On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:
I remember that the SPAWAR experiments indicated He formed with the
correct 24... Mev energy of a D-D fusion reaction.
In the SPAWAR experiments I recall ~ 10-15 MeV alphas -- I might have
missed a CR-39 paper that says
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 5:57 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
wrote:
I stand by my remarks about the inability of his 1500V-2500V supply to be
able to accelerate electrons or protons to 1.5-2.5 keV due to high pressure
scattering collisions in his high density plasma.
An analogy I use
Fran,
You should use paragraph breaks. They would make your contributions easier
to read.
Eric
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 5:15 AM, Roarty, Francis X
francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote:
[image: http://www.byzipp.com/gamma.png]
Sorry in advance, this is a work in progress initiated by a
I wrote:
What is interesting for this particular model (photon transmission through
1cm of nickel) is that reaction channels (0)-(3), which are the deuteron
capture reactions, are either not detected or barely detected (keep in mind
there was a layer of lead shielding the E-Cat at one point).
In the past, following the many statements compiled by Gary Wright of Rossi
saying that they were seeing significant amounts of copper, I have argued
in favor of a proton capture reaction in the NiH system. I argued this not
out of a strong conviction that this was the case, but out of a desire
I've had a chance to revisit the earlier model of photon transmission from
the E-Cat through various media and incorporate some new features. Now
decay half-lives and detector efficiency are factored in. Here is what I'm
seeing for 1cm of nickel:
Photons from a total of 7e+14 transitions per
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 12:09 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com
wrote:
*Thinking Big Is The Easy Part: My Weekend Dreaming Up The Next XPrize*
http://www.fastcoexist.com/3030775/thinking-big-is-the-easy-part-my-weekend-dreaming-up-the-next-
xprize
On E-Cat World there is a post about
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 12:23 AM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In that case, why not get specific, and check what would be produced if a
deuteron/neutron/proton were added to the starting material?
Yes, this is something I should do. There's enough data to make it a
little bit of a project, so
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:
It is not to hard to imagine 2 D's or 2 H's inside a face centered cubic
metal matrix reacting at the same time with Ni or Pd nuclei of the same
cell they share.
Just an opinion, but I find it even more unlikely that
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 7:09 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:
How does a 6.-- Mev proton give up its energy without some gammas x-rays
showing up?
When a proton ~ 10 MeV travels through a metal, it will interact with
electrons via the Coulomb interaction and, possibly, with lattice
I wrote:
Except for deexcitation gammas arising from inelastic collisions with
lattice sites, the fast proton will give rise to photons on the order of
less than ~ 20 keV.
One exception to this is when the proton collides with another species with
sufficient energy to fuse. Then there may be
Why can't free energy companies be like other companies? I feel that the
amount of cloak and dagger and intrigue is overrepresented in this niche.
Eric
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 8:49 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
Bottom line: As far as nuclear reactions are concerned, I would expect D to
produce mostly 4He, and H to produce mostly transmutation reactions.
Yes -- I have no reason to disagree with this. I was addressing
specifically the
I wrote:
Yes -- I have no reason to disagree with this. I was addressing
specifically the multiples of 2 D and 3 D that some believe have been
identified in transmutations (i.e., Z=+4, Z=+6, Z=+8, but not Z=+2.).
Sorry -- that's supposed to be M (for mass number) rather than Z (for
proton
I wrote:
About the beta-delayed gamma -- it's not clear that the 63Ni* gamma decay
is a beta-delayed gamma in this instance (see the decay in [1]). But as
you know beta-delayed gammas are a frequent occurrence. The half-life of
the beta decay in this case is 100 years, so if there is
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 1:28 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com
wrote:
it remind me the observation of Iwamura as noticed in the book of Ed
Storms, that transmutation seems to be the fusion with an even number of
deuteron (2-4-6), with preference to stable isotopes.
Ed draws the
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 6:14 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:
I wonder if the new Cu is Cu-63? Rossi may be implying that Ni-62 goes to
Cu-63, both of which are stable isotopes. Spin coupling to get rid of the
6.22Mev of excess mass may be the answer--there are no gammas apparently.
I wrote:
In a 62Ni(d,p)63Ni reaction, the 63Ni will beta- decay to 63Cu. The proton
will have ~ 5 MeV and will excite 11 keV electrons, which can easily be
shielded. There will be a delayed gamma emission after the beta- decay of
Q=87 keV, however, which will not be fully shielded even by
the reaction of the d,p variety occurs. There are not
87,000 Ev gammas reported, which would be evident as you suggest. I do not
think Ni-63 is involved in the production of Cu-63. Ni-62 removal would be
expensive for Rossi.
Bob
- Original Message -
*From:* Eric Walker eric.wal
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
wrote:
I posted drawings of these cross-sections. If you don't have them, I can
post them again.
Yes, please, if you could.
Eric
On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 8:25 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
Btw, I don't think rent seeking is inherently bad. Everyone should be
entitled to collect rent rather than be forced into wage labor and a basic
income would give everybody a form of rental income.
I think rent seeking is
On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 10:10 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/09/07/rossi-confirms-ihchinese-rd-operation/
Just a note to anyone from JASON who may be eavesdropping [1]. If LENR
goes bona fide live in the next few years, you may be rotated out for not
Hi Bob,
Good comments. Replies inline.
Just to mention it again, the model is no more than a back-of-the-envelope
estimate. I'm guessing a rigorous treatment would do a lot of things
differently.
Eric
On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 2:23 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:
The first
This is definitely an interesting argument. I'm agnostic at this point as
to whether Rossi has used a radioactive catalyst in the past. I suspect he
does not now, for the regulatory reasons you mention below.
About the H2 pressure and the mean free path of monoatomic hydrogen -- I'm
curious
I was curious what the numbers would look like for a range of possible
reactions in an NiH system if the only two assumptions that were made were
that nuclear reactions are the main show in NiH LENR and that somehow there
is a way to overcome Coulomb repulsion. Although I suspect this is not the
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:
Thus a low work function metal hydride with good magnetic properties would
be ideal.
Note that an alpha or a beta emitter will also dissociate molecular
hydrogen into monoatomic hydrogen (and potentially Rydberg hydrogen
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 10:31 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
someone's video response
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggN8wCWSIx4
3.5 minutes of effusive excitement about a not-too-distant future where one
does not need to work, followed by 1 minute of dwelling on the possible
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
Is such a concept in the toolbox of the professionals that perform
calorimetry? Are there any pitfalls in this idea? Is this idea an
improvement over the demo procedures that have been done for the Ni/H
reactors up to now?
Three additional points to add:
* I'm still waiting for a careful writeup of Mizuno's latest NiH/NiD work.
What we've seen are some slides. It seems premature at this point to draw too
many conclusions.
* We know relatively little about nickel systems compared to palladium systems.
I assume
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
All these electron combining with proton theories violate the conservation
of leptons. These reactions are forbidden.
Not if a neutrino is involved. (Not that I'm at all persuaded by the
proposed p-e-p reaction.)
Mesons in
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
This is not correct.
A polariton has a mass the is 10^-11 that of an electron. Because of this
almost zero polariton mass, a polariton condensate are almost always
produced at any temperature.
Could you point us to
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.umich.edu/~mctp/SciPrgPgs/events/2010/MQSS10/Talks/Littlewood_Michigan_PBL.pdf
Following are the rough specs of the polaritons described in these slides:
- Temperatures on the range of 0 - 16 K.
- Photon
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
wrote:
Well, supper's done and I found the reference I was looking for ...
- A radio interview with Sergio Focardi, the father of 'Ni-H Cold
Fusion'; Radio Citta del Capo - Bologna - Italy.
Excellent sources, Bob. I
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
The material from 2004 is irrelevant wrt Rossi
Most obviously not.
no radiation was observed at levels greater than natural radiation
background. No radioactivity has been found also in the Nickel residual
from the
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 9:17 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
You must be joking right?
Only a fool makes a gamma measurement outside the lead.
Not true, even a little. There are very good reasons for taking gamma
measurements outside of lead, the primary one being to ensure that
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 9:35 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
You still have not shown that Rossi ever reported gamma radiation in an
operating E-Cat ! Please – put up or shut up.
Please read the interview.
Eric
On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
Another interesting possibility has come up (within the hour, actually) –
which can be called “meta-states” of dark matter. These are accumulated
meta-states in the sense that the 511 keV line comes not from a decay of
I wrote:
Just one point of detail -- I read Va'vra as saying that if you sum all of
the photon energies from a hydrogen atom going to DDL across a full solid
angle, this will add up to 511 keV.
Looking at the 2013 paper again, that is just one of two possibilities.
One possibility is that
On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
Hydrogen will most likely will preferably assume a metastable state in
which a one dimensional crystalline form of Rydberg matter is surrounded
by a cloud of many electrons in orbit around a long string like core of
many
On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
The best explanation for lack of gammas – the only explanation needed – is
lack of fusion.
I'm sooo tempted to collect statements from you along these lines for
future gloating. ;)
Eric
On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
My only excuse will be to say that if nuclear fusion ... is proved then it
will consist of two simultaneous miracles.
Yes -- agreed.
Yet in November, if Mizuno backtracks and sez… oops... we had a bad meter
earlier -
Just a note to some of the newer Vorts who may be wondering how moderation
works in Vortex. Vortex is moderated, but only very lightly. The list
relies heavily upon the self-discipline of members to keep a courteous tone
and to moderate the amount of their own contributions. Ideally the tone of
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 1:16 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
***Then why do some Vorts say that the discussion is not for Vortex, even
when the thread title is obviously [OT Off Topic]?
Just my personal view on this one. There are some off-topic discussions
that are benign and
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com
wrote:
The topic of aliens is totally benign,
***I have not found that topic to be benign.
I'm not talking about in discussions about aliens in general, I'm talking
about discussions about them in the context of Vortex. I've
lilies, and the other side thinks it's pixie dust, then do
the forum rules apply to both sides? No sneering, that kind of thing? Or
do the forum rules only apply to the unfavoured side.
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:06 AM
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
wrote:
Some good quotes: after the Model T, people did not say: There will be new
jobs for horses we can't imagine! There is not a rule that says, better
technology makes more better jobs for horses.
Pleasantly apocalyptic.
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 3:28 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:
It's a slow time. If something interesting occurs, I'm sure people will
stop asking me questions and I will stop responding.
You should not begrudge a few off-topic discussions. It helps while the
time away.
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 7:39 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson
orionwo...@charter.net wrote:
The point is, there is NO ONE on this planet that I know who doesn't
possess a personal collection of faults for which they are trying to find a
better way of juggling in a more elegant way.
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 5:50 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:
PS. Most of my responses are answers to queries. Carbon Dating is
science (supposedly) and Darwinian Evolution is science (as Jed would
claim) so what off topic flame are you referring to. Responses to
religious
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:52 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Since the pause was 100% not predicted and instead should have been a more
rapid rise, how much more in error could they be?
How confident are you of this assertion?
How on earth could you or anybody else believe
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:36 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Eric, I have seen graphs of the predicted global temperatures from several
different models and they all show a rapid increase during the questionable
period. Not one of them indicate that a pause was conceivable.
The
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:47 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Lets put an end to this discussion since it is obvious that we will not
come to a resolution that is acceptable to both of us. Everyone is
entitled to their beliefs and that is good for science in the long run.
I
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
wrote:
If you embed the electrodes reasonably well into the water, you may be able
to avoid most of the error for the heat that goes into the electrodes.
Asking as someone who knows little about electronics, what are the
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 6:38 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
You also probably realize that a polynomial fit to a high power order
yields coefficients that vary depending upon the order of the polynomial
chosen. Many combinations of coefficients will fit the input/output data
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com
wrote:
Eric, you don't seem to understand what the IPCC is. They are eXACTLY as
called out -- REPRESENTATIVE of the anthropomorphic climate change thesis.
For the sake of argument, let's assume that it was not just selected
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote:
I can give that a try. What would you expect to see and how will we know
if UV is emitted?
Be careful about fumes. I recall reading that chlorine can form some
pretty nasty compounds under the right conditions.
Eric
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote:
This doesn't mean that they need to be able to forecast tomorrow's lottery
numbers ( in effect) but we should expect that they can create predictive
graphs that follow emerging reality with a reasonable fit - and frankly,
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 9:26 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not all that interested in passing judgement on the integrity of the
majority of climate scientists. I'm interested in seeing if there's real
science behind this constantly-changing thesis. My conclusion at this
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 12:15 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
This is exactly why so many question the science. A good scientist should
remain skeptical under these conditions and clearly the science is not
settled as some seem to believe.
One doesn't need a fully worked out
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 12:43 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Eric, I suppose the difference between your beliefs and mine amounts to my
expectation that the climate change scientists should be held to a high
standard as is required of most other endeavors. You apparently are
On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Ron Kita chiralex.k...@gmail.com wrote:
Not sure IF this is news:
http://phys.org/news/2014-08-scientists-splitter-ordinary-aaa-battery.html
This is an interesting article. It suggests nickel oxide has a relatively
low work function. I assume the water
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 6:55 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
wrote:
Dr. Va'vra has a 2013 ArXiv paper (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.0833v3.pdf) -
I think it is a fascinating fit to this thread. If someone else already
cited this, I apologize for the duplication.
I had a moment to read
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 5:50 PM, CB Sites cbsit...@gmail.com wrote:
Jed is write in my opinion between the deniers of global warming and the
skeptic of cold fusion, in some aspects.
For anyone who may be new to the list, global warming is one of several
topics that perennially pop up during
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
There is an uncertainty of 200 microns in the origin of the bosenova
because that reaction could occur anywhere inside the nickel foam.
I will answer my own question. There's little reason to think that a 1
Tesla field was
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 11:26 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
You have the word and reputation of Dr Kim, as good a researcher as exists
in the field of LENR experimentation. When there is an explosion, how do
you know the size of the reaction at time zero?
Perhaps you're referring to
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 10:18 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
An interesting case to speculate upon would be that the observed field is
due to the combination of a very large multitude of individual active areas
that are battling for supremacy. The fact that such a large net field
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 7:45 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
I personally think that the field is the net vector sum of a very large
number of tiny sources and hence may not become as large as is suggested as
we close in on those individual sources.
If we accept at face value
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 8:06 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.5699.pdf
The paper you cite talks about the changing masses of ⍴ and A mesons under
strong magnetic fields. It does not talk about meson condensation. It
does mention some interesting points,
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 10:54 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
DGT says that about 1 tesla is produced at 20 CMs in their reactor.
Yes, DGT was rumored to have said something along those lines.
If the source of that field is localized to a few nanometers, that means
that by the
I wrote:
... There are many different ways to categorize possible explanations, but
for the moment I'll put them in four categories:
1. Explanations involving fusion of some kind without the catalysis of
stable shrunken hydrogen (a.k.a. f/H, hydrinos, DDL hydrogen, etc.). ...
I was
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
f/h and ddl may be a mistaken observation for muonionic atoms.
I kind of like the idea of f/H being a misidentification of muonic atoms.
I would put that in category (1), because it's definitely not f/H, and it
results in
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
He also says that a home unit will require some sort of statistical control
approach. Developing these statistics has not been developed yet.
He still has control problems.
If we now have self-driving cars, I do not think
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/08/fundamental-causation-mechanisms-of-lenr.html
What is the issues with this line of thinking as a source of muons?
I am out of my element in this topic, but I will offer some feedback
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:
It occurred to me that the formation of a pair of DDL deuterium atoms may
lead to the He with small releases of energy as the D molecule forms just
before the fusion occurs.
As we wait for the TIP report (or TIP2 report,
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
Another possibility is that there is no such thing as a field.
What would we do without fields? If there is no such thing, what replaces
them?
Eric
The signal to noise ratio has taken a nosedive. I'm sure this is just a
momentary thing, and the key individuals driving the noise will quickly
come to their senses.
I'm going to take the liberty of mixing lots of metaphors. Imagine we're
in a room at someone's home and it's at a party. The
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
Per Mr. Beene's request I have posted this on my google drive:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8mt4mJOTGvBWjJXaWdjWTlTWGc/edit?usp=sharing
Va'vra was ahead of his time. To quote one of the last slides: This is
On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
wrote:
The problem is the noise. Noise affects the FWHM of the system and
normally getting this noise low enough so that the FWHM is smaller than
1keV (to get some resolution of low keV photons) requires cooling the
sensor
I wrote:
On occasion I've looked for the Piantelli anecdote, which I read somewhere,
but I haven't succeeded yet in tracking it down.
Apparently I didn't look too far. There are several references to his
using a cloud chamber. Here is a brief description from Steven Krivit
(search for cloud
I feel like Vortex would not be Vortex without the occasional religious
digression.
Eric
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 10:04 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:
As you can tell from my questions and comments I have a hard time
understanding how an electron can become in effect heavier in an atom
because of its circulation around a point with no evidence about the
stability of
See:
http://techcrunch.com/2014/08/14/y-combinator-and-mithril-invest-in-helion-a-nuclear-fusion-startup/
Some points to mention:
- Three years for them to get things going is considered a long time
(cf. BLP).
- They do not appear to be using d+t, and instead are using just
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson
orionwo...@charter.net wrote:
* BLP is feeling embolden by the recent June and July SunCell
demonstrations. While many skeptics continue to express a number of
legitimate doubts... apparently BLP has none.
I respect your
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 1:42 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
A metal is an environment where lots of charged bodies are closely packed
together. I don't think an electron in such an environment can be truly
seen as
free. I.e. perhaps electrons in the conduction band actually migrate from
one
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 2:48 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
Why wouldn't the extra energy be lost again when the electron eventually
returns
to a higher orbital? (Since it would have to escape the strong force
again.)
Electrons don't feel the strong force. (Although are affected by Coulomb
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
Further, if the orbital electron gives up all spin momentum, it might not
be freed but cease to exist entirely!
Then we have a charge conservation problem on our hands.
Eric
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 3:05 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
However neither exist when an electron is freed from an atom, hence free
electrons have no spin, and thus spin is not an intrinsic property of the
electron. Prove me wrong! (please!) ;)
If we say that the s quantum number (aka
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 7:11 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
BTW – it has been mentioned here before, that one way to overcome some of
the objections to f/H is to view the reduced ground state as transitory,
with a short but nontrivial lifetime, and with inherent asymmetry between
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
However, this deep [f/H] orbital is only a few Fermi in distance from the
nucleus. The electron is relativistic and heavy when it gets there.
It's interesting to note that the nuclear radius is not all that special
with
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 3:34 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:
I am worried about the impending LENR technologies, especially the suncell.
Personally, I would not lose much sleep over the SunCell. I am hopeful,
even optimistic, however, about the possibility of a functioning LENR
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 1:47 PM, pjvannoor...@caiway.nl wrote:
The whole thing boils down to the stucture of the electron and photon. If
the electron/photon are is described as a point particles
no classical explanation can be given for the quantum entanglement.
Photons and electrons are
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:
Regarding one of Dave’s questions yesterday regarding spin interactions, it
has been my thought that orbital spin momentum can be changed into
intrinsic spin angular momentum without any violation of spin conservation.
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
Piantelli needs to lay out how all the conservation laws are maintained in
his reaction.
It would also be nice if someone knowledgeable about hydrinos can explain
how an electron (spin=+/- 1/2) becomes a photon (spin=0) at
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
In a very strong magnetic field, the virtual meson jumps out of the
confinement box very often because the floor of the box is raised very
high. Many mesons are produced that eventually decay to muons that catalyze
hydrogen
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
Once the energy level of the magnetic field get up 140 MeV( the mass of the
Meson) the meson is no longer virtual and will not decay.
Less than 140 MeV, based on the energy/time uncertainty principle, the
decay time of the
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
A real muon may hang around for so long that it may produce a fusion
explosion.
Yes -- if this thought experiment in any way models reality, perhaps you
could obtain a critical density of muons and then have a problem on your
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson
orionwo...@charter.net wrote:
... I get really tired hearing about all the mathematical and/or
experimental evidence complaints coming out of Vortex-L about what someone
perceives as a critical and/or fatal flaw concerning
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 9:18 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
The wiki article seems to tie down the proton mass quite accurately, but it
may just be the accuracy of the calculation instead of actual measurements.
I would be interested in seeing actual mass measurements by real
I wrote:
If this value is accurate, at that precision I believe we have +/- 1 0.21
eV to use for free energy speculation.
Sorry -- +/- 0.21 eV. (I need a personal editor.)
Eric
Another point to add to this thread -- it's kind of a cool idea to think
there might be different energy levels for the proton (or neutron). I
gather that the idea is that the constituent particles of the proton
(currently believed to be quarks) can be in different states of angular
momentum (in
901 - 1000 of 2365 matches
Mail list logo
