Axil--
Your comments about zero spin means zero quadrupole spin seems founded
relative to Daniel’s comment. I am not sure what you mean by quadrupole spin?
Daniel was talking about quadrupole and octapole moments of a nucleus.
I would argue that a nucleus with a nominal ground state with
Interesting comparisons.
Bob
Sent from Windows Mail
From: Jones Beene
Sent: Friday, August 8, 2014 5:54 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
In automotive engineering, there are several idealized energy transfer
cycles which involve four clearly segmented stages of engine
Well done, Jones!
Creativity works with bisociations (see Kostler)
Peter
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
In automotive engineering, there are several idealized energy transfer
cycles which involve four clearly segmented stages of engine operation. For
just to say that things about LENR-Cities get more and more precise (and
even more if you have insider data).
http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/546-LENR-Cities-SA-was-established-today-in-Neuchatel-Switzerland/?postID=1035#post1035
Today, on Linked-in, Michel Vandenberghe
Thanks Peter and Bob. Here are a couple of additional thoughts on an emerging
nanomagnetism hypothesis.
Nanomagnetism can be operational parallel to other processes in any experiment,
even a novel form of “fusion” if that exists. Nanomagnetism can be part of a
dynamical Casimir effect as
Axil, I feel it is counterproductive to the advancement of science for people
to be proposing ideas willy nilly - ideas that have no bearing in reality and
cleary violates known physical principles. Attempts at theory of these kinds
are not helpful and adds a significant amount of noise that
Bob:
In the reference that I sited, the last column in the list is titled as
follows:
electric quadrupole moment in bar'
You notice that for a zero spin element, the quadrupole moment is zero.
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 2:37 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:
Axil--
Your comments
Dear Jojo,
I want to answer you in part, prior to Axil.
We have to take great care with naming ideas willy nilly,,nanoplasmonics,
nanomagnetism, BEC are not so have a growing literature - see Google
Scholar please and do a lighting fast search.
What sacrosnct rules they contradict how when this
From Daniel,
Their theory doesn't make sense, not even as a classical approximation.
I cannot make heads or tails of anything there. For example, any wave
function, time independent, must be a standing wave. If it is a
fraction, and you want to enforce this, it will be a sum of many
dear Jones
This was your second remarkable and citable idea during recent days- the
first being your Mizuno D/Ni review/synthesis.
ONLY NEW IDEAS CAN SAVE LENR!
Peter
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 4:55 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
Thanks Peter and Bob. Here are a couple of additional
The most important unsolved problem in physics is arguably proton/quark spin
dynamics. The superset of this problem is underappreciated – variability of
proton mass.
It is a surprise to many scientists that quark mass is highly variable and
apparently has been for billions of years …
Very interesting, creates a greater context of our problems, but we
have specific problems too. I have just started to write a paper about
the roots (more local) of LENR 's problems.
Storms considers my air poisoning hypothesis also a silly distraction
but we are unable to get reproducible
Jones, I want to ask you about your thougths about the variation in proton
mass. Should the variation be measurable with high sensitivity mass
spectrometers? I suppose that even a 1% variation would be more than enough to
supply all of the nuclear energy that we are seeing since the energy
I don't have anything to ask. When I wrote I don't make heads or tails of
their theory, it's not because I cannot understand because it is too hard
or I missing something in the mumbo jumbo. In fact, what I mean is an
euphemism for their theory being not even wrong. What they do is worse than
WL
Auburn University BLP Replication:
http://beforeitsnews.com/energy/2014/08/blacklight-power-gets-2-more-validations-more-information-2454992.html
Follow the links from the first sentence of the article.
--On Saturday, August 09, 2014 12:38 PM -0300 Daniel Rocha
danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
The spin of the proton is the big puzzle in particle physics. The quarks in
the proton contribute less than half of the required proton spin. The
gluons contribute the remainder of the spin. But theory says that gluons
should not have spin.
If gluons have spin then they must be magnetic and they
From: David Roberson
*
*I want to ask you about your thougths about the variation in proton
mass. Should the variation be measurable with high sensitivity mass
spectrometers?
Yes and no. This is not unlike the problem of mass-4 similarity between D2
and He but
I assert that the reactions seen by Nanospire and LeClair is LENR. It is
the kind of LENR that can produces high levels of gammas and neutrons. The
reason behind this strange type of LENR behavior is that the energy that
produce the cavitation bubbles comes from a pump. The water pump does not
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 instruments
instead of super computer calculations. It is not too hard to
I assert that the magnetic component of matter as released by LENR is the
source of dark energy. Dark energy is the resonance values picked up by
josephson junction resonance effects instead of dark matter.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1309.3790
Could it be that the bosenova that has been seen in the
Thanks Jones. There might be something here that needs further research.
Would it not seem logical that there should exist some ultimate minimum energy
level for the proton mass? In other words, some mass below which additional
energy can not be extracted.
I can imagine that higher spin
*Can random thermal motion ever be converted into spin?*
I assert that this is the underlying mechanism of LENR.
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:40 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Thanks Jones. There might be something here that needs further
research. Would it not seem logical that
Thermal motion produces infrared photons that are central to the LENT
reaction.
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
*Can random thermal motion ever be converted into spin?*
I assert that this is the underlying mechanism of LENR.
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at
Thermal motion produces infrared photons that are central to the LENT
reaction.
should read
Thermal motion produces infrared photons that are central to the LENR
reaction.
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
Thermal motion produces infrared photons that are
Perhaps so. Can spin energy be converted into linear kinetic energy? If spin
is tied to angular momentum, one might expect it to be conserved overall. How
do we prove or disprove this?
If you look at the universe from a distance you observe large amounts of
spin(angular momentum) that does
OK, but how does it happen? Should spin be conserved? I can picture two spins
in opposite direction sharing net spin leaving heat energy on the table. And
in this case, spin could be conserved. Is something like this required?
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil
*Energy can be converted directly between angular and linear forms, but is
the same true for momentum? I suspect not.*
What about a rail gun where magnetism is converted into linear momentum of
the projectile.
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:53 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
If energy comes from the strong force, and gluons, the force carrier of the
strong force also carry spin, then magnetic energy can carry the energy
derived from the strong force, that energy is nuclear energy,
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:58 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
OK, but
I also assert that if a magnetic force is strong enough, that force could
inject so much energy into the proton in terms of spin coupling with the
gluons that the proton will disintegrate into a quark/gluon plasma.
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
If energy
That is the model that I try to understand Axil. But I do not believe that an
isolated single moving particle can emit thermal energy directly. A free
proton moving uniformly in space has a relative velocity to every observer
except one at rest to it. It therefore can not emit thermal energy
*But I do not believe that an isolated single moving particle can emit
thermal energy directly...It therefore can not emit thermal energy in the
form of IR without the interaction of other particles around it.*
The thermal energy is converted to spin energy( aka magnetic) under the
action of
Actually the linear momentum remains the same overall in this case. The gun
pushes against its mount and imparts linear momentum to the earth that equals
the amount given to the projectile. Energy can be freely exchanged among the
various forms such as magnetic to linear in this case. Also,
Should the net spin be conserved? Energy can be converted and released, but
does spin have to be shared with something else as that energy is extracted?
This concept may be a key one to consider.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l
As the energy of the proton increases via increased velocity, that energy
is converted into gluons. If gluons carry spin, part of that new energy is
converted to new spin energy. This energy conversion should also work in
the other direction when gluons are reconfigured to a lower energy state.
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
Kevin, l googled you and I can see we life rather close to each other. I
cannot remember ever doing any busines with you. If you find yourself
holding rudges , vortex is hardly the place to sttlethat. If you have any
hard feeloings , please address me via email and or telephone. I ensure you
that
Peter, My objections are not so much rooted in the new ideas themselves, but
in ideas that have no basis in reality pretending to be heirs to the throne.
These ideas are a distraction. We need to get rid of these fluffs. People
with no training or qualifications in this area have the
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
Their theory doesn't make sense, not even as a classical approximation. I
cannot make heads or tails of anything there. For example, any wave
function, time independent, must be a standing wave. If it is a fraction,
and
you want to enforce this, it will be a sum of many waves, possibly
I wrote:
I gather that the idea is that ... some kind of shell model [is involved].
Another analogy that might be relevant -- there could be different
isotopes for protons and neutrons, e.g., bound states with differing
numbers of quarks.
Eric
From: Eric Walker
* The wiki article gives the proton (rest) mass as being 938.272046(21)
MeV/c^2
* If this value is accurate, at that precision I believe we have +/- 1 0.21 eV
to use for free energy speculation.
That is CODATA. Of course, it is no less accurate than any of
Ed Storms last post:
---
Bob, I know very well about muon fusion. If you took the time to read my
papers, you would understand not only do I understand but you have no idea
what you are talking about. The muon produces hot fusion, not cold fusion.
The process has
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
That is CODATA. Of course, it is no less accurate than any of the others.
Unfortunately, it is no more accurate either. How can it be when quarks
have variable mass?
Variability in the mass of the quark does not prevent an
The energy from LENR comes from gluons.
The standard model of physics got it right when it predicted where the mass
of ordinary matter comes from, according to a massive new computational
effort. Particle physics explains that the bulk of atoms is made up of
protons and neutrons, which are
OK, so that leaves just about nothing to extract. It would certainly not be
adequate to explain LENR levels of energy we are expecting. So, why do we hear
members of the vortex speaking of variation in the mass of the proton as being
important?
I have to ask about the measurement technique
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sat, 9 Aug 2014 06:55:58 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
We can note that Cravens adds samarium-cobalt to his active mix. This material
is permanently magnetized.
You might also note that natural Samarium contains two long lived radioactive
isotopes, Sm-147 (15%) Sm-148
From: Eric Walker
… How can it be when quarks have variable mass?
Variability in the mass of the quark does not prevent an accurate proton mass
from being specified. What it does is places a bound on the numerical
precision that an accurate proton mass value can have
You still
I tend to agree with your thoughts about different energy states for the proton
if it in fact really does consist of a combination of smaller units in some
orbital relationships. And, if it does have energy levels, then it should be
possible to couple energy to and from those states somehow.
Interesting information Jones. Do you plan to distribute your paper within
this list when complete? It might help our understanding of the true proton
mass and it's potential of being the source of LENR.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
To:
With all due respect my friend, DGT and John H are no where near the caliber of
Ed Storms. This is precisely the kind of skewed science by popularity that I
am bemoaning. What we have is a kid (a rather dishonest bunch kids at that.)
arguing with a cancer specialist. What is John H's
Jones, you describe the proton in a manner that reminds me of different types
of coal reserves. If what you say is correct then the proton internal energy
storage mechanism must have a half life measured in the billions of years.
Perhaps that is true, but it sounds like a revolutionary idea.
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Fri, 8 Aug 2014 02:30:28 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
Another related issue is the peril to the crew imposed by long term
exposure to microgravity.
This need not be a problem on the trip out and back. You just need to spin up
the ship so that the outer rim has 1 g. This
99% of the proton mass comes from the gluon binding energy. I just want to
add more detail about why the proton is heavier than the three
constituent quarks that make up the proton,
if you start with the three quarks bound into the proton and if you try to
pull one of the quarks out of the
-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com
We can note that Cravens adds samarium-cobalt to his active mix. This
material is permanently magnetized.
You might also note that natural Samarium contains two long lived
radioactive isotopes, Sm-147 (15%) Sm-148 (11%), both of which decay
From: Axil Axil
99% of the proton mass comes from the gluon binding energy. I just want to add
more detail about why the proton is heavier than the three constituent quarks
that make up the proton…
Nonsense. Where did that bogon come from? It must be a typo…
We are here to speculate and this forum is the place that you come to
speculate.
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 6:57 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:
With all due respect my friend, DGT and John H are no where near the
caliber of Ed Storms. This is precisely the kind of skewed science
Energy states are always quantized based on a quantum number so that there
will be ascending levels of energy in the protons.
The economic and weight cost in increasing the strength of the structure to
supply a gravity equivalent to the spacecraft is huge.
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 7:07 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Fri, 8 Aug 2014 02:30:28 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
Another related issue
Dave,
I’d like to get it published when completed. This first came up in regard to a
hypothesis for reversible proton fusion (RPF) which is not ruled out, but does
not fit the circumstances as well as spin-coupling. In fact RPF could precede
spin-coupling, in the sense of being causative.
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
... the proton which will then constitute a normal proton again with 3
quarks.
My recollection is that there are three valence quarks which contribute
to the charge and spin of the proton, together with a multitude of sea
That is true my friend, and I personally enjoy the speculation. But it seems
to me that if your speculation is challenged and you can not give a
satisfactory answer, it seems prudent to step back and reevaluate your
assumptions.
There is a difference between just speculating vs. clinging
My friend, I have offered a challenge to you. Please explain how the
nickel nanostructures you speculate can continue to exist at extremely high
temps.
Please read
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2014/08/lenr-and-nanoplasmonics.html
They do not continue to exist.
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2014/jul/11/gluons-get-in-on-proton-spin
Gluons get in on proton spin
New research shows that gluons carry most of the protons spin
snip
In the latest work, a group of theorists – Daniel de Florian
http://users.df.uba.ar/deflo/deflo/main.html, from the
Muon catalyzed fusion might come about when a magnetic field creates a muon
during proton interaction with a magnetic field from meson production via
meson decay.
To create this effect, a stream of negative muons, most often created by
decaying pions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pion, is sent to
Muon catalyzed fusion could be the enabler of Proton Proton fusion (PP).
The double protons seen in the Piantelli experiments might be due to the
first steps in the PP fusion chain. PP will exist until there is a positron
emission to form deuterium.
The PP could then be fused with nickel to form
So, I read your link, but all I see is a lot of jargon and over 2 dozen
miracles.
So, your claim is that the reaction consist of 2 stages, a static NAE
environment which starts the LENR process which then quickly get melted; at
which point, the Dynamic NAE takes over and continue the LENR
68 matches
Mail list logo
