subject:"Re\: \[Vo\]\:Spin this ..."

More...

[image: Inline image 1]

[image: Inline image 2]

On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 9:48 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 9:11 PM,  wrote:
>
>> I
>> This implies
>> lots of neutrons, and lots of T neither of which are seen to any great
>> extent.
>>
>>  As you know, quarks are monopoles, Quarks make up protons. When a proton
> is exposed to a monopole magnetic field, it will decay.
>
>
> http://physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/EP/rubakov_rpp_51_189_88.pdf
>
> Monopole catalysis of proton decay
>
> Because Holmlid is seeing mesons, this a strong indicator that an Exotic
> Neutral Particle is producing a monopole field to disrupt protons.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Spin amplification and nucleon disintegration

more...

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.1374.pdf

Monopole catalysis of proton decay

The possibility that a GUT monopole could catalyse a baryon number
violating process was suggested as early as 1980 [117]. The central core of
a GUT monopole retains the original symmetry and contains the fields of the
superheavy gauge bosons that mediate baryon number violation. Within this
core the forces of the universe are still indistinguishable from one
another and the quarks and their leptons are, in this domain, the same
particles. Thus, it is not unreasonable to expect that baryon number
conservation could be violated in baryon-monopole scattering. However, it
was originally thought that the cross section of this process would be of
the order of the tiny geometrical cross section of the monopole core (∼
10−58 cm2 ). Figure 1: A depiction of a proton decay into a positron and a
neutral pion catalysed by a GUT monopole. Later studies by Rubakov [118,
119] and Callan [120, 121] concluded that these processes are not
suppressed by powers of the gauge boson mass. Instead, catalysis processes
such as p + Monopole→e + + π 0 , pictured in Fig. 1, could have strong
interaction rates. An explanation for a potentially large monopole
catalysis cross section is the following. The monopole core should be
surrounded by a fermion-antifermion condensate. Some of the condensate will
have baryon number violating terms extending up to the confinement region.
The increase in size of this region gives rise to the essentially geometric
cross-section: σBβ ∼ 10−27 cm2 , where β = v/c. However, there are
theoretical uncertainties in this arena and it is not certain that strong
catalysis is a general feature of all GUT theories. It may be that
catalysis does occur but at considerably lower rates, as is discussed
elsewhere [122, 123]. For example, it has been proposed [123, 124] that the
monopole catalysis cross section could have a 1/β 2 -dependence: σ ∼ (1
GeV)−2/β2 , at least for sufficiently low monopole-proton relative
velocities. It should also be noted that intermediate mass monopoles
arising at later stages of symmetry breaking, such as the doubly charged
monopoles of the SO(10) theory, do not catalyse baryon number violation.

On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 9:53 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> More...
>
> [image: Inline image 1]
>
> [image: Inline image 2]
>
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 9:48 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 9:11 PM,  wrote:
>>
>>> I
>>> This implies
>>> lots of neutrons, and lots of T neither of which are seen to any great
>>> extent.
>>>
>>>  As you know, quarks are monopoles, Quarks make up protons. When a
>> proton is exposed to a monopole magnetic field, it will decay.
>>
>>
>> http://physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/EP/rubakov_rpp_51_189_88.pdf
>>
>> Monopole catalysis of proton decay
>>
>> Because Holmlid is seeing mesons, this a strong indicator that an Exotic
>> Neutral Particle is producing a monopole field to disrupt protons.
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Spin amplification and nucleon disintegration

2015-12-14 Thread mixent

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Mon, 30 Nov 2015 11:59:11 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
>As you may surmise, all of this comes back to an emerging premise for 
>understanding LENR based on Holmlids work. That premise is that at the very 
>heart of the reaction we find nucleon disintegration, first and foremost - 
>which is identified by a growing population of muons, which deposit some 
>excess energy but are also able to catalyze fusion, in the known way. 

Muon catalyzed DD fusion results in the standard branching ratios. This implies
lots of neutrons, and lots of T neither of which are seen to any great extent.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Spin amplification and nucleon disintegration

On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 9:11 PM,  wrote:

> I
> This implies
> lots of neutrons, and lots of T neither of which are seen to any great
> extent.
>
>  As you know, quarks are monopoles, Quarks make up protons. When a proton
is exposed to a monopole magnetic field, it will decay.


http://physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/EP/rubakov_rpp_51_189_88.pdf

Monopole catalysis of proton decay

Because Holmlid is seeing mesons, this a strong indicator that an Exotic
Neutral Particle is producing a monopole field to disrupt protons.

Re: [Vo]:Spin amplification and nucleon disintegration

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.1374.pdf
Non-collider searches for stable massive particles

*Abstract*
The theoretical motivation for exotic stable massive particles (SMPs) and
the results of SMP searches at non-collider facilities are reviewed. SMPs
are defined such that they would be sufficiently long-lived so as to still
exist in the cosmos either as Big Bang relics or secondary collision
products, and sufficiently massive such that they are typically beyond the
reach of any conceivable accelerator-based experiment. The discovery of
SMPs would address a number of important questions in modern physics, such
as the origin and composition of dark matter and the unification of the
fundamental forces. This review outlines the scenarios predicting SMPs and
the techniques used at non-collider experiments to look for SMPs in cosmic
rays and bound in matter. The limits so far obtained on the fluxes and
matter densities of SMPs which possess various detection-relevant
properties such as electric and magnetic charge are given.

Holmlid should read this paper. It shows what can produce pions without
using a collider.

It is my contention that Rydberg matter produces these exotic stable
massive particles (SMPs) as an nanometric topological antenna that receives
and stores EMF in the context of a bose condensate.

As you know, quarks are monopoles. Quarks make up protons. When a proton is
exposed to a monopole magnetic field, it will decay.

http://physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/EP/rubakov_rpp_51_189_88.pdf

Monopole catalysis of proton decay

Because Holmlid is seeing mesons, this a strong indicator that an Exotic
Neutral Particle is producing a monopole field to disrupt protons.

On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 10:52 PM,  wrote:

> In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Mon, 14 Dec 2015 21:48:30 -0500:
> Hi Axil,
> [snip]
>
> I wasn't arguing against the general idea, just pointing out that if muons
> are
> being produced, then they are not catalyzing many fusion reactions.
>
> >On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 9:11 PM,  wrote:
> >
> >> I
> >> This implies
> >> lots of neutrons, and lots of T neither of which are seen to any great
> >> extent.
> >>
> >>  As you know, quarks are monopoles, Quarks make up protons. When a
> proton
> >is exposed to a monopole magnetic field, it will decay.
> >
> >
> >
> http://physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/EP/rubakov_rpp_51_189_88.pdf
> >
> >Monopole catalysis of proton decay
> >
> >Because Holmlid is seeing mesons, this a strong indicator that an Exotic
> >Neutral Particle is producing a monopole field to disrupt protons.
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Spin amplification and nucleon disintegration

2015-12-14 Thread mixent

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Mon, 14 Dec 2015 21:48:30 -0500:
Hi Axil,
[snip]

I wasn't arguing against the general idea, just pointing out that if muons are
being produced, then they are not catalyzing many fusion reactions.

>On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 9:11 PM,  wrote:
>
>> I
>> This implies
>> lots of neutrons, and lots of T neither of which are seen to any great
>> extent.
>>
>>  As you know, quarks are monopoles, Quarks make up protons. When a proton
>is exposed to a monopole magnetic field, it will decay.
>
>
>http://physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/EP/rubakov_rpp_51_189_88.pdf
>
>Monopole catalysis of proton decay
>
>Because Holmlid is seeing mesons, this a strong indicator that an Exotic
>Neutral Particle is producing a monopole field to disrupt protons.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Spin amplification and nucleon disintegration

2015-11-30 Thread Axil Axil

It is uncertain to how large a magnetic effect that SPPs can produce. The
DGT reports from Dr. Kim indicate that the effect can be large,

*Magnetic monopole beam *

One of the amazing revelations that has come out of nanoplasmonic research
and experimentation is the explanation of how the “dark mode” polariton
soliton can produce a monopole magnetic beam. This amazing revelation is
not theory; it is based on experimental results. But there is a theoretical
explanation that goes along with the experimental data (10). The monopole
magnetic beam becomes pronounced at polariton soliton (PS) intermediate
energy levels since the Surface Plasmon Polariton (SPP) aligns all the
spins of the polaritons inside the soliton to project out of the soliton
from its center perpendicular to its direction of wave rotation.

The polariton has a spin of 2. The number of polaritons that can be
absorbed into the soliton is not limited by the Pauli exclusion principle.
There is even an experimental micrograph that shows the soliton and the
monopole beam coming out of it.

This beam can project out to 100 microns away from the soliton.

It is not only the spin of the polaritons that contribute to the power of
the monopole beam but it is also the angular momentum of polariton rotation
that multiplies the magnetic power of the beam. The vortex rotation rate
acts like a train of gears where the microparticle (large gear) drives the
angular momentum of the hydrogen Rydberg matter (small gear).

In the most dramatic case, the 100 micron particle transfers angular
momentum to a hydrogen Rydberg matter particle which is comprised of a
large number of graphite like layered hexagonal disk assemblages with a
diameter just a few atoms across.

Each atomic layer receives angular momentum from the vortex on the surface
of the micro particle and that vortex motion is transferred to the small
atomic hexagonal disks comprising the Rydberg matter. The spin multiplier
that comprises the monopole beam is proportional to the ratio between the
circumference of the 100 micron particle to the circumference of the
hydrogen Rydberg matter hexagonal disk.

The monopole magnetic beam is a primary mechanism of catalytic action in
LENR. The beam can reach out without being depleted and disrupt an
indeterminate number of atomic sites. The experiments of J,C.Fisher can be
explained by the action of this beam.

markfisher.net/johnfisher/papers/Bigshower.pdfEnergetic
 particle
shower in the vapor from electrolysis

This experiment informs us about the nature of the NAE. The experiment
related in this article uses CR-39 particle detectors to show the
production of energetic particles in the mobile NAE afloat in the vapor
above an electrolytic LENR cell. This NAE has become mobile after it has
become detached from its point of creation somewhere on the lattice of the
electrodes within the cell as it moves upward in the vapor produced by the
action of electrolysis and the heat that this electrode produces. This NAE
produces hundreds of thousands of charged particles as it floats upward out
of the cell. This reaction most probably produces alpha particles as the
NAE raises on the vapor currents upward out of the cell. The analysis in
the article finds that this NAE is a point source of these alpha particles
by correlating the angles of the pits produced by the charged particles as
the NAE rises. This behavior implies that the NAE supports a continuous and
long lasting LENR process that proceeds over a considerable duration of
time. This mobile type of NAE must decouple from its point of creation on
the lattice of the electrode and floats on air currents like a particle of
dust. The mesoscopic NAE must be massive in size to be so driven by
molecules of air and water vapor. In this experiment, the monopole beam
projects out of the center of the mobile soliton up to 100 microns as it
floats upward. The mobile SPP soliton can produce LENR reactions at a
distance or it can enter the CR-39 detector strips and initiate LENR
reactions inside the structure of the detectors as John Fisher has reported
in his experiments.

10 - Half-solitons in a polariton quantum fluid behave like magnetic
monopoles
arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1204/1204.3564.pdf

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> *From:* Axil Axil
>
> *http://physik.uni-graz.at/~dk-user/talks/Chernodub_25112013.pdf*
> 
>
> Ø   This article shows how a strong magnetic field destroys color in
> matter to produce mesons.
>
> Although this paper is about the extreme magnetic fields (10^15 T) of heavy
> ions in a very hot plasma, there could be relevance to what we are
> talking about in much colder conditions … surprisingly… this is because
> the orbital size of dense deuterium is reduced to a few picometers (2.3
> pm) according to Holmlid.
>

RE: [Vo]:Spin amplification and nucleon disintegration

2015-11-30 Thread Jones Beene

From: Axil Axil 

http://physik.uni-graz.at/~dk-user/talks/Chernodub_25112013.pdf

*   This article shows how a strong magnetic field destroys color in matter 
to produce mesons.

Although this paper is about the extreme magnetic fields (10^15 T) of heavy 
ions in a very hot plasma, there could be relevance to what we are talking 
about in much colder conditions … surprisingly… this is because the orbital 
size of dense deuterium is reduced to a few picometers (2.3 pm) according to 
Holmlid. 

We can assume that inverse square applies, no? At the Bohr radius (53 pm), the 
electron of a deuteron supplies a field of 12.5 Tesla. When the orbital is 
reduced by a factor of 24, this would put the effective field very high but 
less … but certainly QCD should be affected. There is even an argument that 
inverse square goes to inverse cube at picometers….

Re: [Vo]:Spin amplification and nucleon disintegration

2015-11-30 Thread Axil Axil

http://physik.uni-graz.at/~dk-user/talks/Chernodub_25112013.pdf

THis article shows how a strong magnetic field destroys color in matter to
produce mesons.

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 7:19 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:

> The same EM circular polarization Jones has described can also interact
> with orbital spin states of electrons in metal lattices and/or mere atoms.
> At resonant frequencies, disintegration of the lattice can occur and the
> excess angular momentum must be distributed in small quanta of H/2pi.  The
> same thing may happen when the nuclear spin states are excited with
> distribution of angular momentum to the lattice electrons.  Resonance may
> be the ticket to get the desired coupling.
>
> In addition the alignment of reactants in a magnetic field may act to
> change spin energy states to further facilitate coupling between the
> nucleus and the electronic structure.
>
> The neutrino would be a natural occurrence, given its spin quanta and
> variable energy configurations assuming it has mass.  LENR reactor designs
> may be nothing  more than providing an engineered system to allow the
> sharing of small spin quanta without the production of neutrinos (or in
> concert with their production) and production of phonons—enhanced orbital
> spin energy states.
>
> Jones, I remember the idea of spin disintegration from 50 years back and
> was under the impression it was a real reaction.  I assumed the technology
> became classified, since it disappeared from sight.
>
> The same thing happened when heavy water was brought to attention of the
> physics community in the mid 60’s.  That technology also disappeared from
> sight.  In hind sight it may have dealt with DDL hydrogen and reflects the
> Mill’s reactor’s technology.
>
> And I happen to believe that laser-induced fusion developed by a company
> out of Michigan in the mid to late 60’s had its technology classified.
> Classification is an inventor’s worst nightmare.
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
> *From:* Jones Beene 
> *Sent:* Monday, November 30, 2015 11:59 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* [Vo]:Spin amplification and nucleon disintegration
>
>
> Fifty years ago, there was a fair amount of scientific effort put into
> the study of “direct nucleon disintegration”. This process can be far
> more energetic in output than nuclear fusion, but ironically most of the
> energy is lost… in the sense of decay to neutrinos, which are weakly
> interacting. Perhaps that is why photonuclear disintegration was nearly
> abandoned. Fortunately, it is being revived now, in the context of LENR.
>
> One (expensive) way to accomplish the disintegration of hydrogen is via
> high velocity colliding ions, using a beam line; but a simpler and more
> interesting way is via what can be simplified as “spin disintegration.” There
> are several kinds of spin, and one of them is transferable (via laser) from
> photons to nucleons, even though there is a great disparity in wavelength
> vs the target diameter. The transferred energy derives from photon
> amplification and absorption and it can reach a critical threshold at a
> surprisingly low level. The devastation that follows from excess spin is
> similar to the centrifugal destruction of any high RPM object. Yet, here
> we see it at the tiniest scale. There is a merger of quantum and
> classical spin mediated by SPP, which requires more study.
>
> For the purposes of LENR, it will be proposed that an overlooked way that
> photons interact with nucleons is via depositing focused spin energy,
> leading to self-destruction. The spin angular momentum of light, or SAM - is
> associated with circular polarization. Circular polarization happens when
> electric and magnetic fields rotate around an axis during the propagation,
> such as in the SPP plasmon. Focusing occurs in what appears to be a
> vortex geometry.
>
> SAM is manifested as SPP which once absorbed beyond a critical level results
> in the internal disruption of QCD color exchange, allowing stable Efimov
> states in quarks to disassemble. In short, and in defense of Holmlid’s
> work – one part of the nuclear establishment has known for fifty years that
> there is an alternate route to vast amounts of energy without fusion of 
> nucleons,
> by facilitating nucleons degeneration via spin interference with QCD.
>
> Laser emissions are not inherently circularly polarized. Holmlid may have
> overlooked the importance of polarization (or maybe this is a trade
> secret of his). Since he has been successful, apparently without using
> polarization, then there appears to be an easy route to improvement or
> else it is inherent to SPP. Below are a few examples of the old ideas on
> using photon spin for nucleon disintegration. Dozens of further citations
> have not yet made their way into the digital world.
>
> Was this kind of thinking “dated” or was it ahead-of- its-time?
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Spin amplification and nucleon disintegration

2015-11-30 Thread Bob Cook

Spin amplification and nucleon disintegrationThe same EM circular polarization 
Jones has described can also interact with orbital spin states of electrons in 
metal lattices and/or mere atoms.  At resonant frequencies, disintegration of 
the lattice can occur and the excess angular momentum must be distributed in 
small quanta of H/2pi.  The same thing may happen when the nuclear spin states 
are excited with distribution of angular momentum to the lattice electrons.  
Resonance may be the ticket to get the desired coupling.

In addition the alignment of reactants in a magnetic field may act to change 
spin energy states to further facilitate coupling between the nucleus and the 
electronic structure. 

The neutrino would be a natural occurrence, given its spin quanta and variable 
energy configurations assuming it has mass.  LENR reactor designs  may be 
nothing  more than providing an engineered system to allow the sharing of small 
spin quanta without the production of neutrinos (or in concert with their 
production) and production of phonons—enhanced orbital spin energy states.  

Jones, I remember the idea of spin disintegration from 50 years back and was 
under the impression it was a real reaction.  I assumed the technology became 
classified, since it disappeared from sight.  

The same thing happened when heavy water was brought to attention of the 
physics community in the mid 60’s.  That technology also disappeared from 
sight.  In hind sight it may have dealt with DDL hydrogen and reflects the 
Mill’s reactor’s technology.   

And I happen to believe that laser-induced fusion developed by a company out of 
Michigan in the mid to late 60’s had its technology classified.  Classification 
is an inventor’s worst nightmare.   

Bob Cook

  
From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 11:59 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: [Vo]:Spin amplification and nucleon disintegration

Fifty years ago, there was a fair amount of scientific effort put into the 
study of “direct nucleon disintegration”. This process can be far more 
energetic in output than nuclear fusion, but ironically most of the energy is 
lost… in the sense of decay to neutrinos, which are weakly interacting. Perhaps 
that is why photonuclear disintegration was nearly abandoned. Fortunately, it 
is being revived now, in the context of LENR.

One (expensive) way to accomplish the disintegration of hydrogen is via high 
velocity colliding ions, using a beam line; but a simpler and more interesting 
way is via what can be simplified as “spin disintegration.” There are several 
kinds of spin, and one of them is transferable (via laser) from photons to 
nucleons, even though there is a great disparity in wavelength vs the target 
diameter. The transferred energy derives from photon amplification and 
absorption and it can reach a critical threshold at a surprisingly low level. 
The devastation that follows from excess spin is similar to the centrifugal 
destruction of any high RPM object. Yet, here we see it at the tiniest scale. 
There is a merger of quantum and classical spin mediated by SPP, which requires 
more study.

For the purposes of LENR, it will be proposed that an overlooked way that 
photons interact with nucleons is via depositing focused spin energy, leading 
to self-destruction. The spin angular momentum of light, or SAM - is associated 
with circular polarization. Circular polarization happens when electric and 
magnetic fields rotate around an axis during the propagation, such as in the 
SPP plasmon. Focusing occurs in what appears to be a vortex geometry.

SAM is manifested as SPP which once absorbed beyond a critical level results in 
the internal disruption of QCD color exchange, allowing stable Efimov states in 
quarks to disassemble. In short, and in defense of Holmlid’s work – one part of 
the nuclear establishment has known for fifty years that there is an alternate 
route to vast amounts of energy without fusion of nucleons, by facilitating 
nucleons degeneration via spin interference with QCD.

Laser emissions are not inherently circularly polarized. Holmlid may have 
overlooked the importance of polarization (or maybe this is a trade secret of 
his). Since he has been successful, apparently without using polarization, then 
there appears to be an easy route to improvement or else it is inherent to SPP. 
Below are a few examples of the old ideas on using photon spin for nucleon 
disintegration. Dozens of further citations have not yet made their way into 
the digital world. 

Was this kind of thinking “dated” or was it ahead-of- its-time?


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0029558261903534

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0370269377900090


https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:7250209


As you may surmise, all of this comes back to an emerging premise for 
understanding LENR based on Holmlid’s work. That premise is that at the very 
heart of the reaction we find

RE: [Vo]:Spin amplification and nucleon disintegration

2015-11-30 Thread Jones Beene

Bob,

It would be interesting to get info on that Michigan company.

Side Note: There is a little known “Law of Conservation of Nuclear Number”. 
This law states that the sum of protons and neutrons before and after a 
radioactive decay reaction will be the same. It has been stretched to include 
nuclear fusion and fission. In all of these, there is conversion of matter to 
energy but the matter that is converted is never a full nucleon.

Nucleon disintegration is different. It is neither fusion nor fission nor 
radioactive decay. It is incorrect to label it as anything else. Thus, the Law 
of Conservation of Nuclear Number does not apply to nucleon disintegration, as 
we have known since the 1930s. 

From: Bob Cook 

The same EM circular polarization Jones has described can also interact with 
orbital spin states of electrons in metal lattices and/or mere atoms.  At 
resonant frequencies, disintegration of the lattice can occur and the excess 
angular momentum must be distributed in small quanta of H/2pi.  The same thing 
may happen when the nuclear spin states are excited with distribution of 
angular momentum to the lattice electrons.  Resonance may be the ticket to get 
the desired coupling.
 
In addition the alignment of reactants in a magnetic field may act to change 
spin energy states to further facilitate coupling between the nucleus and the 
electronic structure. 
 
The neutrino would be a natural occurrence, given its spin quanta and variable 
energy configurations assuming it has mass.  LENR reactor designs  may be 
nothing  more than providing an engineered system to allow the sharing of small 
spin quanta without the production of neutrinos (or in concert with their 
production) and production of phonons—enhanced orbital spin energy states.  
 
Jones, I remember the idea of spin disintegration from 50 years back and was 
under the impression it was a real reaction.  I assumed the technology became 
classified, since it disappeared from sight.  
 
The same thing happened when heavy water was brought to attention of the 
physics community in the mid 60’s.  That technology also disappeared from 
sight.  In hind sight it may have dealt with DDL hydrogen and reflects the 
Mill’s reactor’s technology.   
 
And I happen to believe that laser-induced fusion developed by a company out of 
Michigan in the mid to late 60’s had its technology classified.  Classification 
is an inventor’s worst nightmare.   
 
Bob Cook
 
  
From: Jones Beene    
Fifty years ago, there was a fair amount of scientific effort put into the 
study of “direct nucleon disintegration”. This process can be far more 
energetic in output than nuclear fusion, but ironically most of the energy is 
lost… in the sense of decay to neutrinos, which are weakly interacting. Perhaps 
that is why photonuclear disintegration was nearly abandoned. Fortunately, it 
is being revived now, in the context of LENR.
One (expensive) way to accomplish the disintegration of hydrogen is via high 
velocity colliding ions, using a beam line; but a simpler and more interesting 
way is via what can be simplified as “spin disintegration.” There are several 
kinds of spin, and one of them is transferable (via laser) from photons to 
nucleons, even though there is a great disparity in wavelength vs the target 
diameter. The transferred energy derives from photon amplification and 
absorption and it can reach a critical threshold at a surprisingly low level. 
The devastation that follows from excess spin is similar to the centrifugal 
destruction of any high RPM object. Yet, here we see it at the tiniest scale. 
There is a merger of quantum and classical spin mediated by SPP, which requires 
more study.
For the purposes of LENR, it will be proposed that an overlooked way that 
photons interact with nucleons is via depositing focused spin energy, leading 
to self-destruction. The spin angular momentum of light, or SAM - is associated 
with circular polarization. Circular polarization happens when electric and 
magnetic fields rotate around an axis during the propagation, such as in the 
SPP plasmon. Focusing occurs in what appears to be a vortex geometry.
SAM is manifested as SPP which once absorbed beyond a critical level results in 
the internal disruption of QCD color exchange, allowing stable Efimov states in 
quarks to disassemble. In short, and in defense of Holmlid’s work – one part of 
the nuclear establishment has known for fifty years that there is an alternate 
route to vast amounts of energy without fusion of nucleons, by facilitating 
nucleons degeneration via spin interference with QCD.
Laser emissions are not inherently circularly polarized. Holmlid may have 
overlooked the importance of polarization (or maybe this is a trade secret of 
his). Since he has been successful, apparently without using polarization, then 
there appears to be an easy route to improvement or else it is inherent to SPP. 
Below are a few examples

Re: [Vo]:Spin amplification and nucleon disintegration

2015-11-30 Thread Axil Axil

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0801/0801.2752.pdf

Here is the math support for the “Mössbauer Effect”. It shows that a
monopole magnetic field is the most sensitive element to the Mössbauer
effect.

>From the Urutskoiev exploding titanium foil experiment experiment

4) Various difficulties of interpretation gradually led Urutskoiev and his
research team to the conclusion that magnetic poles could be a possible
source of the strange radiation effects they had observed. They became
aware of the present author’s work and a fruitful collaboration has been
initiated.

>From the very beginning, an important experiment was realized by Urutskoiev
and Ivoilov [54], using the fact that 57Fe is at the same time magnetic and
the most sensitive element to the Mössbauer effect. They irradiated, at
some meters from the source of the supposed monopoles, a sample of 57Fe .
Behind the iron sample was one pole of a long linear magnet, in order to
repel the monopoles of the same sign and attract the monopoles of the
opposite sign. Owing to the Mössbauer effect, they found a distinct shift
of a characteristic γ ray.

They repeated the experiment with the other pole of the magnet behind the
iron sample and, with the same exposure they found a γ ray shift in the
opposite direction [54].

One can make two remarks about this experiment :

 a) This is one of the most brilliant proof of monopole magnetism. But
there are others : for instance, the fact that Ivoilov focused a monopole
beam with an electromagnet.

b) If the 57Fe target sample used in the Mössbauer experiment is abandoned
for three days, the preceding characteristic γ ray spectrum goes back to
its mean normal position. This half-life effect seems to hold for all the
effects of magnetism induced by monopoles: they seem to have a limited time
of life (not predicted by theory). But other effects, such isotopic shifts
are definitive.


>From this experimental result, the half life of SPP monopole magnetism is
three days.

54. N. Ivoilov & L. Urutskoiev, The influence of « strange » radiation on
Mössbauer spectrum of F57 in metallic foils, Rus. Applied Physics, N° 5,
2004 (in Russian).

http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-297/aflb297m331.pdf



On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 9:50 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> It is uncertain to how large a magnetic effect that SPPs can produce. The
> DGT reports from Dr. Kim indicate that the effect can be large,
>
> *Magnetic monopole beam *
>
> One of the amazing revelations that has come out of nanoplasmonic research
> and experimentation is the explanation of how the “dark mode” polariton
> soliton can produce a monopole magnetic beam. This amazing revelation is
> not theory; it is based on experimental results. But there is a theoretical
> explanation that goes along with the experimental data (10). The monopole
> magnetic beam becomes pronounced at polariton soliton (PS) intermediate
> energy levels since the Surface Plasmon Polariton (SPP) aligns all the
> spins of the polaritons inside the soliton to project out of the soliton
> from its center perpendicular to its direction of wave rotation.
>
> The polariton has a spin of 2. The number of polaritons that can be
> absorbed into the soliton is not limited by the Pauli exclusion principle.
> There is even an experimental micrograph that shows the soliton and the
> monopole beam coming out of it.
>
>
>
> This beam can project out to 100 microns away from the soliton.
>
>
>
> It is not only the spin of the polaritons that contribute to the power of
> the monopole beam but it is also the angular momentum of polariton rotation
> that multiplies the magnetic power of the beam. The vortex rotation rate
> acts like a train of gears where the microparticle (large gear) drives the
> angular momentum of the hydrogen Rydberg matter (small gear).
>
>
>
> In the most dramatic case, the 100 micron particle transfers angular
> momentum to a hydrogen Rydberg matter particle which is comprised of a
> large number of graphite like layered hexagonal disk assemblages with a
> diameter just a few atoms across.
>
>
>
> Each atomic layer receives angular momentum from the vortex on the surface
> of the micro particle and that vortex motion is transferred to the small
> atomic hexagonal disks comprising the Rydberg matter. The spin multiplier
> that comprises the monopole beam is proportional to the ratio between the
> circumference of the 100 micron particle to the circumference of the
> hydrogen Rydberg matter hexagonal disk.
>
>
>
> The monopole magnetic beam is a primary mechanism of catalytic action in
> LENR. The beam can reach out without being depleted and disrupt an
> indeterminate number of atomic sites. The experiments of J,C.Fisher can be
> explained by the action of this beam.
>
> markfisher.net/johnfisher/papers/Bigshower.pdfEnergetic
>  particle
> shower in the vapor from electrolysis
>
> This experiment informs us about

Re: [Vo]:Spin Currents

2015-07-24 Thread Harvey Norris

The whole aspect of 3 phase car alternator generated voltages generated from 
spin alone is frequently dismissed as an effect of remanent magnetism of the 
rotating field rotor.   The gyroscopic reaction force on the unpaired electron 
spins in the ferromagnetic pole faces in rotation should work to only exert a 
sideways deflection on the uncohered spins moving in the wrong direction with 
respect to the macroscopic rotation of the field rotor steel itself. Take a 
bunch of spinning gyroscopes in all directions, put them on a revolving 
turntable and see how precession makes all these spins seem  more cohered. 
Essentially the magnetic gap assembly of the field rotor is feebly magnetized 
during rotation, meaning a priorvoltage on the rotating electromagnet itself 
is present before any field voltage current is introduced. Incredibly in all 
the google alternator references I have seen no where is the connection between 
the direction of spin of the field rotor and the proper polarity to be applied 
to the field to be in harmony with that spin mentioned. On top of all this 
because the field rotor has an air gap in rotation with respect to the stator 
windings, those windings see a varying inductance on their outputs, making this 
also a form of a parametric oscillator.All of these effects are made from 
rotational magnetism alone where the field of the alternator is not yet 
empowered.https://youtu.be/FAc3jQziiccOne of the classic early videos of the 
flux capacitor, which coincidentally my birthday of sept 7: 70 years prior to 
my own is featured on the third episode of back to the future. Will check the 
orders sir, and respond to original objective.HDN on spin factor.Pioneering the 
Applications of Interphasal Resonances 
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/ 


 On Friday, July 24, 2015 10:40 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com 
wrote:
   

 
To create a current of spins in insulators, scientists have typically kept 
electrons stationary in a lattice made of an insulating ferromagnetic material, 
such as yttrium iron garnet (YIG). When they apply a heat gradient across the 
material, the spins begin to move—that is, information about the orientation 
of a spin is communicated from one point to another along the lattice, much in 
the way a wave moves through water without actually transporting the water 
molecules anywhere. Spin excitations known as magnons are thought to carry the 
current.
Read more at: 
http://phys.org/news/2015-07-young-scientist-magnetic-material-unnecessary.html#jCp

RE: [Vo]:Spin Coupling

2014-09-08 Thread Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson

 Must be a fresh batch of windowpane circulating in Berkeley.

Haven't heard that word in decades.

Far out.

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
svjart.orionworks.com
zazzle.com/orionworks

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Spin Coupling

2014-09-08 Thread hohlr...@gmail.com

Just rewatched Star Trek The Voyage Home where Kirk explained that Spock was 
odd because he did too much LDS while at Berkeley. 

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone

- Reply message -
From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Spin Coupling
Date: Mon, Sep 8, 2014 8:21 AM

 Must be a fresh batch of windowpane circulating in Berkeley.

Haven't heard that word in decades.

Far out.

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
svjart.orionworks.com
zazzle.com/orionworks

RE: [Vo]:Spin Coupling

2014-09-08 Thread Jones Beene

It's so hard to combine science with humor in a way that no one is sure... even 
when it is acid humor g

BTW - the word “humor” comes from the Greek for wet. Humor must have 
originally served to dilute the hard realities of the bronze age. These daze, 
science humor is often served without liquid - in that case it is called dry 
humor.


-Original Message-
From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson 

 Must be a fresh batch of windowpane circulating in Berkeley.

Haven't heard that word in decades.

Far out.

Re: [Vo]:Spin Coupling

2014-09-07 Thread Bob Cook


Jones--

You are mystical in your assessment of spin coupling.  I am also a mystic.

The presence of a magnetic field is known to separate the energy states 
associated with spin energy.  The variation of magnetic fields may allow the 
random connection with resonant frequencies and spin quantum states in a 
matrix of Ni or any other solid state material.


I do not know about Heffner or Springer, but more power to them.

Why has Peter not taken up spin coupling except in passing noting that his 
new Hamiltonian is relativistic and considers a  loosy spin-boson model with 
(I assume) energy coupling?


My thoughts about spin coupling go all the way back to PF in 1989.  They 
were vague and reflected my ideas presented in my early correspondence with 
Vortex-l in February.  The subsequent discussion with you and others on this 
blog have certainly enhanced my ideas.  The two dimensional and one 
dimensional issues associated with nano particles and structures I believe 
is a key issue in understanding the reaction potential and spin coupling in 
a magnetic field. Your third item in the list below regarding hydrogen bonds 
is also noted and may be a key model to consider in the fractionation of 
spin energy from nuclei to a matrix or molecule with hydrogen bonding.


The comment I made to Eric regarding his recent spread sheet follows 
hereinafter and addresses potential spin coupling between Ni-62 and Cu-63.


The first reaction that produces Ni-59 will end up as Co-59 with no 
gammas since the Ni-59 decay involves an electron capture and a hot beta 
+, which will give thermal energy to the matrix ( about .0.52 Mev) with a 
subsequent beta+, beta- decay with its back-to-back .51 Mev gammas. The 
total energy from the Ni-59 decay--half live 7.6x10^4 years-- is 1.073 
Mev. Ni-59 has a -3/2 spin and and Co-59 has a -7/2 spin. It seems that 
spin is changed since the beta+ particle would only carry +or- 1/2 spin. 
I do not understand how spin angular momentum is conserved in the Ni-59 
decay reaction, unless there are several neutrinos involved which could 
carry away spin angular momentum.


You have not considered neutron capture reactions with the various Ni 
isotopes. If the H reacts in the magnetic field in the Rossi device with an 
electron to form a neutron as an intermediate virtual particle, then Ni-58 
would go to Ni-59 and hence to Co-59 as described above.


Proton absorption reaction with Ni-60 would give Cu-61 with a 3.41 H half 
life. Cu-61 decays by electron capture and gives a beta+ with soft gammas 
(.28 and .65 Mev) and a stable Ni-61 isotope. (Focardi indicated that Cu was 
formed and in non-natural isotopic ratios in the Rossi device.) This 
conclusion seems to differ from your table regarding the desirability of the 
reaction.
Proton absorption reaction with Ni-58 gives Cu-59 which decays with a half 
live if 82 s and produces a beta+ at 3.75 Mev and hot gammas at 1.3 Mev. 
Total energy of this decay is 4.8 Mev. This does not look like it would be a 
reaction that Rossi would like given the hot gamma. And there is a 
radioactive product, since the final item is Ni-59 with its long half life 
and its .51 Mev gammas from the beta+ annihilation.
A proton reaction with Ni-62 would give Cu-63, which is stable. This 
reaction would involve a decrease in energy (mass) of about 6.22 Mev. How 
the energy would be released is a question. It may be distributed by spin 
coupling to the rest of the matrix electrons and hence as thermal energy.


Rossi would not want Ni-58, but Ni-62 and Ni-62 would seem to be ok. Ni-61 
would be undesirable also since it gives Cu-62 with the addition of a 
proton, and Cu-62 decays with a hot gamma of 1.17 Mev.
It is my thought that there may be two reactions occurring at the same time 
with spin of the resulting Cu-63 isotopes having equal but opposite excited 
spin states such that spin angular momentum change is 0 and each of the two 
new Cu-63 nuclei decay from their excited states at the same time, coupling 
with electrons in the matrix, with each electron receiving a quanta or two 
in the process. It may be that a pair of protons, a Cooper pair, actually 
react with two Ni-62 nuclei in a solid state BEC configuration. The magnetic 
field that exists in the Ni matrix would cause the degenerative quantum 
states in the adjacent Ni nuclei to allow the necessary excited spin states 
to handle the excess mass energy released in the reactions. All this is 
without gammas. 


How's that for a guess?

Bob  Cook


- Original Message - 
From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 12:17 PM
Subject: [Vo]:Spin Coupling


Spin coupling is a superset phrase for several types of energy transfer
mechanisms, including angular momentum coupling, magnetic coupling and much
more. Unfortunately, there is no scholarly paper to elucidate all of the
intricacy of this phenomenon, as it applies to LENR. Mention was made of
spin

Re: [Vo]:Spin Coupling

2014-09-07 Thread Nigel Dyer

I have recently come across Torsion Fields, the theoretical fifth force 
that has yet to be experimentally demonstrated.

Should this fifth force be the 10th spin-spin interaction on the list?
Nigel

On 07/09/2014 20:17, Jones Beene wrote:

Spin coupling is a superset phrase for several types of energy transfer
mechanisms, including angular momentum coupling, magnetic coupling and much
more. Unfortunately, there is no scholarly paper to elucidate all of the
intricacy of this phenomenon, as it applies to LENR. Mention was made of
spin coupling in gravimagnetics by Horace Heffner years ago, and it is too
bad he is not here to bring those comments up to date in a broader context.
It was part of  Julian Schwinger's approach to LENR, far earlier.

Spin coupling exists as a way to transfer energy across vast scales of
geometry, all the way from galaxies down to quarks. Included in the term are

1) magnetic dipole coupling
2) LS coupling of hydrogen and possibly potassium, where the electron spins
interact among themselves in groups to form a total spin angular momentum
(similar to magnons);
3) J coupling, which is also called indirect dipole-dipole coupling which is
mediated through hydrogen bonds connecting two spins.
4) JJ coupling happens between heavier atoms like nickel;
5) Spin-spin coupling
6) Magnon coupling
7) Mössbauer coupling
8) Nuclear coupling, which is stronger at short distances and is
incorporated directly into the nuclear shell model.
9) Subatomic spin coupling of quarks and pions QCD etc.

Certainly there are others under the umbrella of spin coupling.

A focus on spin coupling phenomenon - as the main source of nuclear gain,
without gamma radiation, is new to somewhat new to LENR and it is not clear
who to attribute the idea to, possibly Schwinger in a simpler form - but it
stands as an alternative way to transfer mass-energy from heavy nuclei,
directly to light nuclei, then to electrons, then to magnons (in the sense
of a coherent array). The energy is nuclear, but there is no fusion nor is
it Mills, even if reduced orbitals are involved.

The result is spatial thermal gain which is similar in some respects to the
way a magnetic core of a transformer heats up. Yet in the end the gain is
mass-to-energy - since nuclear mass converts to spin at a basic subatomic
level, starting at the quark level and QCD.

The main problem is that there could be much more going on in any LENR
experiment than spin coupling. In fact, spin coupling can co-exist with
nuclear fusion, beta decay, hydrinos or any other nuclear process. Plus,
gain from spin coupling can make incidental fusion reactions seem more
robust than they in actuality ... or vice-versa. By that, it is suggested
that spin coupling, providing only milli-eV of energy per nucleon, but which
is transferred at terahertz rates, is a mechanism which can provide many
Watts of thermal gain, which can make a few incidental fusion reactions
stand-out as being more important than they are... or vice versa.

This is a complex and interesting angle - for looking at gain in
nickel-hydrogen systems for several reasons. First, of course is that nickel
is ferromagnetic  and many experiments have shown changes around the Curie
point of nickel. Second is the Letts/Cravens effect and the recent NI-Week
demo of Dennis Cravens, and the magnetic work of Mitchell Swartz - all of
which show a strong connection of magnetism to excess heat.

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Spin Coupling

On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:

 I do not know about Heffner or Springer, but more power to them.

Horace's web page is still up.  I hope the same is true for him.

http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Spin Coupling

On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote:
 I have recently come across Torsion Fields, the theoretical fifth force that
 has yet to be experimentally demonstrated.
 Should this fifth force be the 10th spin-spin interaction on the list?

The web has much on the works of Dr Gennady Shipov and Torsion Fields.
Here is a 2005 interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jyruZg8uko

RE: [Vo]:Spin Coupling

Wiki doesn't have many kind words for many of the torsion field proponents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsion_field_%28pseudoscience%29

...despite Jack Sarfatti (or maybe because of him)

But there could be a kernel of truth which is related to spin coupling. Terry 
may know what Jack's response is...


-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton 

Nigel Dyer wrote:

 I have recently come across Torsion Fields, the theoretical fifth force that 
 has yet to be experimentally demonstrated. Should this fifth force be the 
 10th spin-spin interaction on the list?

The web has much on the works of Dr Gennady Shipov and Torsion Fields. Here is 
a 2005 interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jyruZg8uko

Re: [Vo]:Spin Coupling

On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
 Wiki doesn't have many kind words for many of the torsion field proponents
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsion_field_%28pseudoscience%29

 ...despite Jack Sarfatti (or maybe because of him)

 But there could be a kernel of truth which is related to spin coupling. Terry 
 may know what Jack's response is...

Well, attempts at verification of TF by experimental evidence have had
poor results.  Jack invited Gennady over for a storming session about
a decade ago and the result was a falling out.  This often happens
when large egos collide...especially in phrynge physics.  Jack pretty
much labels it as so much BS here (and Jack knows BS):

http://quantumfuture.net/quantum_future/torsion.pdf

All the words in quotation marks above are unnecessary or misleading, or
make no sense at all. Their actual function is to discourage the experts from
trying to figure it out what the author is talking about. It is part of what is
called ”impressionistic style” in theoretical physics. There is nothing wrong
with impressionistic style. Some painters are realist, some surrealist, some
impressionist etc. But it is important to recognize the style. When I see an
impressionistic painting, I usually squint my eyes so as to consciously not to
pay attention to the details. I understand that it is up to me to give the
meaning to the painting, not to the painter. And sometimes I am able to
give this meaning, and sometimes not.

I think the dialog between the two pretty much ended with:

Gennady Shipov

Goldstone's fields and Higgs's mechanism in my theory are connected
with primary torsion fields.


Jack

Show equations.

Shipov

It is object which appears pioneering from Absolute Vacuum.


Jack

Show equations

Re: [Vo]:Spin Coupling

2014-09-07 Thread Nigel Dyer

Wikipedia may not have kind words for the proponents, but that does not
seem to have stopped other people making serious (I assume) suggestions
as to how they could be measured, and getting their ideas published in
Science.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6122/928.abstract?sid=ec0e0993-aeb3-4f3d-9fbc-35c4c0cecb73

Nigel

On 07/09/2014 22:16, Terry Blanton wrote:

On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

Wiki doesn't have many kind words for many of the torsion field proponents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsion_field_%28pseudoscience%29

...despite Jack Sarfatti (or maybe because of him)

But there could be a kernel of truth which is related to spin coupling. Terry
may know what Jack's response is...

Well, attempts at verification of TF by experimental evidence have had
poor results. Jack invited Gennady over for a storming session about
a decade ago and the result was a falling out. This often happens
when large egos collide...especially in phrynge physics. Jack pretty
much labels it as so much BS here (and Jack knows BS):

http://quantumfuture.net/quantum_future/torsion.pdf

All the words in quotation marks above are unnecessary or misleading, or
make no sense at all. Their actual function is to discourage the experts from
trying to figure it out what the author is talking about. It is part of what is
called ”impressionistic style” in theoretical physics. There is nothing wrong
with impressionistic style. Some painters are realist, some surrealist, some
impressionist etc. But it is important to recognize the style. When I see an
impressionistic painting, I usually squint my eyes so as to consciously not to
pay attention to the details. I understand that it is up to me to give the
meaning to the painting, not to the painter. And sometimes I am able to
give this meaning, and sometimes not.

I think the dialog between the two pretty much ended with:

Gennady Shipov

Goldstone's fields and Higgs's mechanism in my theory are connected
with primary torsion fields.

Jack

Show equations.

Shipov

It is object which appears pioneering from Absolute Vacuum.

Jack

Show equations

Re: [Vo]:Spin Coupling

Here is one of Shipov's definitive papers if anyone wishes to make up
their own mind:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8mt4mJOTGvBM1FaZDBoUWVnNEE/edit?usp=sharing

RE: [Vo]:Spin Coupling

Robert Dicke to the rescue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brans%E2%80%93Dicke_theory

This guy deserved two Nobel prizes... but who sez life is fair?


-Original Message-
From: Nigel Dyer 

Wikipedia may not have kind words for the proponents, but that does not 
seem to have stopped other people making serious (I assume) suggestions 
as to how they could be measured, and getting their ideas published in 
Science.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6122/928.abstract?sid=ec0e0993-aeb3-4f3d-9fbc-35c4c0cecb73

Nigel

RE: [Vo]:Spin Coupling

-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook 

The presence of a magnetic field is known to separate the energy states
associated with spin energy. The variation of magnetic fields may allow the
random connection with resonant frequencies and spin quantum states in a
matrix of Ni ...


It would seem that spin coupling is pushing us towards a better model of
LENR. If we can agree that mass is being converted into energy and
transferred by way of spin coupling as the active modality, then the next
question is where, precisely, is the mass loss happening? 

Fusion has the advantage of pinpointing the loss in a known way, but fusion
may not be a satisfactory answer. (I realize this is a minority view)

If there is an alternative way to transfer mass-energy from heavy nuclei,
directly to light nuclei, then to electrons, then to magnons - the deposited
energy is nuclear, even if it is only spin energy. There are coincidences
in physics, but to my thinking, the fact that nickel is the one element in
nature which has the most neutron rich isotope, is not coincidental with its
role in LENR. 

It probably gets back to the number 28... (sorry, not 42)...28 is magic.

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Spin Coupling

On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 6:20 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 It would seem that spin coupling is pushing us towards a better model of
 LENR. If we can agree that mass is being converted into energy and
 transferred by way of spin coupling as the active modality, then the next
 question is where, precisely, is the mass loss happening?

As long as we are speculating, why not have spin coupling act like a
hydrino catalyst and lower the orbit of the electron?  Only intertial
mass is converted.

RE: [Vo]:Spin Coupling

Speaking of mysticism, Bob - here is a poser that only a greek-geek
freemason vortician on the RAW tradition, will appreciate: 

Nickel has 28 written all through it. Is there a deeper, even Platonic,
understanding for why 28 is magical in the nuclear context?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_number_%28physics%29

I've pondered this question before to no avail. Back when Grimer was here we
discussed vesica piscis and the square root of 3, and all of that deep
current (literally if you need to convert AC to DC)... anyway...

...just now in thinking about the number 42 in the context of 28, it occurs
that in Euclidean geometry, there are five Platonic solids... and of these,
the only regular polygon which will nest in another of the five types,
having equal faces such that have both axial symmetry and rotational
symmetry and are non-scaled compounds... let me catch my breath... wow...
amazing...these are the octahedron within the icosahedron. Get it? See the
last image here:

https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/symmetry/polycpd.htm

The octahedron of course represents 8 units and the icosahedron represents
20. When merged as a nucleus - this is the signature of nickel 28. All in
all, this cross-connection to geometry should mean that remarkable stability
will reside in the basic structure, apart from physics due only to symmetry
- and guess what... the stability of the two polygons is no hat trick:

http://www.renyi.hu/~carlos/radiusstab.pdf

Did you catch the second vesica piscis connection? Wow... the Illuminati
could annoint yours truly as a 33rd degree Grand Poobah Mason, on the spot -
for that bit of profundity... 

-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook 

The presence of a magnetic field is known to separate the energy states
associated with spin energy. The variation of magnetic fields may allow the
random connection with resonant frequencies and spin quantum states in a
matrix of Ni ...


It would seem that spin coupling is pushing us towards a better model of
LENR. If we can agree that mass is being converted into energy and
transferred by way of spin coupling as the active modality, then the next
question is where, precisely, is the mass loss happening? 

Fusion has the advantage of pinpointing the loss in a known way, but fusion
may not be a satisfactory answer. (I realize this is a minority view)

If there is an alternative way to transfer mass-energy from heavy nuclei,
directly to light nuclei, then to electrons, then to magnons - the deposited
energy is nuclear, even if it is only spin energy. There are coincidences
in physics, but to my thinking, the fact that nickel is the one element in
nature which has the most neutron rich isotope, is not coincidental with its
role in LENR. 

It probably gets back to the number 28... (sorry, not 42)...28 is magic.

Jones



attachment: winmail.dat

Re: [Vo]:Spin Coupling

Must be a fresh batch of windowpane circulating in Berkeley.

Re: [Vo]:Spin coupling of DDL to 62Ni

2014-07-27 Thread Eric Walker

On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

http://iccf15.frascati.enea.it/ICCF15-PRESENTATIONS/S8_O2_Cook.pdf

 If you have nothing better to do this weekend, here is a 71 page paper
 which Rossi says gives a correct explanation of gain with Ni-H. I do not
 have the time, so the hope is to entice someone else to chop wood (Van
 Morrison fans will appreciate this metaphor)


I am happy to take one for the team in this instance.  These are
interesting slides in which Norman D. Cook [1] gives an overview of the
argument for his FCC nuclear structure model.  He describes a nuclear
structure in which the nucleons arrange in an FCC lattice, with layers of
protons and neutrons sandwiched together, and, in larger nuclei, forming a
diamond-like structure (see slide 46).  Cook suggests his model does away
with the need for long-range effective forces between nucleons and allows
the nucleus to be understood entirely in terms of interactions between
nearest neighbors.  I do not know anything about Cook, but he appears to
have published in some reputable journals.  The slides were connected with
ICCF 15, which looks like it took place in Rome in 2009.

Cook contrasts his model with the independent particle model, the liquid
drop model and the lattice model of the nucleus.  There is almost no
obvious connection to LENR.  A slide at the very end suggests that his
model explains why symmetrical daughters are produced in the fission of
palladium at low energies, and at an earlier point he seems to be saying
that there is a ~ 3 MeV magnetic attractive force between nearest neighbor
nucleons.

To be honest, I don't see an obvious connection to LENR, possibly apart
from the magnetism bit.  I'm not sure how Rossi feels himself to be in a
position to assess the merit of Cook's theory or how it relates to LENR.

Eric


[1] http://www.res.kutc.kansai-u.ac.jp/~cook/

RE: [Vo]:Spin coupling of DDL to 62Ni

2014-07-26 Thread Jones Beene

http://iccf15.frascati.enea.it/ICCF15-PRESENTATIONS/S8_O2_Cook.pdf

If you have nothing better to do this weekend, here is a 71 page paper which 
Rossi says gives a correct explanation of gain with Ni-H. I do not have the 
time, so the hope is to entice someone else to chop wood (Van Morrison fans 
will appreciate this metaphor)

I did a search for 62Ni but nothing turned up. A quick scan shows an unusual 
emphasis on helium, which has not apparent connection to Rossi. Quien sabe?

Re: [Vo]:Spin coupling of DDL to 62Ni

2014-07-25 Thread Bob Cook

Jones--


I would bet that Pd lattice can also provide high magnetic fields and spin 
coupling as you have indicated for Ni-62.


It may not be as effective however.

Eric--take note of Jones assessment of spin coupling and the importance of 
magnetic fields.


What causes the latency you outline earlier as being low may be off base.   I 
think that resonant conditions established via thermal control may be the key.  
To start a spin coupling reaction the proper temperature must be established.  
Once established it is self maintained and self limiting because higher 
temperatures destroy the resonant conditions needed for coupling.


Note that the hot cat probably merely added items to the lattice to change the 
resonant conditions.  The peak of the black body spectrum is the key to 
controlling the reaction.  The sharper the peak the easier the control.  


Bob









Sent from Windows Mail





From: Jones Beene
Sent: ‎Friday‎, ‎July‎ ‎25‎, ‎2014 ‎9‎:‎19‎ ‎AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com





If there is a real DDL species in LENR (hydrogen isomer with electron
orbital at less than 10 Fermi), even if it is a transitory species with a
lifetime of only nanoseconds, then there is a way for nickel to provide the
thermal gain, by spin coupling with no fusion required. In fact, if there is
such a DDL species, chances are that it could be a transitory oscillator,
such that the rate of oscillation is resonant with the phonon rate of
nickel. 

Rice and Kim show here that the DDL is not stable for extended periods. They
do not show that the DDL is impossible...
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RiceRAcommentsona.pdf
but they also demonstrate that they do not understand Mills' CQM theory

To overcome the objections to the DDL, and to nickel spin coupling, please
consider all of these points as a package, and not individually. Back in
early 2011, we talked about the final revision of the Rossi patent filing.
In his application Rossi's bets everything on Ni62 as THE important reactant
- US 2011/0005506. His reasoning could be incorrect, but it is likely that
Rossi tested pure isotopes and found that Ni-62 was indeed the active
isotope. 

Otherwise Rossi would not have bet the farm on one isotope, since ... if he
is wrong on that single detail he has lost all protection against
infringement. QUOTE from application: Accordingly, it is indispensable to
use, for the above mentioned exothermal reactions, a nickel isotope having a
mass number of 62. That pretty much says it all when we consider the
properties of this isotope (and if we ignore Rossi's reasoning in the patent
for why this isotope works). He could be right for the wrong reason.

BTW - the patent was granted in Europe to his wife Maddalena Pascucci, who
is an attorney, and presumably had good advice on patent law - but again -
the US application is not granted. However, the USA is a signator to the PCT
so Pascucci could get protection here for the nickel-62 part - and perhaps
for little else. 

Why Ni-62 ... and why bet the farm?

Nickel-62 is at the very pinnacle of stability - having the highest binding
energy per nucleon in the entire Periodic Table (8.8 MeV). There is no more
stable isotope known to science. This binding stability would actually
prohibit it from participating in proton nuclear fusion reactions, as Rossi
suggested, but would allow spin energy (part of the binding energy) to be
coupled and depleted - simply because there is plenty to spare. Too bad that
he did not realize this distinction. BTW - it is duly noted that other
nickel and iron isotopes have very high binding energy as well, but a lot of
weight goes to Rossi's testing of isotopes against each other.

That is what is meant by Rossi being right for the wrong reason

This stability of Ni-62, combined with ferromagnetism is especially relevant
for the combination of a strong magnet with a material which cannot be
saturated; and the DDL, with an effective field strength at the 10 Fermi
level in the range of giga-T (billions of Tesla) is that strong magnet.
Deraz - claims there is no saturation level for NiO, and even if doubts are
warranted on that particular point, it could be important in the context of
spin coupling to find an extreme level of saturation capability, with which
to mate with giga-T fields. The result is spin coupling.
www.electrochemsci.org/papers/vol7/7054608.pdf

In short, as of now, with dozens of alternative theories floating around for
the gain in Ni-H, the best emerging scenario - from my perspective seems to
be one which is
1)  No fusion occurs in Ni-H. It is a different beast that Pd-D.
2)  But the gain is Nuclear, in the sense of mass conversion into energy
3)  It is Nanomagnetic in the sense that spin energy is involved at
small geometry
4)  Probably involves a transitory version of the DDL, which oscillates
at IR frequency, due to SPP interaction at the top and spin coupling at the
bottom, such that the collapse and reinflation are slightly

RE: [Vo]:Spin coupling of DDL to 62Ni

2014-07-25 Thread Jones Beene

John, I’m quite familiar with what Meulenberg has written over the years on
the DDL but it is not his invention. He deserves lots of credit for
promoting it, however.

Nor is the DDL really attributable to Mills. In fact, RM can be faulted for
not acknowledging the previous work. Mills does add the Rydberg steps, which
is a nice touch.

In fact, Meulenberg is well aware of the Rice/Kim objections, and he cannot
counter them, or at least there is no indication in published documents that
he can. Rice/Kim make a strong case, despite one shaky assumption.

One way to salvage the DDL, since it seems so intuitive to the problem of
LENR, is to consider it as transitory. 

IMO – that tactic – a transitory oscillation, with inherent asymmetry, can
work; but - a time-stable DDL is probably out of the picture. 

From: Foks0904 

I don't mind the Mills hypothesis. I wouldn't be shocked if
it was correct. You can even tell Storms has a begrudging respect for it. I
like the Meulenberg-Sinha take on it as well. There was an article form last
year I believe in JCMNS that explores the DDL in depth. Meulenberg seemed to
think it was important. You might find it worthwhile considering your
interest in the subject. I just think there are some serious problems with
the model as well -- such as the instability issue. 

CF-LENR I think would be an even more amazing story if it
ended up granting insight into dark matter and such. I just wouldn't
proclaim that too loudly at this point -- it's not exactly a
credibility-generating maneuver at this awkward time in CF-LENR's present
development  image.

On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Jones Beene
jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
If there is a real DDL species in LENR (hydrogen isomer with
electron
orbital at less than 10 Fermi), even if it is a transitory
species with a
lifetime of only nanoseconds, then there is a way for nickel
to provide the
thermal gain, by spin coupling with no fusion required. In
fact, if there is
such a DDL species, chances are that it could be a
transitory oscillator,
such that the rate of oscillation is resonant with the
phonon rate of
nickel.

Rice and Kim show here that the DDL is not stable for
extended periods. They
do not show that the DDL is impossible...
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RiceRAcommentsona.pdf
but they also demonstrate that they do not understand Mills'
CQM theory

To overcome the objections to the DDL, and to nickel spin
coupling, please
consider all of these points as a package, and not
individually. Back in
early 2011, we talked about the final revision of the Rossi
patent filing.
In his application Rossi's bets everything on Ni62 as THE
important reactant
- US 2011/0005506. His reasoning could be incorrect, but it
is likely that
Rossi tested pure isotopes and found that Ni-62 was indeed
the active
isotope.

Otherwise Rossi would not have bet the farm on one isotope,
since ... if he
is wrong on that single detail he has lost all protection
against
infringement. QUOTE from application: Accordingly, it is
indispensable to
use, for the above mentioned exothermal reactions, a nickel
isotope having a
mass number of 62. That pretty much says it all when we
consider the
properties of this isotope (and if we ignore Rossi's
reasoning in the patent
for why this isotope works). He could be right for the
wrong reason.

BTW - the patent was granted in Europe to his wife Maddalena
Pascucci, who
is an attorney, and presumably had good advice on patent law
- but again -
the US application is not granted. However, the USA is a
signator to the PCT
so Pascucci could get protection here for the nickel-62 part
- and perhaps
for little else.

Why Ni-62 ... and why bet the farm?

Nickel-62 is at the very pinnacle of stability - having the
highest binding
energy per nucleon in the entire Periodic Table (8.8 MeV).
There is no more
stable isotope known to science. This binding stability
would actually
prohibit it from participating in proton nuclear fusion
reactions, as Rossi
suggested, but would allow spin energy (part of the binding
energy) to be
coupled and depleted - simply because there is plenty to
spare. Too bad that
he did not realize this distinction. BTW -

Re: [Vo]:Spin coupling of DDL to 62Ni

2014-07-25 Thread Axil Axil

LENR reactions with nickel is a very rare minority reaction. The primary
reaction is in the extraction of nuclear energy from hydrogen crystals
(Rydberg matter).

A NiH reactor can operates for months and years without much deterioration
of the nickel nano-structures through transmutation. The NiH reactor
produces only light elements.

The DGT ash assay shows little nickel consumed and little copper produced.

The nuclear energy produced in the NiH LENR reaction is absorbed in the
hydrogen envelope because the 3 grams of nickel powder does not have
sufficient thermodynamic presents to transfer heat to the structure of the
reactor without deterioration through sintering.

Many other transition metals are capable of supporting the LENR reaction.
Nickel is best because it is a perfect infrared reflector.

Ni58, Ni60, Ni62 and Ni64 are all capable of supporting LENR because they
are NMR inactive. Ni61 is NMR active and will waste energy by producing
radio frequency radiation.





On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 If there is a real DDL species in LENR (hydrogen isomer with electron
 orbital at less than 10 Fermi), even if it is a transitory species with a
 lifetime of only nanoseconds, then there is a way for nickel to provide the
 thermal gain, by spin coupling with no fusion required. In fact, if there
 is
 such a DDL species, chances are that it could be a transitory oscillator,
 such that the rate of oscillation is resonant with the phonon rate of
 nickel.

 Rice and Kim show here that the DDL is not stable for extended periods.
 They
 do not show that the DDL is impossible...
 http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RiceRAcommentsona.pdf
 but they also demonstrate that they do not understand Mills' CQM theory

 To overcome the objections to the DDL, and to nickel spin coupling, please
 consider all of these points as a package, and not individually. Back in
 early 2011, we talked about the final revision of the Rossi patent filing.
 In his application Rossi's bets everything on Ni62 as THE important
 reactant
 - US 2011/0005506. His reasoning could be incorrect, but it is likely that
 Rossi tested pure isotopes and found that Ni-62 was indeed the active
 isotope.

 Otherwise Rossi would not have bet the farm on one isotope, since ... if he
 is wrong on that single detail he has lost all protection against
 infringement. QUOTE from application: Accordingly, it is indispensable to
 use, for the above mentioned exothermal reactions, a nickel isotope having
 a
 mass number of 62. That pretty much says it all when we consider the
 properties of this isotope (and if we ignore Rossi's reasoning in the
 patent
 for why this isotope works). He could be right for the wrong reason.

 BTW - the patent was granted in Europe to his wife Maddalena Pascucci, who
 is an attorney, and presumably had good advice on patent law - but again -
 the US application is not granted. However, the USA is a signator to the
 PCT
 so Pascucci could get protection here for the nickel-62 part - and perhaps
 for little else.

 Why Ni-62 ... and why bet the farm?

 Nickel-62 is at the very pinnacle of stability - having the highest binding
 energy per nucleon in the entire Periodic Table (8.8 MeV). There is no more
 stable isotope known to science. This binding stability would actually
 prohibit it from participating in proton nuclear fusion reactions, as Rossi
 suggested, but would allow spin energy (part of the binding energy) to be
 coupled and depleted - simply because there is plenty to spare. Too bad
 that
 he did not realize this distinction. BTW - it is duly noted that other
 nickel and iron isotopes have very high binding energy as well, but a lot
 of
 weight goes to Rossi's testing of isotopes against each other.

 That is what is meant by Rossi being right for the wrong reason

 This stability of Ni-62, combined with ferromagnetism is especially
 relevant
 for the combination of a strong magnet with a material which cannot be
 saturated; and the DDL, with an effective field strength at the 10 Fermi
 level in the range of giga-T (billions of Tesla) is that strong magnet.
 Deraz - claims there is no saturation level for NiO, and even if doubts are
 warranted on that particular point, it could be important in the context of
 spin coupling to find an extreme level of saturation capability, with which
 to mate with giga-T fields. The result is spin coupling.
 www.electrochemsci.org/papers/vol7/7054608.pdf

 In short, as of now, with dozens of alternative theories floating around
 for
 the gain in Ni-H, the best emerging scenario - from my perspective seems to
 be one which is
 1)  No fusion occurs in Ni-H. It is a different beast that Pd-D.
 2)  But the gain is Nuclear, in the sense of mass conversion into
 energy
 3)  It is Nanomagnetic in the sense that spin energy is involved at
 small geometry
 4)  Probably involves a transitory version of the DDL, which oscillates
 at IR frequency,

Re: [Vo]:Spin coupling of DDL to 62Ni

2014-07-25 Thread Terry Blanton

 On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 8)  It is not clear if the Ni-62 gives up some of its own mass, or is
 a
 gateway to the Dirac sea ... Either way, this is LENR but it is also
 non-fusion LENR

Well, I'm working on my own pet theory but can't find the information
to support it.  I think the Rossi effect works by conversion of
electrons directly into energy.  Crazy, huh?

Does a free electron have spin?  Does a free electron have mass?  Does
a free electron exist?

RE: [Vo]:Spin coupling of DDL to 62Ni

2014-07-25 Thread Jones Beene

-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton 

 Well, I'm working on my own pet theory but can't find the information to 
 support it.  I think the Rossi effect works by conversion of electrons 
 directly into energy.  Crazy, huh?


Not really crazy - Rossi/Focardi's old comments relates to positrons as one of 
the possibilities - along with Ni-Cu. 

The way to convert electrons to energy is via positrons (anti-electrons). 
However, that radiation signature shows up quite well with meters, and it is 
probably why in 2011, Bianchini who was hired to look for a radiation 
signature, used a meter designed specifically for positron/electron detection.

Sorry but the result was negative.

Re: [Vo]:Spin coupling of DDL to 62Ni

2014-07-25 Thread Axil Axil

The is about a half-dozen indicators that LENR is dark matter, and there is
a good chance that this dark matter is producing the dark energy that is
expanding the universe.

I am dishartend that my posts  on this dark issue are not convincing, but
recupitualtion is my game


On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote:

 I don't mind the Mills hypothesis. I wouldn't be shocked if it was
 correct. You can even tell Storms has a begrudging respect for it. I like
 the Meulenberg-Sinha take on it as well. There was an article form last
 year I believe in JCMNS that explores the DDL in depth. Meulenberg seemed
 to think it was important. You might find it worthwhile considering your
 interest in the subject. I just think there are some serious problems
 with the model as well -- such as the instability issue.

 CF-LENR I think would be an even more amazing story if it ended up
 granting insight into dark matter and such. I just wouldn't proclaim that
 too loudly at this point -- it's not exactly a credibility-generating
 maneuver at this awkward time in CF-LENR's present development  image.


 On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 If there is a real DDL species in LENR (hydrogen isomer with electron
 orbital at less than 10 Fermi), even if it is a transitory species with a
 lifetime of only nanoseconds, then there is a way for nickel to provide
 the
 thermal gain, by spin coupling with no fusion required. In fact, if there
 is
 such a DDL species, chances are that it could be a transitory oscillator,
 such that the rate of oscillation is resonant with the phonon rate of
 nickel.

 Rice and Kim show here that the DDL is not stable for extended periods.
 They
 do not show that the DDL is impossible...
 http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RiceRAcommentsona.pdf
 but they also demonstrate that they do not understand Mills' CQM theory

 To overcome the objections to the DDL, and to nickel spin coupling, please
 consider all of these points as a package, and not individually. Back in
 early 2011, we talked about the final revision of the Rossi patent filing.
 In his application Rossi's bets everything on Ni62 as THE important
 reactant
 - US 2011/0005506. His reasoning could be incorrect, but it is likely that
 Rossi tested pure isotopes and found that Ni-62 was indeed the active
 isotope.

 Otherwise Rossi would not have bet the farm on one isotope, since ... if
 he
 is wrong on that single detail he has lost all protection against
 infringement. QUOTE from application: Accordingly, it is indispensable to
 use, for the above mentioned exothermal reactions, a nickel isotope
 having a
 mass number of 62. That pretty much says it all when we consider the
 properties of this isotope (and if we ignore Rossi's reasoning in the
 patent
 for why this isotope works). He could be right for the wrong reason.

 BTW - the patent was granted in Europe to his wife Maddalena Pascucci, who
 is an attorney, and presumably had good advice on patent law - but again -
 the US application is not granted. However, the USA is a signator to the
 PCT
 so Pascucci could get protection here for the nickel-62 part - and perhaps
 for little else.

 Why Ni-62 ... and why bet the farm?

 Nickel-62 is at the very pinnacle of stability - having the highest
 binding
 energy per nucleon in the entire Periodic Table (8.8 MeV). There is no
 more
 stable isotope known to science. This binding stability would actually
 prohibit it from participating in proton nuclear fusion reactions, as
 Rossi
 suggested, but would allow spin energy (part of the binding energy) to be
 coupled and depleted - simply because there is plenty to spare. Too bad
 that
 he did not realize this distinction. BTW - it is duly noted that other
 nickel and iron isotopes have very high binding energy as well, but a lot
 of
 weight goes to Rossi's testing of isotopes against each other.

 That is what is meant by Rossi being right for the wrong reason

 This stability of Ni-62, combined with ferromagnetism is especially
 relevant
 for the combination of a strong magnet with a material which cannot be
 saturated; and the DDL, with an effective field strength at the 10 Fermi
 level in the range of giga-T (billions of Tesla) is that strong magnet.
 Deraz - claims there is no saturation level for NiO, and even if doubts
 are
 warranted on that particular point, it could be important in the context
 of
 spin coupling to find an extreme level of saturation capability, with
 which
 to mate with giga-T fields. The result is spin coupling.
 www.electrochemsci.org/papers/vol7/7054608.pdf

 In short, as of now, with dozens of alternative theories floating around
 for
 the gain in Ni-H, the best emerging scenario - from my perspective seems
 to
 be one which is
 1)  No fusion occurs in Ni-H. It is a different beast that Pd-D.
 2)  But the gain is Nuclear, in the sense of mass conversion into
 energy
 3)  It is Nanomagnetic in the

Re: [Vo]:Spin coupling of DDL to 62Ni

2014-07-25 Thread ChemE Stewart

I BELIEVE YOU. I think this place is crawling with it, especially over
our heads, uncurling in the atmosphere, bending and lensing and
attenuating light and Doppler microwave radiation and RF.  Space is
all puckered up. We are creatures of the quantum vacuum.

Stewart
darkmattersalot.com

On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 7:06 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
 The is about a half-dozen indicators that LENR is dark matter, and there is
 a good chance that this dark matter is producing the dark energy that is
 expanding the universe.

 I am dishartend that my posts  on this dark issue are not convincing, but
 recupitualtion is my game


 On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote:

 I don't mind the Mills hypothesis. I wouldn't be shocked if it was
 correct. You can even tell Storms has a begrudging respect for it. I like
 the Meulenberg-Sinha take on it as well. There was an article form last year
 I believe in JCMNS that explores the DDL in depth. Meulenberg seemed to
 think it was important. You might find it worthwhile considering your
 interest in the subject. I just think there are some serious problems with
 the model as well -- such as the instability issue.

 CF-LENR I think would be an even more amazing story if it ended up
 granting insight into dark matter and such. I just wouldn't proclaim that
 too loudly at this point -- it's not exactly a credibility-generating
 maneuver at this awkward time in CF-LENR's present development  image.


 On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 If there is a real DDL species in LENR (hydrogen isomer with electron
 orbital at less than 10 Fermi), even if it is a transitory species with a
 lifetime of only nanoseconds, then there is a way for nickel to provide
 the
 thermal gain, by spin coupling with no fusion required. In fact, if there
 is
 such a DDL species, chances are that it could be a transitory oscillator,
 such that the rate of oscillation is resonant with the phonon rate of
 nickel.

 Rice and Kim show here that the DDL is not stable for extended periods.
 They
 do not show that the DDL is impossible...
 http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RiceRAcommentsona.pdf
 but they also demonstrate that they do not understand Mills' CQM theory

 To overcome the objections to the DDL, and to nickel spin coupling,
 please
 consider all of these points as a package, and not individually. Back in
 early 2011, we talked about the final revision of the Rossi patent
 filing.
 In his application Rossi's bets everything on Ni62 as THE important
 reactant
 - US 2011/0005506. His reasoning could be incorrect, but it is likely
 that
 Rossi tested pure isotopes and found that Ni-62 was indeed the active
 isotope.

 Otherwise Rossi would not have bet the farm on one isotope, since ... if
 he
 is wrong on that single detail he has lost all protection against
 infringement. QUOTE from application: Accordingly, it is indispensable
 to
 use, for the above mentioned exothermal reactions, a nickel isotope
 having a
 mass number of 62. That pretty much says it all when we consider the
 properties of this isotope (and if we ignore Rossi's reasoning in the
 patent
 for why this isotope works). He could be right for the wrong reason.

 BTW - the patent was granted in Europe to his wife Maddalena Pascucci,
 who
 is an attorney, and presumably had good advice on patent law - but again
 -
 the US application is not granted. However, the USA is a signator to the
 PCT
 so Pascucci could get protection here for the nickel-62 part - and
 perhaps
 for little else.

 Why Ni-62 ... and why bet the farm?

 Nickel-62 is at the very pinnacle of stability - having the highest
 binding
 energy per nucleon in the entire Periodic Table (8.8 MeV). There is no
 more
 stable isotope known to science. This binding stability would actually
 prohibit it from participating in proton nuclear fusion reactions, as
 Rossi
 suggested, but would allow spin energy (part of the binding energy) to be
 coupled and depleted - simply because there is plenty to spare. Too bad
 that
 he did not realize this distinction. BTW - it is duly noted that other
 nickel and iron isotopes have very high binding energy as well, but a lot
 of
 weight goes to Rossi's testing of isotopes against each other.

 That is what is meant by Rossi being right for the wrong reason

 This stability of Ni-62, combined with ferromagnetism is especially
 relevant
 for the combination of a strong magnet with a material which cannot be
 saturated; and the DDL, with an effective field strength at the 10 Fermi
 level in the range of giga-T (billions of Tesla) is that strong magnet.
 Deraz - claims there is no saturation level for NiO, and even if doubts
 are
 warranted on that particular point, it could be important in the context
 of
 spin coupling to find an extreme level of saturation capability, with
 which
 to mate with giga-T fields. The result is spin coupling.

Re: [Vo]:Spin coupling of DDL to 62Ni

2014-07-25 Thread Terry Blanton

On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 The way to convert electrons to energy is via positrons (anti-electrons). 
 However, that radiation signature shows up quite well with meters, and it is 
 probably why in 2011, Bianchini who was hired to look for a radiation 
 signature, used a meter designed specifically for positron/electron detection.

 Sorry but the result was negative.

Ah, but suppose there is another way to convert  by dispersing the
spin of one electron among other particles?  The electron charge is,
after all, pure energy derived from the spin momentum.

RE: [Vo]:Spin this ...

Attn: spin doctors

Hope this is not belaboring the point about the intrinsic magnetic
connection that exists, and may in fact be causative - to a finding of gain
in LENR systems. Consider one further major point in the context of Steven
Jones' finding of an RF signature. 

Consider the field of NMR but in the context of RF. The importance of an RF
signal in NMR is not RF alone, but than an intense single resonant frequency
is seen, which is determined by the external field alignment of the nucleus.
The stronger the field the more robust the signal

OK backtracking to Steven Jones, and his slide showing an RF signal - we
must realize that because of the strong self-field of hydrogen (deuterium)
even the very weak magnetic field of earth is enough to see some signal but
only with hydrogen or deuterium.

See where this is heading? 

Connect the dots and we are looking at more than NMR, and more than LENR -
it is NMR in the context of LENR, as perhaps the driving force.

_


For the various Spin Doctors on Vortex -  2.3. Magnetic
Stimulation

After the cathode had been charged with deuterium for 48
hours at a current of 80 mA, the cell was placed in the field of a permanent
magnet of 200 Gauss strength. The cell electrolyte temperature rose to 5 ° C
(Fig.10.) after 230 seconds, After 576 seconds, the magnet was replaced by
two, one inch Neodymium magnets with a 800 Gauss field placed as described
earlier. The temperature immediately started increasing and reached 13.5 ° C
in about 15 minutes and remained constant. The temperature returned to 3.5 °
C when the magnet was removed.
attachment: winmail.dat

RE: [Vo]:Spin this ...

2014-02-09 Thread pagnucco

Perhaps there are some counter-intuitive ways to extract heat energy
from the environment using spin reservoirs.  If real, probably just an
apparent (but useful) exploitation of a 2nd Law loophole.

A couple of references:

Single-reservoir heat engine: Controlling the spin
http://fqmt.fzu.cz/13/pdfabstracts/605_1f.pdf

Work extraction in the spin-boson model
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0411018

-- Lou Pagnucco

Jones Beene wrote:
 Attn: spin doctors

 Hope this is not belaboring the point about the intrinsic magnetic
 connection that exists, and may in fact be causative - to a finding of
 gain
 in LENR systems. Consider one further major point in the context of Steven
 Jones' finding of an RF signature.

 Consider the field of NMR but in the context of RF. The importance of an
 RF
 signal in NMR is not RF alone, but than an intense single resonant
 frequency
 is seen, which is determined by the external field alignment of the
 nucleus.
 The stronger the field the more robust the signal

 OK backtracking to Steven Jones, and his slide showing an RF signal - we
 must realize that because of the strong self-field of hydrogen (deuterium)
 even the very weak magnetic field of earth is enough to see some signal
 but
 only with hydrogen or deuterium.

 See where this is heading?

 Connect the dots and we are looking at more than NMR, and more than LENR -
 it is NMR in the context of LENR, as perhaps the driving force.

   _


   For the various Spin Doctors on Vortex -  2.3. Magnetic
 Stimulation

   After the cathode had been charged with deuterium for 48
 hours at a current of 80 mA, the cell was placed in the field of a
 permanent
 magnet of 200 Gauss strength. The cell electrolyte temperature rose to 5 °
 C
 (Fig.10.) after 230 seconds, After 576 seconds, the magnet was replaced by
 two, one inch Neodymium magnets with a 800 Gauss field placed as described
 earlier. The temperature immediately started increasing and reached 13.5 °
 C
 in about 15 minutes and remained constant. The temperature returned to 3.5
 °
 C when the magnet was removed.

RE: [Vo]:Spin this ...


To backtrack from a post 3 months ago. The Rabi frequencies. 

We did not know what to make of it, back then, except that there was a
possible fit to one LENR experiment. The Rabi frequency (paraphrased from
two sources) is the frequency of oscillation for a given atomic transition
in a photonic light field. It is associated with the strength of the
coupling between the photons and the transition - flopping between the
levels of a 2-level system which is illuminated with resonant photons. The
Rabi frequency has an interesting cross connection to Rydberg values, and to
NMR.

In the context of a nuclear magnetic resonance experiment, the Rabi
frequency is the nutation frequency of a sample's net nuclear magnetization
vector about a radiofrequency field. (Note that this is distinct from the
Larmor frequency, which characterizes the precession of a transverse nuclear
magnetization about a static magnetic field.)

OK - There is indeed one RF signal which appears to have a strong
correlation to excess
heating events, in one kind of LENR. This is from the recent paper at ICCF17
by Steven Jones. It is in the range of a Rabi frequency, but it is too early
to say that there is a definitive relationship.

The signal seen in that slide has a frequency of .43 MHz (430 kHz). This
seems to be a real signature - and a strong one. I have looked high and low
to find some broader significance to this particular frequency, but little
turns up. It is longwave once used for Morse code and warning beacons, but
not much used anymore. 

There is some relevance of 430 kHz to a Rabi frequency and to MRI, and a
real connection to nuclear events - but linking all of these seems remote,
given the wavelength - but it is there, and knowing why it is there could be
important. Very strange... not unlike QM itself...
_
From: Jones Beene 

Attn: spin doctors

Hope this is not belaboring the point about the intrinsic
magnetic connection that exists, and may in fact be causative - to a finding
of gain in LENR systems. Consider one further major point in the context of
Steven Jones' finding of an RF signature. 

Consider the field of NMR but in the context of RF. The
importance of an RF signal in NMR is not RF alone, but than an intense
single resonant frequency is seen, which is determined by the external field
alignment of the nucleus. The stronger the field the more robust the signal

OK backtracking to Steven Jones, and his slide showing an RF
signal - we must realize that because of the strong self-field of hydrogen
(deuterium) even the very weak magnetic field of earth is enough to see some
signal but only with hydrogen or deuterium.

See where this is heading? 

Connect the dots and we are looking at more than NMR, and
more than LENR - it is NMR in the context of LENR, as perhaps the driving
force.


_


For the various Spin Doctors on Vortex -
2.3. Magnetic Stimulation

After the cathode had been charged with
deuterium for 48 hours at a current of 80 mA, the cell was placed in the
field of a permanent magnet of 200 Gauss strength. The cell electrolyte
temperature rose to 5 ° C (Fig.10.) after 230 seconds, After 576 seconds,
the magnet was replaced by two, one inch Neodymium magnets with a 800 Gauss
field placed as described earlier. The temperature immediately started
increasing and reached 13.5 ° C in about 15 minutes and remained constant.
The temperature returned to 3.5 ° C when the magnet was removed.
attachment: winmail.dat

Re: [Vo]:Spin this ...


Jones--Bob Cook here--

Your message rings true to me.  Here are some additional comments and 
thoughts/conjectures.


I first did NMR experiments in  my senior year, 1961, at Ed's alma mater, 
and we were ever increasing the magnetic field  to get better signals and 
absorption of RF input.  GE has improved since then with practical MRI 
devices.


Pd with a susceptibility of +576 CGS units in the Earth's weak magnetic 
field generates a reasonable B magnetic field in the crystalline matrix.  Ni 
would also, and  it is ferro magnetic to boot.  Heat generation as a 
function of the direction of the external magnetic field, especially for the 
Pd system would be a good experiment to run.   It may cause the reaction to 
slow down and then increase.  The Bockris, etal. experiment, which you 
identified in a previous message,  may have included such redirection of the 
external magnetic field.


Rossi's setup with its nano Ni powder may selectively orient itself in an 
external field and become disoriented  with temperature and lack of magnetic 
field, although, given the ferro magnetic nature of Ni, disorientation may 
not happen too fast.


SRI also probably has good information on this issue in both Ni and Pd 
systems. SRI should be queried.


Another area of investigations by researchers regarding ways of  stimulating 
nuclei was by Pacific Northwest Laboratory in the late 1970's.  Their team 
looked at a number of ways to handle high-level nuclear waste for the DOE or 
ERDA at the time.  The thick report is publically available.  It identified 
electromagnetic stimulation of the nuclei via dipole and   QUADRAPOLE 
moments of radioactive isotopes, as well as neutron irradiation to stimulate 
the nuclei.  The former was thought to be impossible because of electronic 
shielding of the electron cloud around the nuclei and weak signal generation 
capability.  The latter was too expensive.  The idea for both schemes was to 
excite the radioactive nuclei and get them to decay to a stable state.


Since the late 70's the technology for precise control of the energy 
(frequency) by laser input and other schemes has made the electromagnetic 
stimulation of nuclei relatively easy.  The important resonances are not 
those of the electronic cloud of electrons.  That is why MRI's work.


Another item I remember was the work of a nuclear physicist at, I believe, 
the University of Arizona in the early 1980's.  He was Prof. Roy and had 
written a text book on nuclear physics.  He developed a scheme and a patent 
for this scheme to TRANSMUTE radioactive isotopes to non-radioactive 
species.  The invention was written up in the news.  I was never able to 
find the patent.  I concluded it must have become classified--never to be 
heard of again.  Nevertheless I reviewed his text book to see if he said 
anything about nuclear stimulation.  As I recall the textbook had a section 
on nuclear dipole and quadrapole coupling to electromagnetic oscillating 
fields, and I concluded  that this coupling was probably the crux of his 
invention.


I do not recall if there was a section on spin coupling in Roy's textbook.

Bob


- Original Message - 
From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 11:00 AM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Spin this ...


Attn: spin doctors

Hope this is not belaboring the point about the intrinsic magnetic
connection that exists, and may in fact be causative - to a finding of gain
in LENR systems. Consider one further major point in the context of Steven
Jones' finding of an RF signature.

Consider the field of NMR but in the context of RF. The importance of an RF
signal in NMR is not RF alone, but than an intense single resonant frequency
is seen, which is determined by the external field alignment of the nucleus.
The stronger the field the more robust the signal

OK backtracking to Steven Jones, and his slide showing an RF signal - we
must realize that because of the strong self-field of hydrogen (deuterium)
even the very weak magnetic field of earth is enough to see some signal but
only with hydrogen or deuterium.

See where this is heading?

Connect the dots and we are looking at more than NMR, and more than LENR -
it is NMR in the context of LENR, as perhaps the driving force.

_


For the various Spin Doctors on Vortex -  2.3. Magnetic
Stimulation

After the cathode had been charged with deuterium for 48
hours at a current of 80 mA, the cell was placed in the field of a permanent
magnet of 200 Gauss strength. The cell electrolyte temperature rose to 5 ° C
(Fig.10.) after 230 seconds, After 576 seconds, the magnet was replaced by
two, one inch Neodymium magnets with a 800 Gauss field placed as described
earlier. The temperature immediately started increasing and reached 13.5 ° C
in about 15 minutes and remained constant. The temperature returned to 3.5 °
C when the magnet was removed.

Re: [Vo]:Spin this ...

Jones--Bob Cook here--

Good work..

Bob
- Original Message - 
From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 11:36 AM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Spin this ...

To backtrack from a post 3 months ago. The Rabi frequencies.

We did not know what to make of it, back then, except that there was a
possible fit to one LENR experiment. The Rabi frequency (paraphrased from
two sources) is the frequency of oscillation for a given atomic transition
in a photonic light field. It is associated with the strength of the
coupling between the photons and the transition - flopping between the
levels of a 2-level system which is illuminated with resonant photons. The
Rabi frequency has an interesting cross connection to Rydberg values, and to
NMR.

In the context of a nuclear magnetic resonance experiment, the Rabi
frequency is the nutation frequency of a sample's net nuclear magnetization
vector about a radiofrequency field. (Note that this is distinct from the
Larmor frequency, which characterizes the precession of a transverse nuclear
magnetization about a static magnetic field.)

OK - There is indeed one RF signal which appears to have a strong
correlation to excess
heating events, in one kind of LENR. This is from the recent paper at ICCF17
by Steven Jones. It is in the range of a Rabi frequency, but it is too early
to say that there is a definitive relationship.

The signal seen in that slide has a frequency of .43 MHz (430 kHz). This
seems to be a real signature - and a strong one. I have looked high and low
to find some broader significance to this particular frequency, but little
turns up. It is longwave once used for Morse code and warning beacons, but
not much used anymore.

There is some relevance of 430 kHz to a Rabi frequency and to MRI, and a
real connection to nuclear events - but linking all of these seems remote,
given the wavelength - but it is there, and knowing why it is there could be
important. Very strange... not unlike QM itself...
_
From: Jones Beene

Attn: spin doctors

Hope this is not belaboring the point about the intrinsic
magnetic connection that exists, and may in fact be causative - to a finding
of gain in LENR systems. Consider one further major point in the context of
Steven Jones' finding of an RF signature.

Consider the field of NMR but in the context of RF. The
importance of an RF signal in NMR is not RF alone, but than an intense
single resonant frequency is seen, which is determined by the external field
alignment of the nucleus. The stronger the field the more robust the signal

OK backtracking to Steven Jones, and his slide showing an RF
signal - we must realize that because of the strong self-field of hydrogen
(deuterium) even the very weak magnetic field of earth is enough to see some
signal but only with hydrogen or deuterium.

See where this is heading?

Connect the dots and we are looking at more than NMR, and
more than LENR - it is NMR in the context of LENR, as perhaps the driving
force.

_

For the various Spin Doctors on Vortex -
2.3. Magnetic Stimulation

After the cathode had been charged with
deuterium for 48 hours at a current of 80 mA, the cell was placed in the
field of a permanent magnet of 200 Gauss strength. The cell electrolyte
temperature rose to 5 ° C (Fig.10.) after 230 seconds, After 576 seconds,
the magnet was replaced by two, one inch Neodymium magnets with a 800 Gauss
field placed as described earlier. The temperature immediately started
increasing and reached 13.5 ° C in about 15 minutes and remained constant.
The temperature returned to 3.5 ° C when the magnet was removed.

Re: [Vo]:Spin this ...


Lou--

Bob Cook here-

Do you know if the Bose thermal bath that the second referenced report talks 
about is the same thing as a Bose -Einstein Condensate (BEC)?


Bob
- Original Message - 
From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 11:16 AM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Spin this ...



Perhaps there are some counter-intuitive ways to extract heat energy
from the environment using spin reservoirs.  If real, probably just an
apparent (but useful) exploitation of a 2nd Law loophole.

A couple of references:

Single-reservoir heat engine: Controlling the spin
http://fqmt.fzu.cz/13/pdfabstracts/605_1f.pdf

Work extraction in the spin-boson model
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0411018

-- Lou Pagnucco

Jones Beene wrote:

Attn: spin doctors

Hope this is not belaboring the point about the intrinsic magnetic
connection that exists, and may in fact be causative - to a finding of
gain
in LENR systems. Consider one further major point in the context of 
Steven

Jones' finding of an RF signature.

Consider the field of NMR but in the context of RF. The importance of an
RF
signal in NMR is not RF alone, but than an intense single resonant
frequency
is seen, which is determined by the external field alignment of the
nucleus.
The stronger the field the more robust the signal

OK backtracking to Steven Jones, and his slide showing an RF signal - we
must realize that because of the strong self-field of hydrogen 
(deuterium)

even the very weak magnetic field of earth is enough to see some signal
but
only with hydrogen or deuterium.

See where this is heading?

Connect the dots and we are looking at more than NMR, and more than 
LENR -

it is NMR in the context of LENR, as perhaps the driving force.

_


For the various Spin Doctors on Vortex -  2.3. Magnetic
Stimulation

After the cathode had been charged with deuterium for 48
hours at a current of 80 mA, the cell was placed in the field of a
permanent
magnet of 200 Gauss strength. The cell electrolyte temperature rose to 5 
°

C
(Fig.10.) after 230 seconds, After 576 seconds, the magnet was replaced 
by
two, one inch Neodymium magnets with a 800 Gauss field placed as 
described
earlier. The temperature immediately started increasing and reached 13.5 
°

C
in about 15 minutes and remained constant. The temperature returned to 
3.5

°
C when the magnet was removed.

RE: [Vo]:Spin this ...

-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook 

 I first did NMR experiments in my senior year, 1961, at Ed's alma mater...

With that kind of NMR experience, Bob, perhaps you can help me out with
this. We could be on the door steps of locating a missing piece of the
puzzle connecting LENR to NMR. 

The devil is in the details. I've stumbled upon what could be an important
reference to the Stark shift in hydrogen at 429 kHz. That is unlikely to
be a coincidence with the SJ presentation.

The Stark effect is the electric analogue of the Zeeman effect where a
spectral line is split into several components due to the presence of a
magnetic field. It is mentioned in Randell Mills work, and it has Rydberg
values written all over it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stark_effect

Of course, many in LENR look at Mills' work as little more than a
predecessor state or transitory condition which leads to LENR, and one which
is perhaps not even exothermic on its own. It therefore must progress to
something nuclear to achieve thermal gain. That lack of full understanding
is why BLP has been unable to show anything more interesting than
spot-welder firecrackers in 2014.

But this finding of Steven Jones - of an RF signature at ~430 kHz coincident
with a large energy spike in LENR could be a smoking gun which opens up the
entire field to a higher level of understanding.

The obvious next step - when one knows the signature for gain (assuming this
is it) - is to apply input power at that frequency (or maybe a quarter wl)
and look for positive feedback.

After all the surname of NMR is resonance. Heck, we could be looking an
inverse Mossbauer effect in 61 Ni.

Re: [Vo]:Spin this ...

2014-02-09 Thread David Roberson

This line of inquiry might lead to something important.  The large field that 
DGT reported was varying with time if I recall correctly and that behavior can 
definitely by described as a spectrum of signals.  The low frequency RF that 
you are considering can penetrate into the nickel surface a moderate distance.  
The electrons on and just blow the surface will likely be driven in large 
numbers as they attempt to counter the incoming field and this joint movement 
may be important as well.

I have been considering a low frequency magnetic field, perhaps even DC, since 
one of that nature can penetrate entirely through the nickel particles.  What 
if the DC like component of the field establishes a resonant condition for one 
or both types of nuclei at a second frequency.   Now, coupling between nearby 
NAE exits at a relatively low frequency especially if the Q of these 
resonances is high.  At this point it is not clear how the fusion event is 
initiated, but there appears to be a path for energy to exit the active spots 
via the magnetic coupling.  And, if we are so fortunate, the energy leaving the 
reaction point will reinforce the original field in a positive feedback manner 
with a gain greater than unity.   Under this condition, the magnetic field and 
the LENR energy both will grow together and some of the coordinated field will 
penetrate the case and be measured by DGT and others.

How would we determine that a low frequency resonance actually exists in this 
case?  Is the data presented by Dr. Jones adequate to suggest this is true?   
Is there reason to think that NMR can occur at low frequencies when a very 
large magnetic field is applied to either or both nickel and hydrogen?  We 
probably should also consider the behavior of the ash components as we search 
for the underlying effects.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Feb 9, 2014 6:04 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Spin this ...


-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook 

 I first did NMR experiments in my senior year, 1961, at Ed's alma mater...

With that kind of NMR experience, Bob, perhaps you can help me out with
this. We could be on the door steps of locating a missing piece of the
puzzle connecting LENR to NMR. 

The devil is in the details. I've stumbled upon what could be an important
reference to the Stark shift in hydrogen at 429 kHz. That is unlikely to
be a coincidence with the SJ presentation.

The Stark effect is the electric analogue of the Zeeman effect where a
spectral line is split into several components due to the presence of a
magnetic field. It is mentioned in Randell Mills work, and it has Rydberg
values written all over it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stark_effect

Of course, many in LENR look at Mills' work as little more than a
predecessor state or transitory condition which leads to LENR, and one which
is perhaps not even exothermic on its own. It therefore must progress to
something nuclear to achieve thermal gain. That lack of full understanding
is why BLP has been unable to show anything more interesting than
spot-welder firecrackers in 2014.

But this finding of Steven Jones - of an RF signature at ~430 kHz coincident
with a large energy spike in LENR could be a smoking gun which opens up the
entire field to a higher level of understanding.

The obvious next step - when one knows the signature for gain (assuming this
is it) - is to apply input power at that frequency (or maybe a quarter wl)
and look for positive feedback.

After all the surname of NMR is resonance. Heck, we could be looking an
inverse Mossbauer effect in 61 Ni.

Re: [Vo]:Spin this ...

2014-02-09 Thread pagnucco

Bob,

No the bath is not a condensate.  It can be disordered - quoting the paper:

 With help of the spin-echo phenomenon it is possible to extract work
  from a disordered ensemble of spins having random frequencies. This
  ensemble can even be strongly disordered in the sense that the
  relaxation time T2* induced by the disorder is much smaller than both
  the T2-time and the response time of the bath.

If I can find some additional references on this, I will post them.
Very surprising results.

-- Lou Pagnucco

 Lou--

 Bob Cook here-

 Do you know if the Bose thermal bath that the second referenced report
 talks
 about is the same thing as a Bose -Einstein Condensate (BEC)?

 Bob
 - Original Message -
 From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 11:16 AM
 Subject: RE: [Vo]:Spin this ...


 Perhaps there are some counter-intuitive ways to extract heat energy
 from the environment using spin reservoirs.  If real, probably just an
 apparent (but useful) exploitation of a 2nd Law loophole.

 A couple of references:

 Single-reservoir heat engine: Controlling the spin
 http://fqmt.fzu.cz/13/pdfabstracts/605_1f.pdf

 Work extraction in the spin-boson model
 http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0411018

 -- Lou Pagnucco

 Jones Beene wrote:
 Attn: spin doctors

 Hope this is not belaboring the point about the intrinsic magnetic
 connection that exists, and may in fact be causative - to a finding of
 gain
 in LENR systems. Consider one further major point in the context of
 Steven
 Jones' finding of an RF signature.

 Consider the field of NMR but in the context of RF. The importance of
 an
 RF
 signal in NMR is not RF alone, but than an intense single resonant
 frequency
 is seen, which is determined by the external field alignment of the
 nucleus.
 The stronger the field the more robust the signal

 OK backtracking to Steven Jones, and his slide showing an RF signal -
 we
 must realize that because of the strong self-field of hydrogen
 (deuterium)
 even the very weak magnetic field of earth is enough to see some signal
 but
 only with hydrogen or deuterium.

 See where this is heading?

 Connect the dots and we are looking at more than NMR, and more than
 LENR -
 it is NMR in the context of LENR, as perhaps the driving force.

 _


 For the various Spin Doctors on Vortex -  2.3. Magnetic
 Stimulation

 After the cathode had been charged with deuterium for 48
 hours at a current of 80 mA, the cell was placed in the field of a
 permanent
 magnet of 200 Gauss strength. The cell electrolyte temperature rose to
 5
 °
 C
 (Fig.10.) after 230 seconds, After 576 seconds, the magnet was replaced
 by
 two, one inch Neodymium magnets with a 800 Gauss field placed as
 described
 earlier. The temperature immediately started increasing and reached
 13.5
 °
 C
 in about 15 minutes and remained constant. The temperature returned to
 3.5
 °
 C when the magnet was removed.

RE: [Vo]:Spin this ...

 

From: David Roberson 

 

How would we determine that a low frequency resonance actually exists in
this case?  

 

Hmm. You want simple, right? Do you have a good DSO? One would probably see
something with hydrogen loaded wire  but the challenge would be the length.
100 meters or so would be required for ¼ wl but it could be tried with much
less.

 

If a meaningful test could be as simple as measuring the Q of a pulsed coil
at various frequencies around 429 kHz then a nickel wire coil as cathode can
be loaded electrolytically. You would be looking for a massive difference in
ring time, in a simple test. If it doesnt show up, move on to something
else.

Re: [Vo]:Spin this ...

2014-02-09 Thread David Roberson

I would suppose that the resonance would only be seen if a very large magnetic 
field were applied to the active material.  If LENR activity is being observed 
along with a large external field then the spectrum of that field would likely 
demonstrate a peak around the resonant region.  I am assuming that the box 
containing the nickel and hydrogen mix passes enough of the low frequency 
signal of interest.  The box will act like a low pass magnetic filter due to 
its conductivity and we might be left only observing the signals appearing 
slightly above DC.

My suspicion is that a working system offers the best possibility for answering 
the question.  Actually, that might be the only reliable method due to the 
interactions.

 

 Dave

 

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Feb 9, 2014 9:30 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Spin this ...



 

From:David Roberson 
 
How would we determine that a low frequency resonance actuallyexists in this 
case?  
 
Hmm…. You wantsimple, right? Do you have a good DSO? One would probably see 
something withhydrogen loaded wire – but the challenge would be the length. 100 
metersor so would be required for ¼ wl but it could be tried with much less.
 
If a meaningful test couldbe as simple as measuring the Q of a pulsed coil at 
various frequencies around429 kHz then a nickel wire coil as cathode can be 
loaded electrolytically. You wouldbe looking for a massive difference in ring 
time, in a simple test. If it doesn’tshow up, move on to something else.

Re: [Vo]:Spin this ...

2014-02-09 Thread Axil Axil

regarding
MIT Cold Fusion IAP 2014 Friday January 31, 2014 (Full Lecture)

A lot of time was spent looking for a two level receiver that can split up
a gamma photon into many low energy photons.

A electron photon pair was not considered for some reason. I see the NAE as
a EMF Cuisinart that slices, dices and blends all the photons that dare to
enter it. The NAE  must have a resonance frequency in the soft x-ray
range. A one to two nanometer NAE size will  put its  resonance photon
frequency into the soft x-ray range,

So whatever photon that enters into the optical based NAE will be chopped
up and rebuilt into soft x-rays.

When these x-rays are released from the NAE upon its destruction, it is
thermalized by absorption through additional  photoluminescence
processes.

This optical NAE process may be the reason that Mills sees XUV in his
reactions.


On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 10:07 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 I would suppose that the resonance would only be seen if a very large
 magnetic field were applied to the active material.  If LENR activity is
 being observed along with a large external field then the spectrum of that
 field would likely demonstrate a peak around the resonant region.  I am
 assuming that the box containing the nickel and hydrogen mix passes enough
 of the low frequency signal of interest.  The box will act like a low
 pass magnetic filter due to its conductivity and we might be left only
 observing the signals appearing slightly above DC.

 My suspicion is that a working system offers the best possibility for
 answering the question.  Actually, that might be the only reliable method
 due to the interactions.

  Dave

  -Original Message-
 From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Sun, Feb 9, 2014 9:30 pm
 Subject: RE: [Vo]:Spin this ...


  *From:* David Roberson

 How would we determine that a low frequency resonance actually exists in
 this case?

 Hmm You want simple, right? Do you have a good DSO? One would probably
 see something with hydrogen loaded wire - but the challenge would be the
 length. 100 meters or so would be required for 1/4 wl but it could be tried
 with much less.

 If a meaningful test could be as simple as measuring the Q of a pulsed
 coil at various frequencies around 429 kHz then a nickel wire coil as
 cathode can be loaded electrolytically. You would be looking for a massive
 difference in ring time, in a simple test. If it doesn't show up, move on
 to something else.

Re: [Vo]:Spin this ...

2014-02-09 Thread Axil Axil

more

Heating of the hydrogen envelope of the NiH reactor is do to the
absorption of the  XUV (soft X rays and extreme ultraviolet) radiation is
mostly driven by photoionization and the generation of photoelectrons.
Photoelectrons excite, ionize, and dissociate atoms and molecules until
they lose enough energy and become thermalized i.e., share their energy
with thermal electrons in Coulomb collisions. Thermal electrons share their
energy with ions and eventually, the reactor structure. Such volume heating
rate is usually fitted by the external parameter - photoheating efficiency
which determines the temperature profiles in the hydrogen gas. This value
is a ratio of absorbed energy accumulated as a hydrogen heat to the
deposited energy of the  XUV radiation.



On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 10:58 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 regarding
 MIT Cold Fusion IAP 2014 Friday January 31, 2014 (Full Lecture)

 A lot of time was spent looking for a two level receiver that can split up
 a gamma photon into many low energy photons.

 A electron photon pair was not considered for some reason. I see the NAE
 as a EMF Cuisinart that slices, dices and blends all the photons that dare
 to enter it. The NAE  must have a resonance frequency in the soft x-ray
 range. A one to two nanometer NAE size will  put its  resonance photon
 frequency into the soft x-ray range,

 So whatever photon that enters into the optical based NAE will be chopped
 up and rebuilt into soft x-rays.

 When these x-rays are released from the NAE upon its destruction, it is
 thermalized by absorption through additional  photoluminescence
 processes.

 This optical NAE process may be the reason that Mills sees XUV in his
 reactions.


 On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 10:07 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote:

 I would suppose that the resonance would only be seen if a very large
 magnetic field were applied to the active material.  If LENR activity is
 being observed along with a large external field then the spectrum of that
 field would likely demonstrate a peak around the resonant region.  I am
 assuming that the box containing the nickel and hydrogen mix passes enough
 of the low frequency signal of interest.  The box will act like a low
 pass magnetic filter due to its conductivity and we might be left only
 observing the signals appearing slightly above DC.

 My suspicion is that a working system offers the best possibility for
 answering the question.  Actually, that might be the only reliable method
 due to the interactions.

  Dave

  -Original Message-
 From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Sun, Feb 9, 2014 9:30 pm
 Subject: RE: [Vo]:Spin this ...


  *From:* David Roberson

 How would we determine that a low frequency resonance actually exists in
 this case?

 Hmm You want simple, right? Do you have a good DSO? One would probably
 see something with hydrogen loaded wire - but the challenge would be the
 length. 100 meters or so would be required for 1/4 wl but it could be tried
 with much less.

 If a meaningful test could be as simple as measuring the Q of a pulsed
 coil at various frequencies around 429 kHz then a nickel wire coil as
 cathode can be loaded electrolytically. You would be looking for a massive
 difference in ring time, in a simple test. If it doesn't show up, move on
 to something else.

Re: [Vo]:Spin this ...