskii's undamped thermal waves results which 
he detects using a peizo-electric detector with a high frequency range (which I 
could only get from the states).  The results suggest that whatever is being 
detected is travelling far faster than the velocity of sound.  The detectors 
are made of PZT = lead zirconate titanate.  Could this unusual property of lead 
be a clue to what is going on with the Vysotskii measurements?

Nigel,

Yes that is a distinct possibility. I would imagine that the relativistic 
electrons can transfer quanta of spin energy - following which their velocity 
is replenished by the zero point field.

The spin would initially interact with thermal waves in the THZ or IR range in 
the process of downshifting.

JonesBeene wrote:

Despite its 150 year-old history, the lead-acid battery is not as 
well-understood as one might suspect.  On paper it should hardly work at all.  
Tin – a similar metal to lead will not work when substituted.

More recently, in experiments in 2011 it was demonstrated that most of the 
power of the lead-acid batter: 80%+  – or roughly 10 V out of the 13 V of the 
electrical potential- comes from relativistic electron effects (as opposed to 
redox chemistry) ! This is due to the unusually fast 6s orbital of lead and a 
few other heavy metals. The relativistic electrons (they are paired) could 
relate to why lead shielding (or normal radioactivity) could actually increase 
the signal from muon interaction, rather than shielding against it.

https://phys.org/news/2011-01-car-batteries-powered-relativity.html

Possibly - the relativistic electron effect has relevance to LENR in the form 
of trace elements found in electrodes by chance-  and there are a few candidate 
elements which have the 6S electron. But palladium or nickel do not.

Yet from the earliest days of P, some electrodes worked better than others of 
the same nominal composition. In their hero effort in France only 2 of 7 Pd 
electrodes worked. In commercial metallurgy – anything less than 1% 
contamination is seldom reported since it is either not deemed to be critical 
or the alloy assay techniques are not accurate for low percentages.

In fact, “Coolessence” the Colorado Lab now defunct, did some interesting work 
with lead and palladium. No one took notice.

The element mercury is another candidate dopant which has the relativistic 6s 
electrons. There are at least 4 metals of interest.

Mercury is found in palladium ore 
(temagamite<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temagamite>) and could inadvertently 
be present as a trace element in Pd electrodes as a fractional percent but 
never mentioned. The reason Hg is a liquid relates to the relativistic orbital 
which is also found in the element bismuth. It is possible that traces of 
mercury, lead or bismuth could be  the “mystery element” – the hidden  reactant 
in certain palladium electrodes which work better than pure metal. BTW - Silver 
does not have the relativistic electrons but gold does.

The “inert pair effect” of lead, mercury, gold and bismuth refers to the 
tendency in these heavy metals for their 6s electrons in the valence cloud to 
resist oxidation - and the effect could possibly be put to planned use by 
doping with higher levels. In fact, although not well known, hydrogen can react 
with lead to form a gas called Plumbane, PbH4, but this is not well 
characterized or studied, since it is unstable. Lead is a Mills catalyst and so 
it is reasonable that densification activity with hydrogen would lead to a more 
stable form of the molecule along with excess energy. The chemical instability 
could be a plus in terms of asymmetry.

It would be interesting to see if plumbane, which is a gas at ambient 
temperature (surprisingly) could be reacted or densified in such a way that one 
or more of the four protons drop to the 54.4 eV redundancy state. This would be 
a fabulous rocket

RE: [Vo]:The ultrafast 6s orbital of certain heavy metals

2018-04-17 Thread JonesBeene 


From: Nigel Dyer

Interesting...
I have reproduced a version of Vysotskii's undamped thermal waves results which 
he detects using a peizo-electric detector with a high frequency range (which I 
could only get from the states).  The results suggest that whatever is being 
detected is travelling far faster than the velocity of sound.  The detectors 
are made of PZT = lead zirconate titanate.  Could this unusual property of lead 
be a clue to what is going on with the Vysotskii measurements?
Nigel,
Yes that is a distinct possibility. I would imagine that the relativistic 
electrons can transfer quanta of spin energy - following which their velocity 
is replenished by the zero point field.
The spin would initially interact with thermal waves in the THZ or IR range in 
the process of downshifting.

 JonesBeene wrote:
 
Despite its 150 year-old history, the lead-acid battery is not as 
well-understood as one might suspect.  On paper it should hardly work at all.  
Tin – a similar metal to lead will not work when substituted. 
 
More recently, in experiments in 2011 it was demonstrated that most of the 
power of the lead-acid batter: 80%+  – or roughly 10 V out of the 13 V of the 
electrical potential- comes from relativistic electron effects (as opposed to 
redox chemistry) ! This is due to the unusually fast 6s orbital of lead and a 
few other heavy metals. The relativistic electrons (they are paired) could 
relate to why lead shielding (or normal radioactivity) could actually increase 
the signal from muon interaction, rather than shielding against it.
 
https://phys.org/news/2011-01-car-batteries-powered-relativity.html
 
Possibly - the relativistic electron effect has relevance to LENR in the form 
of trace elements found in electrodes by chance-  and there are a few candidate 
elements which have the 6S electron. But palladium or nickel do not. 
 
Yet from the earliest days of P, some electrodes worked better than others of 
the same nominal composition. In their hero effort in France only 2 of 7 Pd 
electrodes worked. In commercial metallurgy – anything less than 1% 
contamination is seldom reported since it is either not deemed to be critical 
or the alloy assay techniques are not accurate for low percentages.
 
In fact, “Coolessence” the Colorado Lab now defunct, did some interesting work 
with lead and palladium. No one took notice. 
 
The element mercury is another candidate dopant which has the relativistic 6s 
electrons. There are at least 4 metals of interest.
 
Mercury is found in palladium ore (temagamite) and could inadvertently be 
present as a trace element in Pd electrodes as a fractional percent but never 
mentioned. The reason Hg is a liquid relates to the relativistic orbital which 
is also found in the element bismuth. It is possible that traces of mercury, 
lead or bismuth could be  the “mystery element” – the hidden  reactant in 
certain palladium electrodes which work better than pure metal. BTW - Silver 
does not have the relativistic electrons but gold does.
 
The “inert pair effect” of lead, mercury, gold and bismuth refers to the 
tendency in these heavy metals for their 6s electrons in the valence cloud to 
resist oxidation - and the effect could possibly be put to planned use by 
doping with higher levels. In fact, although not well known, hydrogen can react 
with lead to form a gas called Plumbane, PbH4, but this is not well 
characterized or studied, since it is unstable. Lead is a Mills catalyst and so 
it is reasonable that densification activity with hydrogen would lead to a more 
stable form of the molecule along with excess energy. The chemical instability 
could be a plus in terms of asymmetry. 
 
It would be interesting to see if plumbane, which is a gas at ambient 
temperature (surprisingly) could be reacted or densified in such a way that one 
or more of the four protons drop to the 54.4 eV redundancy state. This would be 
a fabulous rocket fuel, even with the high density of led, no?
 
The further possibilities of having chemical access to relativistic electrons 
and/or as a method to densify hydrogen or turn a heavy element into a gas  are 
mind boggling. The name ‘Led Zeppelin’ comes to mind.
 

RE: [Vo]:The ultrafast 6s orbital of certain heavy metals

2018-04-17 Thread JonesBeene 

From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com

Is there data on how relativistic the paired electrons need to be to have an 
effect? 

Bob,

The paper is behind a paywall but you can use the DOI number to get it from 
Sci-Hub

Rajeev Ahuja, et al. “Relativity and the Lead-Acid Battery.” Physical Review 
Letters 106, 018301 (2011). 

DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.018301

Re: [Vo]:The ultrafast 6s orbital of certain heavy metals

2018-04-17 Thread Nigel Dyer 

Interesting...

I have reproduced a version of Vysotskii's undamped thermal waves 
results which he detects using a peizo-electric detector with a high 
frequency range (which I could only get from the states). The results 
suggest that whatever is being detected is travelling far faster than 
the velocity of sound.  The detectors are made of PZT = lead zirconate 
titanate.  Could this unusual property of lead be a clue to what is 
going on with the Vysotskii measurements?


Nigel


On 17/04/2018 16:10, JonesBeene wrote:


Despite its 150 year-old history, the lead-acid battery is not as 
well-understood as one might suspect.  On paper it should hardly work 
at all.  Tin – a similar metal to lead will not work when substituted.


More recently, in experiments in 2011 it was demonstrated that most of 
the power of the lead-acid batter: 80%+  – or roughly 10 V out of the 
13 V of the electrical potential- comes from relativistic electron 
effects (as opposed to redox chemistry) ! This is due to the unusually 
fast 6s orbital of lead and a few other heavy metals. The relativistic 
electrons (they are paired) could relate to why lead shielding (or 
normal radioactivity) could actually increase the signal from muon 
interaction, rather than shielding against it.


https://phys.org/news/2011-01-car-batteries-powered-relativity.html

Possibly - the relativistic electron effect has relevance to LENR in 
the form of trace elements found in electrodes by chance-  and there 
are a few candidate elements which have the 6S electron. But palladium 
or nickel do not.


Yet from the earliest days of P, some electrodes worked better than 
others of the same nominal composition. In their hero effort in France 
only 2 of 7 Pd electrodes worked. In commercial metallurgy – anything 
less than 1% contamination is seldom reported since it is either not 
deemed to be critical or the alloy assay techniques are not accurate 
for low percentages.


In fact, “Coolessence” the Colorado Lab now defunct, did some 
interesting work with lead and palladium. No one took notice.


The element mercury is another candidate dopant which has the 
relativistic 6s electrons. There are at least 4 metals of interest.


Mercury is found in palladium ore (temagamite 
) and could inadvertently be 
present as a trace element in Pd electrodes as a fractional percent 
but never mentioned. The reason Hg is a liquid relates to the 
relativistic orbital which is also found in the element bismuth. It is 
possible that traces of mercury, lead or bismuth could be  the 
“mystery element” – the hidden  reactant in certain palladium 
electrodes which work better than pure metal. BTW - Silver does not 
have the relativistic electrons but gold does.


The “inert pair effect” of lead, mercury, gold and bismuth refers to 
the tendency in these heavy metals for their 6s electrons in the 
valence cloud to resist oxidation - and the effect could possibly be 
put to planned use by doping with higher levels. In fact, although not 
well known, hydrogen can react with lead to form a gas called 
Plumbane, PbH4, but this is not well characterized or studied, since 
it is unstable. Lead is a Mills catalyst and so it is reasonable that 
densification activity with hydrogen would lead to a more stable form 
of the molecule along with excess energy. The chemical instability 
could be a plus in terms of asymmetry.


It would be interesting to see if plumbane, which is a gas at ambient 
temperature (surprisingly) could be reacted or densified in such a way 
that one or more of the four protons drop to the 54.4 eV redundancy 
state. This would be a fabulous rocket fuel, even with the high 
density of led, no?


The further possibilities of having chemical access to relativistic 
electrons and/or as a method to densify hydrogen or turn a heavy 
element into a gas  are mind boggling. The name ‘Led Zeppelin’ comes 
to mind.

RE: [Vo]:The ultrafast 6s orbital of certain heavy metals

2018-04-17 Thread bobcook39...@hotmail.com 
Jones—

Is there data on how relativistic the paired electrons need to be to have an 
effect?

Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10


From: JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net>
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 8:10:02 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:The ultrafast 6s orbital of certain heavy metals


Despite its 150 year-old history, the lead-acid battery is not as 
well-understood as one might suspect.  On paper it should hardly work at all.  
Tin – a similar metal to lead will not work when substituted.

More recently, in experiments in 2011 it was demonstrated that most of the 
power of the lead-acid batter: 80%+  – or roughly 10 V out of the 13 V of the 
electrical potential- comes from relativistic electron effects (as opposed to 
redox chemistry) ! This is due to the unusually fast 6s orbital of lead and a 
few other heavy metals. The relativistic electrons (they are paired) could 
relate to why lead shielding (or normal radioactivity) could actually increase 
the signal from muon interaction, rather than shielding against it.

https://phys.org/news/2011-01-car-batteries-powered-relativity.html

Possibly - the relativistic electron effect has relevance to LENR in the form 
of trace elements found in electrodes by chance-  and there are a few candidate 
elements which have the 6S electron. But palladium or nickel do not.

Yet from the earliest days of P, some electrodes worked better than others of 
the same nominal composition. In their hero effort in France only 2 of 7 Pd 
electrodes worked. In commercial metallurgy – anything less than 1% 
contamination is seldom reported since it is either not deemed to be critical 
or the alloy assay techniques are not accurate for low percentages.

In fact, “Coolessence” the Colorado Lab now defunct, did some interesting work 
with lead and palladium. No one took notice.

The element mercury is another candidate dopant which has the relativistic 6s 
electrons. There are at least 4 metals of interest.

Mercury is found in palladium ore 
(temagamite<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temagamite>) and could inadvertently 
be present as a trace element in Pd electrodes as a fractional percent but 
never mentioned. The reason Hg is a liquid relates to the relativistic orbital 
which is also found in the element bismuth. It is possible that traces of 
mercury, lead or bismuth could be  the “mystery element” – the hidden  reactant 
in certain palladium electrodes which work better than pure metal. BTW - Silver 
does not have the relativistic electrons but gold does.

The “inert pair effect” of lead, mercury, gold and bismuth refers to the 
tendency in these heavy metals for their 6s electrons in the valence cloud to 
resist oxidation - and the effect could possibly be put to planned use by 
doping with higher levels. In fact, although not well known, hydrogen can react 
with lead to form a gas called Plumbane, PbH4, but this is not well 
characterized or studied, since it is unstable. Lead is a Mills catalyst and so 
it is reasonable that densification activity with hydrogen would lead to a more 
stable form of the molecule along with excess energy. The chemical instability 
could be a plus in terms of asymmetry.

It would be interesting to see if plumbane, which is a gas at ambient 
temperature (surprisingly) could be reacted or densified in such a way that one 
or more of the four protons drop to the 54.4 eV redundancy state. This would be 
a fabulous rocket fuel, even with the high density of led, no?

The further possibilities of having chemical access to relativistic electrons 
and/or as a method to densify hydrogen or turn a heavy element into a gas  are 
mind boggling. The name ‘Led Zeppelin’ comes to mind.

[Vo]:The ultrafast 6s orbital of certain heavy metals

2018-04-17 Thread JonesBeene 

Despite its 150 year-old history, the lead-acid battery is not as 
well-understood as one might suspect.  On paper it should hardly work at all.  
Tin – a similar metal to lead will not work when substituted. 

More recently, in experiments in 2011 it was demonstrated that most of the 
power of the lead-acid batter: 80%+  – or roughly 10 V out of the 13 V of the 
electrical potential- comes from relativistic electron effects (as opposed to 
redox chemistry) ! This is due to the unusually fast 6s orbital of lead and a 
few other heavy metals. The relativistic electrons (they are paired) could 
relate to why lead shielding (or normal radioactivity) could actually increase 
the signal from muon interaction, rather than shielding against it.

https://phys.org/news/2011-01-car-batteries-powered-relativity.html

Possibly - the relativistic electron effect has relevance to LENR in the form 
of trace elements found in electrodes by chance-  and there are a few candidate 
elements which have the 6S electron. But palladium or nickel do not. 

Yet from the earliest days of P, some electrodes worked better than others of 
the same nominal composition. In their hero effort in France only 2 of 7 Pd 
electrodes worked. In commercial metallurgy – anything less than 1% 
contamination is seldom reported since it is either not deemed to be critical 
or the alloy assay techniques are not accurate for low percentages.

In fact, “Coolessence” the Colorado Lab now defunct, did some interesting work 
with lead and palladium. No one took notice. 

The element mercury is another candidate dopant which has the relativistic 6s 
electrons. There are at least 4 metals of interest.

Mercury is found in palladium ore (temagamite) and could inadvertently be 
present as a trace element in Pd electrodes as a fractional percent but never 
mentioned. The reason Hg is a liquid relates to the relativistic orbital which 
is also found in the element bismuth. It is possible that traces of mercury, 
lead or bismuth could be  the “mystery element” – the hidden  reactant in 
certain palladium electrodes which work better than pure metal. BTW - Silver 
does not have the relativistic electrons but gold does.

The “inert pair effect” of lead, mercury, gold and bismuth refers to the 
tendency in these heavy metals for their 6s electrons in the valence cloud to 
resist oxidation - and the effect could possibly be put to planned use by 
doping with higher levels. In fact, although not well known, hydrogen can react 
with lead to form a gas called Plumbane, PbH4, but this is not well 
characterized or studied, since it is unstable. Lead is a Mills catalyst and so 
it is reasonable that densification activity with hydrogen would lead to a more 
stable form of the molecule along with excess energy. The chemical instability 
could be a plus in terms of asymmetry. 

It would be interesting to see if plumbane, which is a gas at ambient 
temperature (surprisingly) could be reacted or densified in such a way that one 
or more of the four protons drop to the 54.4 eV redundancy state. This would be 
a fabulous rocket fuel, even with the high density of led, no?

The further possibilities of having chemical access to relativistic electrons 
and/or as a method to densify hydrogen or turn a heavy element into a gas  are 
mind boggling. The name ‘Led Zeppelin’ comes to mind.