Re: [Vo]:Thermal inertia
In a LENR system that is separated into two parts: a CAT and a MOUSE, the MOUSE pumps the polaritons that feeds the CAT. The COP of the system is a function of how efficiently the MOUSE can generate polaritons from the input power that drives the MOUSE. Optimizing MOUSE polariton production efficiency is a way to improve the COP of the system. For example, if the MOUSE uses a high efficiency spark which consumes little power to produce polaritons, then the COP of the system could exceed 6. Such optimization might be done by using a fast repeating very short duration spark that features a very low duty cycle. But the CAT can also pump its own polaritons. This self-generated CAT polariton generation process increases as the CATs temperature increases and oftentimes results in meltdown. Depressing the propensity for the Cat to pump its own polaritons could also make the system less reactive to burn up. This might be done by employing a thermostatically controlled very high efficiency cooling system that rapidly removes heat from the CAT. I recommend a liquid metal based heat pipe cooling system. Or if cooling is done passively, an integrated SiC heat exchanger distributed throughout the volume of the CAT might be functional. On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 12:20 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I modeled the behavior of core heat generation as a smooth function of temperature. Various functions and power series relationships have been modeled, but noisy generation was not attempted. If too much variation in heat power output is encountered then the process would become more difficult to stabilize. In that case my main concern would be that a burst in heat power output would kick the device over the threshold that leads to thermal run away. Rossi has never given a clue as to whether or not this type of issue effects operation of his devices. The recent published tests that displayed the surface temperature of the Hotcat versus time appeared to be very consistent from cycle to cycle. That suggests that variation is not too severe. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Apr 15, 2014 10:00 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Thermal inertia On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 9:43 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: I hope this short description of how I model the ECAT operation helps to clarify the process. If you have additional questions please feel free to ask. When you were modeling the thermodynamics of the reaction, did you use a stochastic model for the reaction itself? If so, did you look at the effect of different variances in the temperature excursions? Eric
RE: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
From: Bob Higgins Well, yes, it is semantics. What you are describing is not chemical energy at all. Chemical energy specifically deals with the shared electron binding energy in formation of compounds with other atoms. What you are describing is the possible ability of monatomic H, D, or T to access and tap the zero point energy. This is not exactly correct, Bob. We are NOT talking about monatomic atoms. I also made that slip, earlier in the thread. (after all, this is vortex). It is a fifteen orders of magnitude mistake. We are talking about the bare proton only. To access the 1D interface of Dirac’s sea (one dimensional interface) any atom in 3-space with electrons attached is too large (with the possible exception of the DDL or deep Dirac layer of hydrogen which is much more compact). Consider this: Monatomic H has a an atomic radius of about 0.25 Å which is still in the realm of 3-D. The textbook radius of a proton is 0.88 ± 0.01 femtometers (fm, or 10^-15 m). The angstrom is 10^-10 m or 0.1 nm, so there is a massive geometry decrease in going from Monatomic H to the bare proton - which is almost 10^-5 difference in radius (or the cube of that, if expressed as smaller volume). This is like going from an inch to a mile ! and proper geometry is what it is all about according to the proponents of the Dirac sea or Ps hypothesis. Essentially, this is why the bare proton can be a proper conduit for zero point but not much else. And even then we must define the Dirac sea as ZPE, which some do like. In short, monatomic H is about 1,000,000,000,000,000 larger in effective volume than a proton, which keeps it in 3-space. The alpha particle is a candidate for a Dirac sea interfacial excursion, but completely ionizing helium is not easy. In short, the Dirac sea is one-dimensional (1D) and the bare proton permits an interface with that dimension, whereas no other atom can easily do this. This would not be chemical, but would fall into the category of ZPE. The two are not incompatible. The only reason to call ZPE as a non-chemical reaction is to protect the notion of Conservation of Energy. That is not a good enough reason IMO. Such possibilities may exist (only postulated to exist), but they should not be classified as chemical. Why not? We are talking about electron effects (in the sense of lack of electrons) and this is chemical. The is not a nuclear effect. Forcing the Ni-H version of LENR into another category such as ZPE - is only the skeptic’s way to marginalize the effect. In the eyes of those skeptics who think ZPE is a figment of the imagination, they avoid mentioning Dirac, since they do not want to acknowledge a possible route to LENR via mainstream science. They realize at some level that a figment of Dirac’s imagination is worth more than their entire careers. Jones
Re: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
Jones said-- Forcing the Ni-H version of LENR into another category such as ZPE - is only the skeptic’s way to marginalize the effect. In the eyes of those skeptics who think ZPE is a figment of the imagination, they avoid mentioning Dirac, since they do not want to acknowledge a possible route to LENR via mainstream science. They realize at some level that a figment of Dirac’s imagination is worth more than their entire careers. Well said. Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 7:34 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen From: Bob Higgins Well, yes, it is semantics. What you are describing is not chemical energy at all. Chemical energy specifically deals with the shared electron binding energy in formation of compounds with other atoms. What you are describing is the possible ability of monatomic H, D, or T to access and tap the zero point energy. This is not exactly correct, Bob. We are NOT talking about monatomic atoms. I also made that slip, earlier in the thread. (after all, this is vortex). It is a fifteen orders of magnitude mistake. We are talking about the bare proton only. To access the 1D interface of Dirac’s sea (one dimensional interface) any atom in 3-space with electrons attached is too large (with the possible exception of the DDL or deep Dirac layer of hydrogen which is much more compact). Consider this: Monatomic H has a an atomic radius of about 0.25 Å which is still in the realm of 3-D. The textbook radius of a proton is 0.88 ± 0.01 femtometers (fm, or 10^-15 m). The angstrom is 10^-10 m or 0.1 nm, so there is a massive geometry decrease in going from Monatomic H to the bare proton - which is almost 10^-5 difference in radius (or the cube of that, if expressed as smaller volume). This is like going from an inch to a mile ! and proper geometry is what it is all about according to the proponents of the Dirac sea or Ps hypothesis. Essentially, this is why the bare proton can be a proper conduit for zero point but not much else. And even then we must define the Dirac sea as ZPE, which some do like. In short, monatomic H is about 1,000,000,000,000,000 larger in effective volume than a proton, which keeps it in 3-space. The alpha particle is a candidate for a Dirac sea interfacial excursion, but completely ionizing helium is not easy. In short, the Dirac sea is one-dimensional (1D) and the bare proton permits an interface with that dimension, whereas no other atom can easily do this. This would not be chemical, but would fall into the category of ZPE. The two are not incompatible. The only reason to call ZPE as a non-chemical reaction is to protect the notion of Conservation of Energy. That is not a good enough reason IMO. Such possibilities may exist (only postulated to exist), but they should not be classified as chemical. Why not? We are talking about electron effects (in the sense of lack of electrons) and this is chemical. The is not a nuclear effect. Forcing the Ni-H version of LENR into another category such as ZPE - is only the skeptic’s way to marginalize the effect. In the eyes of those skeptics who think ZPE is a figment of the imagination, they avoid mentioning Dirac, since they do not want to acknowledge a possible route to LENR via mainstream science. They realize at some level that a figment of Dirac’s imagination is worth more than their entire careers. Jones
Re: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
Jones-- From your earlier comment: In short, the Dirac sea is one-dimensional (1D) and the bare proton permits an interface with that dimension, whereas no other atom can easily do this. Does the Dirac theory address a mechanism of interaction between the proton and the sea? Does the Uncertainty Principle apply to the proton at the interface? The constraint to one dimension may be important to increasing the proton's energy and momentum in that direction. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 7:34 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen From: Bob Higgins Well, yes, it is semantics. What you are describing is not chemical energy at all. Chemical energy specifically deals with the shared electron binding energy in formation of compounds with other atoms. What you are describing is the possible ability of monatomic H, D, or T to access and tap the zero point energy. This is not exactly correct, Bob. We are NOT talking about monatomic atoms. I also made that slip, earlier in the thread. (after all, this is vortex). It is a fifteen orders of magnitude mistake. We are talking about the bare proton only. To access the 1D interface of Dirac’s sea (one dimensional interface) any atom in 3-space with electrons attached is too large (with the possible exception of the DDL or deep Dirac layer of hydrogen which is much more compact). Consider this: Monatomic H has a an atomic radius of about 0.25 Å which is still in the realm of 3-D. The textbook radius of a proton is 0.88 ± 0.01 femtometers (fm, or 10^-15 m). The angstrom is 10^-10 m or 0.1 nm, so there is a massive geometry decrease in going from Monatomic H to the bare proton - which is almost 10^-5 difference in radius (or the cube of that, if expressed as smaller volume). This is like going from an inch to a mile ! and proper geometry is what it is all about according to the proponents of the Dirac sea or Ps hypothesis. Essentially, this is why the bare proton can be a proper conduit for zero point but not much else. And even then we must define the Dirac sea as ZPE, which some do like. In short, monatomic H is about 1,000,000,000,000,000 larger in effective volume than a proton, which keeps it in 3-space. The alpha particle is a candidate for a Dirac sea interfacial excursion, but completely ionizing helium is not easy. In short, the Dirac sea is one-dimensional (1D) and the bare proton permits an interface with that dimension, whereas no other atom can easily do this. This would not be chemical, but would fall into the category of ZPE. The two are not incompatible. The only reason to call ZPE as a non-chemical reaction is to protect the notion of Conservation of Energy. That is not a good enough reason IMO. Such possibilities may exist (only postulated to exist), but they should not be classified as chemical. Why not? We are talking about electron effects (in the sense of lack of electrons) and this is chemical. The is not a nuclear effect. Forcing the Ni-H version of LENR into another category such as ZPE - is only the skeptic’s way to marginalize the effect. In the eyes of those skeptics who think ZPE is a figment of the imagination, they avoid mentioning Dirac, since they do not want to acknowledge a possible route to LENR via mainstream science. They realize at some level that a figment of Dirac’s imagination is worth more than their entire careers. Jones
RE: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
From: Bob Cook In short, the Dirac sea is one-dimensional (1D) and the bare proton permits an interface with that dimension, whereas no other atom can easily do this. Does the Dirac theory address a mechanism of interaction between the proton and the sea? The interaction would most likely be electrostatic. Wiki has a pretty good writeup http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_sea which mentions some of the controversy. What you may be angling for is the chiral anomaly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiral_anomaly which can partially explain many things of interest … on the fringe … Does the Uncertainty Principle apply to the proton at the interface? My assumption is yes. Jones From: Bob Higgins Well, yes, it is semantics. What you are describing is not chemical energy at all. Chemical energy specifically deals with the shared electron binding energy in formation of compounds with other atoms. What you are describing is the possible ability of monatomic H, D, or T to access and tap the zero point energy. This is not exactly correct, Bob. We are NOT talking about monatomic atoms. I also made that slip, earlier in the thread. (after all, this is vortex). It is a fifteen orders of magnitude mistake. We are talking about the bare proton only. To access the 1D interface of Dirac’s sea (one dimensional interface) any atom in 3-space with electrons attached is too large (with the possible exception of the DDL or deep Dirac layer of hydrogen which is much more compact). Consider this: Monatomic H has a an atomic radius of about 0.25 Å which is still in the realm of 3-D. The textbook radius of a proton is 0.88 ± 0.01 femtometers (fm, or 10^-15 m). The angstrom is 10^-10 m or 0.1 nm, so there is a massive geometry decrease in going from Monatomic H to the bare proton - which is almost 10^-5 difference in radius (or the cube of that, if expressed as smaller volume). This is like going from an inch to a mile ! and proper geometry is what it is all about according to the proponents of the Dirac sea or Ps hypothesis. Essentially, this is why the bare proton can be a proper conduit for zero point but not much else. And even then we must define the Dirac sea as ZPE, which some do like. In short, monatomic H is about 1,000,000,000,000,000 larger in effective volume than a proton, which keeps it in 3-space. The alpha particle is a candidate for a Dirac sea interfacial excursion, but completely ionizing helium is not easy. In short, the Dirac sea is one-dimensional (1D) and the bare proton permits an interface with that dimension, whereas no other atom can easily do this. This would not be chemical, but would fall into the category of ZPE. The two are not incompatible. The only reason to call ZPE as a non-chemical reaction is to protect the notion of Conservation of Energy. That is not a good enough reason IMO. Such possibilities may exist (only postulated to exist), but they should not be classified as chemical. Why not? We are talking about electron effects (in the sense of lack of electrons) and this is chemical. The is not a nuclear effect. Forcing the Ni-H version of LENR into another category such as ZPE - is only the skeptic’s way to marginalize the effect. In the eyes of those skeptics who think ZPE is a figment of the imagination, they avoid mentioning Dirac, since they do not want to acknowledge a possible route to LENR via mainstream science. They realize at some level that a figment of Dirac’s imagination is worth more than their entire careers. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
Bob, Another point for consideration, especially in invoking a “Dirac sea” modality for some or all of the energy gain in Ni-H involves magnetism, but in the context of one dimensionality. It is clear that many experiments (Ahern et al) show a peak in thermal gain near the Curie point of nickel – (or the Néel temperature) meaning that the modality is magnetic, to some extent. This is unlikely to be coincidental and the implication is that there is oscillation around the Curie point (or the Néel temperature which is an alternate magnetic modality). H2 is diamagnetic. With monatomic H, the single electron provides an effective field of something like 12.5 Tesla at Angstrom dimension. With the bare proton, no electron, the situation is less clear. Believe it or not, this has not been measured accurately. The real problem is that the magnetic moment of the proton is 660 times smaller than that of the electron, which means that any field is considerably harder to detect from a distance. OTOH, due to inverse square, at the interface with 1D, the effective magnetic field of the proton should be in the millions of Tesla. http://phys.org/news/2011-06-magnetic-properties-proton.html#jCp http://phys.org/news/2011-06-magnetic-properties-proton.html Even if the Dirac sea does not normally feel a magnetic field from 3-space, there is lots of negative charge in that dimension, and it should feel some bleed-over from 3-space at the interface with a proton. Therefore a magnetic component is likely to be found - in the situation where a bare proton interacts with the Dirac sea in a gainful way. _ From: Bob Cook In short, the Dirac sea is one-dimensional (1D) and the bare proton permits an interface with that dimension, whereas no other atom can easily do this. Does the Dirac theory address a mechanism of interaction between the proton and the sea? The interaction would most likely be electrostatic. Wiki has a pretty good writeup http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_sea which mentions some of the controversy. What you may be angling for is the chiral anomaly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiral_anomaly which can partially explain many things of interest … on the fringe … Does the Uncertainty Principle apply to the proton at the interface? My assumption is yes. Jones From: Bob Higgins Well, yes, it is semantics. What you are describing is not chemical energy at all. Chemical energy specifically deals with the shared electron binding energy in formation of compounds with other atoms. What you are describing is the possible ability of monatomic H, D, or T to access and tap the zero point energy. This is not exactly correct, Bob. We are NOT talking about monatomic atoms. I also made that slip, earlier in the thread. (after all, this is vortex). It is a fifteen orders of magnitude mistake. We are talking about the bare proton only. To access the 1D interface of Dirac’s sea (one dimensional interface) any atom in 3-space with electrons attached is too large (with the possible exception of the DDL or deep Dirac layer of hydrogen which is much more compact). Consider this: Monatomic H has a an atomic radius of about 0.25 Å which is still in the realm of 3-D. The textbook radius of a proton is 0.88 ± 0.01 femtometers (fm, or 10^-15 m). The angstrom is 10^-10 m or 0.1 nm, so there is a massive geometry decrease in going from Monatomic H to the bare proton - which is almost 10^-5 difference in radius (or the cube of that, if expressed as smaller volume). This is like going from an inch to a mile ! and proper geometry is what it is all about according to the proponents of the Dirac sea or Ps hypothesis. Essentially, this is why the bare proton can be a proper conduit for zero point but not much else. And even then we must define the Dirac sea as ZPE, which some do like. In short, monatomic H is about 1,000,000,000,000,000 larger in effective volume than a proton, which keeps it in 3-space. The alpha particle is a candidate for a Dirac sea interfacial excursion, but completely ionizing helium is not easy. In short, the Dirac sea is one-dimensional (1D) and the bare proton permits an interface with that dimension, whereas no other atom can easily do this. This would
Re: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
Jones, Do you think a strong magnetic field, such as a million watt 3 GHz electromagnetic pulse from a doppler microwave radar tower can entice particles (positively charged) from the Dirac Sea? Stewart On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Bob, Another point for consideration, especially in invoking a “Dirac sea” modality for some or all of the energy gain in Ni-H involves magnetism, but in the context of one dimensionality. It is clear that many experiments (Ahern et al) show a peak in thermal gain near the Curie point of nickel – (or the Néel temperature) meaning that the modality is magnetic, to some extent. This is unlikely to be coincidental and the implication is that there is oscillation around the Curie point (or the Néel temperature which is an alternate magnetic modality). H2 is diamagnetic. With monatomic H, the single electron provides an effective field of something like 12.5 Tesla at Angstrom dimension. With the bare proton, no electron, the situation is less clear. Believe it or not, this has not been measured accurately. The real problem is that the magnetic moment of the proton is 660 times smaller than that of the electron, which means that any field is considerably harder to detect from a distance. OTOH, due to inverse square, at the interface with 1D, the effective magnetic field of the proton should be in the millions of Tesla. http://phys.org/news/2011-06-magnetic-properties-proton.html#jCp http://phys.org/news/2011-06-magnetic-properties-proton.html Even if the Dirac sea does not normally feel a magnetic field from 3-space, there is lots of negative charge in that dimension, and it should feel some bleed-over from 3-space at the interface with a proton. Therefore a magnetic component is likely to be found - in the situation where a bare proton interacts with the Dirac sea in a gainful way. _ From: Bob Cook In short, the Dirac sea is one-dimensional (1D) and the bare proton permits an interface with that dimension, whereas no other atom can easily do this. Does the Dirac theory address a mechanism of interaction between the proton and the sea? The interaction would most likely be electrostatic. Wiki has a pretty good writeup http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_sea which mentions some of the controversy. What you may be angling for is the chiral anomaly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiral_anomaly which can partially explain many things of interest … on the fringe … Does the Uncertainty Principle apply to the proton at the interface? My assumption is yes. Jones From: Bob Higgins Well, yes, it is semantics. What you are describing is not chemical energy at all. Chemical energy specifically deals with the shared electron binding energy in formation of compounds with other atoms. What you are describing is the possible ability of monatomic H, D, or T to access and tap the zero point energy. This is not exactly correct, Bob. We are NOT talking about monatomic atoms. I also made that slip, earlier in the thread. (after all, this is vortex). It is a fifteen orders of magnitude mistake. We are talking about the bare proton only. To access the 1D interface of Dirac’s sea (one dimensional interface) any atom in 3-space with electrons attached is too large (with the possible exception of the DDL or deep Dirac layer of hydrogen which is much more compact). Consider this: Monatomic H has a an atomic radius of about 0.25 Å which is still in the realm of 3-D. The textbook radius of a proton is 0.88 ± 0.01 femtometers (fm, or 10^-15 m). The angstrom is 10^-10 m or 0.1 nm, so there is a massive geometry decrease in going from Monatomic H to the bare proton - which is almost 10^-5 difference in radius (or the cube of that, if expressed as smaller volume). This is like going from an inch to a mile ! and proper geometry is what it is all about according to the proponents of the Dirac sea or Ps hypothesis. Essentially, this is why the bare proton can be a proper conduit for zero point but not much else. And even then we must define the Dirac sea as ZPE, which some do like. In short, monatomic H is about 1,000,000,000,000,000 larger in effective volume than a proton, which keeps it in 3-space. The alpha particle is a candidate for a Dirac sea interfacial excursion, but completely ionizing helium is not easy. In short, the Dirac sea is
[Vo]:CBI to decommission floating reactor
CBI to decommission floating reactor 14 April 2014 The USA's only floating nuclear power plant will be decommissioned by CBI under a $34.7 million contract. The MH-1A reactor provided power to the Panama Canal zone before being shut down in 1976. http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR-CB-and-I-to-decommission-floating-reactor-1404147.html Harry
Re: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
Yes, I think it(the vacuum) might be CREATING the high humidity, I am not sure it is just friction. High vacuum concentration in our atmosphere = high humidity. I think maybe the vacuum ionizes O2 producing 2O-- which is combining with protons from the vacuum to form water vapor H2O That is why I think it is HIGH concentrations of vacuum energy stringing in our jet streams that are creating hurricanes. The vacuum is also ionizing oxygen and creating water vapor. Hurricanes are really HURRIBRANES (of vacuum) decaying in our jet streams. You get a tremendous amount of lightning/electromagentic discharge near the eyewalls of hurricanes. See my weather model based upon decaying string/branes of vacuum. In other words our primary weather is actually decaying strings of vacuum from our quantum vacuum gravity field streaming from the Sun. The vacuum is bending/scattering doppler radiation. The vacuum gradually ionizes the Earth (and us) and triggers seismic activity underneath jet streams. Our atmosphere has a vacuum layer (Dirac Sea) and a molecular layer (Air Water Vapor) and our weather is an interaction between the two. Of course to believe that you would need to believe the Core of the Earth is really just folded up vacuum (probably a 6-d torus) http://darkmattersalot.com/2013/04/15/is-it-our-brane-thats-still-foggy-or-is-it-just-string-theory-for-dummies-me/ Just my take on it. Stewart On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* ChemE Stewart Do you think a strong magnetic field, such as a million watt 3 GHz electromagnetic pulse from a doppler microwave radar tower can entice particles (positively charged) from the Dirac Sea? Stewart, Hmm… the EM pulse alone would probably not be enough; however, free protons could tap into the Dirac sea if they were available in a statistical over-abundance (at least as I understand it). Free protons would be available in a significant way on a very humid day due to hydronium, H3O+ which is a natural cation with a loose bond on one proton. With 100% humidity, there should be temporarily available protons which could be freed by 3 GHz radiation. (Note that the natural hydroxyl (OH) bond of water has a peak in absorption spectrum of 1.6 and 2.48 GHz). Does the physical effect which you are searching for happen more often in high humidity? That kind of evidence could lead somewhere - towards Dirac. In fact, we have talked here before about studies which show that about half the energy of a hurricane or cyclone cannot be accounted for - due to the water temperature differential, where the storm forms. Thus it is possibly that hot humid air rapidly moving with friction buildup, will tap into the Dirac sea for some of the energy of the tropical storm - especially with triboelectric effects. Maybe they should name the next big storm following a successful Rossi demo: Hurricane LENRard.
Re: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
Jones-- Assuming the Uncertainty Principle applies to a proton approaching the Dirac sea it may gain substantial energy given the dimensional constraint. This energy may be enough to allow it to react in 3-d space and explain the coupling between the ZPE and the proton. On the other hand the size of the Z point or line as it may be must be pretty small, between the proton size and the Heisenberg dimension of about 10^-35 cm. It may be that the wave of the proton is such that it can fit inside the dimension of the single line of the Dirac sea and become a virtual charge, combine with an electron and hence pop out of the constrained sea (line) as an H with lots of extra energy. Maybe the production of the H in the Muzino experiment is the production of H from D that must have a size about that of a proton and may fit inside the Dirac sea better but end up as two protons being spit out with some energy. Since quarks were not known when Dirac hypothesized the sea, he probably did not address them. Has anyone to your knowledge addressed quarks (not sharks) in the Dirac sea? And could this explain the Heisenberg constant--ie., the association with the dimension of the Dirac sea? Lastly, I am surprised that you would say that the interaction between the sea and 3-d is electrostatic and not also magnetic. It may be that the Dirac sea has magnetic monopoles that get together with other virtual particles to form the 3-d particles we know with magnetic moments. I read about an experiment a month or so ago where a researcher had claimed existence of a magnetic monopole for a short time near 0 degrees K. I've got more questions than answers. Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 9:30 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen Bob, Another point for consideration, especially in invoking a “Dirac sea” modality for some or all of the energy gain in Ni-H involves magnetism, but in the context of one dimensionality. It is clear that many experiments (Ahern et al) show a peak in thermal gain near the Curie point of nickel – (or the Néel temperature) meaning that the modality is magnetic, to some extent. This is unlikely to be coincidental and the implication is that there is oscillation around the Curie point (or the Néel temperature which is an alternate magnetic modality). H2 is diamagnetic. With monatomic H, the single electron provides an effective field of something like 12.5 Tesla at Angstrom dimension. With the bare proton, no electron, the situation is less clear. Believe it or not, this has not been measured accurately. The real problem is that the magnetic moment of the proton is 660 times smaller than that of the electron, which means that any field is considerably harder to detect from a distance. OTOH, due to inverse square, at the interface with 1D, the effective magnetic field of the proton should be in the millions of Tesla. http://phys.org/news/2011-06-magnetic-properties-proton.html#jCp http://phys.org/news/2011-06-magnetic-properties-proton.html Even if the Dirac sea does not normally feel a magnetic field from 3-space, there is lots of negative charge in that dimension, and it should feel some bleed-over from 3-space at the interface with a proton. Therefore a magnetic component is likely to be found - in the situation where a bare proton interacts with the Dirac sea in a gainful way. _ From: Bob Cook In short, the Dirac sea is one-dimensional (1D) and the bare proton permits an interface with that dimension, whereas no other atom can easily do this. Does the Dirac theory address a mechanism of interaction between the proton and the sea? The interaction would most likely be electrostatic. Wiki has a pretty good writeup http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_sea which mentions some of the controversy. What you may be angling for is the chiral anomaly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiral_anomaly which can partially explain many things of interest … on the fringe … Does the Uncertainty Principle apply to the proton at the interface? My assumption is yes. Jones From: Bob Higgins Well, yes, it is semantics. What you are describing is not chemical energy at all. Chemical energy specifically deals with the shared electron binding energy in formation of compounds with other atoms. What you are describing is the possible ability of monatomic H, D, or T to access and tap the zero point energy. This is not exactly correct, Bob. We are NOT talking about monatomic atoms. I also made that slip, earlier in the thread. (after all, this is vortex). It is a fifteen orders of magnitude mistake. We are talking about the bare proton only. To access the 1D interface of Dirac’s sea (one dimensional interface) any atom in 3-space with electrons attached is too large (with the possible exception of the DDL or
Re: [Vo]:CBI to decommission floating reactor
I suppose they forgot about aircraft carriers and submarines. :-) On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 1:01 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: CBI to decommission floating reactor 14 April 2014 The USA's only floating nuclear power plant will be decommissioned by CBI under a $34.7 million contract. The MH-1A reactor provided power to the Panama Canal zone before being shut down in 1976. http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR-CB-and-I-to-decommission-floating-reactor-1404147.html Harry
Re: [Vo]:CBI to decommission floating reactor
stationary floating. On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: I suppose they forgot about aircraft carriers and submarines. :-) On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 1:01 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: CBI to decommission floating reactor 14 April 2014 The USA's only floating nuclear power plant will be decommissioned by CBI under a $34.7 million contract. The MH-1A reactor provided power to the Panama Canal zone before being shut down in 1976. http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR-CB-and-I-to-decommission-floating-reactor-1404147.html Harry
Re: [Vo]:CBI to decommission floating reactor
I didn't see the word 'stationary'. On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 3:40 PM, leaking pen itsat...@gmail.com wrote: stationary floating. On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: I suppose they forgot about aircraft carriers and submarines. :-) On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 1:01 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: CBI to decommission floating reactor 14 April 2014 The USA's only floating nuclear power plant will be decommissioned by CBI under a $34.7 million contract. The MH-1A reactor provided power to the Panama Canal zone before being shut down in 1976. http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR-CB-and-I-to-decommission-floating-reactor-1404147.html Harry
[Vo]:Co-Netic AA and the Dirac sea
Mu-metal is a nickel-iron alloy that is notable for its high magnetic permeability. The permeability makes mu-metal useful for shielding against static or low-frequency magnetic fields - but the same feature should make it an excellent lattice for LENR in the sense that shielding is a function of a material being able to internalize magnetic fields. And there is an emerging cross-connection between Rydberg states and magnetism, not to mention the binding energy of the Dirac sea is itself a whole fraction (1/2) of Ry which is the Rydberg unit of energy. Co-Netic AA, is a brand of Mu metal consisting of nickel(80%), iron(15%), and molybdenum(5%) with permeability of 30,000 or more. It was mentioned by Dr. Claytor recently at the MIT Colloquium as giving his best results. If this, or a similar alloy was to be converted into a slightly oxidized powder, with added potassium - it could be an interesting choice for the kind of LENR where magnetic oscillations are being optimized - as the way to use protons to cohere vacuum energy. There would be thermal gain, and no radiation. In terms of Rydberg multiples, this particular mix would have 10 unique Rydberg levels in the ionization potential of its various constituents or 12 if we count whole fractions. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:CBI to decommission floating reactor
Yeah they could have mentioned that the US military operates other floating nuclear power reactors although this particular reactor provided power for both military and civilian uses. Harry On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: I suppose they forgot about aircraft carriers and submarines. :-) On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 1:01 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: CBI to decommission floating reactor 14 April 2014 The USA's only floating nuclear power plant will be decommissioned by CBI under a $34.7 million contract. The MH-1A reactor provided power to the Panama Canal zone before being shut down in 1976. http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR-CB-and-I-to-decommission-floating-reactor-1404147.html Harry
Re: [Vo]:CBI to decommission floating reactor
I think it was an Army designed reactor not unlike the ones the Army developed for use in Antarctica.Those first reactor vessels saw a lot of neutron embrittlement of the reactor vessel. The material form those early vessels was used to determine low alloy steel fracture mechanics properties, fracture toughness, as a function of neutron flux. The vessel from Panama probably should be investigated, however, it won't be because the Army does not want to know what the margin to failure was. The fact that it worked and did not fail was good enough. Fracture toughness in the high flux/high stress part of the reactor and ultrasonic investigation for defect size and orientation is all that is needed. The Navy has submarine prototype reactors that may be stationary floaters also. Bop - Original Message - From: H Veeder To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 2:02 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:CBI to decommission floating reactor Yeah they could have mentioned that the US military operates other floating nuclear power reactors although this particular reactor provided power for both military and civilian uses. Harry On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: I suppose they forgot about aircraft carriers and submarines. :-) On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 1:01 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: CBI to decommission floating reactor 14 April 2014 The USA's only floating nuclear power plant will be decommissioned by CBI under a $34.7 million contract. The MH-1A reactor provided power to the Panama Canal zone before being shut down in 1976. http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR-CB-and-I-to-decommission-floating-reactor-1404147.html Harry
