This is primarily meant for fellow Vort, ChemEng (Stewart), but some others
may have an interest.
Stewart, I think I may have a cause for your hypothesis re: a link between
our modern radar systems and the dying of coral reefs.
Seems that proteins in living systems have evolved such that th
Rev 1 of previous comment—the first one was sent by mistake:
The various theories associated with the composition of a proton suggests there
is none that has a +1 charge operating from the exact center of the proton.
The quark model for a proton includes quarks with fractional charges. AFAIK
-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com
> http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?esme
> It is linear - lower mass means proportionately lower charge
> I think you are drawing a line through a single point here. Each particle
type has it's own mass to charge ratio. Otherwise, proton
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 6 Jul 2015 16:55:17 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>Here is the electron mass-to-charge ratio
>
>
>
>http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?esme
>
>
>
>It is linear lower mass means proportionately lower charge
I think you are drawing a line through a single po
In reply to Roarty, Francis X's message of Tue, 7 Jul 2015 00:19:39 +:
Hi,
[snip]
>
>I agree.. closed form being a canoe stuck in the waterfall of our 3D plane all
>the rest is the medium of time passing thru it.
Not exactly what I had in mind. :) What I meant by "closed form" was a geometri
The various theories associated with the composition of a proton suggests there
is non that has a point charge of 1 electron charge operating from the exact
center of the proton. In fact quark model for a proton includ
From: Jones Beene
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2015 11:42 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.
I agree.. closed form being a canoe stuck in the waterfall of our 3D plane all
the rest is the medium of time passing thru it.
Fran
IMO, all energy is motion in the substance of the vacuum. When that motion
occurs in a closed form, the result is a particle. This was also Fred Sparber's
point of
Bob,
I don’t agree with [snip] Second, in the DDL state the electron
is moving at relativistic speeds and has a mass increase due to this, so
perhaps it could afford to shed mass energy. [/snip] IMHO relativistic hydrogen
in a lattice is a function of Casimir suppression and the e
Here is the electron mass-to-charge ratio
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?esme
It is linear – lower mass means proportionately lower charge
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-to-charge_ratio
I am just going from memory, but I believe the difference is that
positronium is the state of an electron and positron orbiting each other
BEFORE the 1.2 MeV is emitted. Once the 1.2 MeV is emitted, the orbiting
pair shrink (like a hydrino) and drop out of detectability.
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 4:
In reply to Bob Higgins's message of Mon, 6 Jul 2015 16:31:49 -0600:
Hi,
[snip]
>According to Hotson, the positrons and electrons are never created nor
>destroyed. Because they are both fermions, they can never occupy the same
>space at the same time and so can never annihilate each other. Ins
According to Hotson, the positrons and electrons are never created nor
destroyed. Because they are both fermions, they can never occupy the same
space at the same time and so can never annihilate each other. Instead,
upon combination, the electron and positron become an "epo" atom with each
orbit
In reply to Bob Higgins's message of Mon, 6 Jul 2015 14:49:42 -0600:
Hi,
[snip]
>Third, I thought I remember that Hotson said that the true energy of the
>electron was more like 16 MeV when its spin energy was considered. If true,
>loss of the 0.51 MeV would still be a small fraction of its tot
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 6 Jul 2015 09:06:23 -0700:
Hi,
>Whats left to call an electron?
IMO, all energy is motion in the substance of the vacuum. When that motion
occurs in a closed form, the result is a particle. This was also Fred Sparber's
point of view if a IIRC. I think h
First off, it is Parkhomov who ground his Ni powder and LiAlH4 in a mortar
and pestle in preparation (observed by Bob Greenyer). We have no evidence
that Rossi uses such a method.
When MFMP ran its first Parkhomov-like experiment the temperature was
increased to over 1000C, and was cooled quickly
Well, one thought is that in an H atom in ground state, the electron is
moving slowly (relatively) and is fairly loosely coupled to the proton as a
system. Once in a DDL state, the electron is immensely coupled to the
proton - this coupling will cause a big effect on the system eigenvalues.
Secon
The micrograph on page 44 lends substance to the speculation that neither
the nickel powder nor the old fuel spike was subject to grinding. The
process of grinding would have disassembled and fragmented the larger
nickel particles, shown fracture cracks on the aluminum oxide particles,
and showed s
but different! Yo will sees soon
For now please read:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/07/info-for-july-6-2015-and-what-is-lenr.html
Peter
--
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Bob,
If the mass deficit comes from the proton – no problem. But how can the two be
considered to be a single system with shared mass-energy? The electron is known
to have fractional charge as a group effect, but not as a charge-less particle.
There is always a fractional charge, even in FQH
Jones, you are the first to discuss the variable mass of the proton. The
Vavra and Maly solution (which agrees with Naudts) is for the
proton/electron system. There is nothing that says that all of that energy
must come from the electron. Why couldn't it come from the energy of the
system as a wh
What’s left to call an electron?
Certainly there is no charge, since charge and mass are linear.
Photons can’t be captured, so what is left over?
I stand by the “almost certainly incorrect,...”
From: Bob Cook
Jones and Eric--
Jones wrote: “The 510 keV of Maly & Vavr
Jones and Eric--
Jones wrote: “The 510 keV of Maly & Vavra is almost certainly incorrect,...”
I would say Vavra makes a good case for .511 Mev in his paper on dark matter
at the following link:
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCQQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2F
Eric,
An electron giving up its rest mass and becoming a photon is NOT part of Mills
theory.
Half the rest mass - 255 keV is in play for Mills, spread out in steps. Robin
has a theory with a similar value. The DDL is different, depending on a number
of assumptions, and it need not proc
On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
The 510 keV of Maly & Vavra is almost certainly incorrect, but there are a
> number of values in the range of several hundred keV which represent the
> total energy which can be released in 136 steps.
With regard to Mills's theory specifically
24 matches
Mail list logo
