[Vo]:2020 - The year of 4D

[Jones Beene]

 That's my prediction for 2020.
4D is turning up everywhere ... even, when it does not resemble its former self 
(such as its past life in math journals and SciFi). Curiously, this book below 
was voted to be one of the most important non-faction works of the decade by 
Wired magazine:

"The Four-Dimensional Human : Ways of Being in the Digital World"  by Laurence 
Scott. Top ten over the decade - that is a pretty heavy-duty accolade, no? 

4D is hitting a nerve. It is becoming more than a meme for understanding the 
future. In a way Scott's book is kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy - mirrored 
and reflected in all kinds of disparate fields - including LENR and even 
spirituality.

My hope for the new year is that it is primed for a tipping point in 
understanding which steers technology into rapid commercialization, 
especially... using 4D as it relates to the physics of alternative energy.  

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Dense hydrogen may facilitate water splitting

[mixent]

In reply to  bobcook39...@hotmail.com's message of Mon, 30 Dec 2019 15:51:58 
+:
Hi Bob,


Minor difference here is that Verne obtained the energy from water, whereas in 
your case it comes from Uranium. ;)
Obtaining energy from water could mean either some form of dense hydrogen or 
fusion or both.

[snip]
>I spent 18 years in the design, fabrication and  of nuclear fission reactor 
>powered subs—some underwater at significant depths for days at a time.  They 
>would travel 20,000 leagues and more without refueling.
>
>Bob Cook
>
>Sent from Mail for Windows 10
>
>From: mix...@bigpond.com
>Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2019 11:31 AM
>To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>Subject: Re: [Vo]:Dense hydrogen may facilitate water splitting
>
>On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 03:23:03 +, "bobcook39...@hotmail.com" 
> wrote:
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>What first hand experience are you referring to?
>
>>Jones—
>>
>>Jules Verne was science fiction in the 1800’s.  I know first hand that it was 
>>NOT science fiction.
>>
>>Bob Cook
>[snip]
>Regards,
>
>
>Robin van Spaandonk
>
>local asymmetry = temporary success
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

RE: [Vo]:Dense hydrogen may facilitate water splitting

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

I spent 18 years in the design, fabrication and  of nuclear fission reactor 
powered subs—some underwater at significant depths for days at a time.  They 
would travel 20,000 leagues and more without refueling.

Bob Cook

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: mix...@bigpond.com
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2019 11:31 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Dense hydrogen may facilitate water splitting

On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 03:23:03 +, "bobcook39...@hotmail.com" 
 wrote:

Hi Bob,

What first hand experience are you referring to?

>Jones—
>
>Jules Verne was science fiction in the 1800’s.  I know first hand that it was 
>NOT science fiction.
>
>Bob Cook
[snip]
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

[Vo]:FW: Theoretical basis for Nuclear-waste Remediation with Femto-atoms and Femto-molecules

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

See the following email correspondence RE: the Subject.


From: Andrew Meulenberg
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2019 10:43 PM
To: bobcook39...@hotmail.com; Andrew 
Meulenberg
Cc: Jean-Luc Paillet
Subject: Re: Theoretical basis for Nuclear-waste Remediation with Femto-atoms 
and Femto-molecules

Bob,

You're talking my language! comments below.

On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 11:34 AM 
bobcook39...@hotmail.com 
mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com>> wrote:

Andrew—

In the subject paper you make the following comment in the discussion section:

“The DDL electrons, being close to (both
inside and outside of) a nucleus, can accept the very-strong, but short-ranged, 
nuclear-generated fields and can convert their energy into strong fields in the 
distance. This ready transfer of nuclear energies to deep-orbit electrons, with 
the DDL frequencies being on the order of nucleon-component frequencies, is 
also a basis for DDL-electron-mediated internuclear interactions.”

Questions/comments:


  1.  I assume you would agree that the electron/nucleon interactions are 
electro-magnetic phenomena with corresponding electric and/or magnetic force 
fields involved in the suggested interactions (reactions involving a change is 
a nuclear entity and its associated electronic structure.
While I am not "wedded" to this concept, it is the goal I am presently 
pursuing. The concept of >100 MeV relativistic Coulomb potentials, to which J-L 
Paillet has exposed me, has opened a whole new world at the nuclear level. 
Other relativistic effects (e.g., the orientation of the angular momentum - and 
spin? - vector toward the velocity vector v and its precession about v)* may be 
able to account for the other characteristics of the nuclear forces and 
potentials.
* Picture the relativistic "flattening" of a spherical object along its 
velocity vector. Any ang mom it has must be altered. The (pseudo-)torque 
required to change the direction of the ang mom vector, must induce a 
precession. This precession, IMHO. is the basis of the deBroglie wavelength.

  2.The virial theorem involves averaging KE and PE over some period in time.  
If the period is long with respect to an interaction time, the theorem may not 
apply to LENR.

This question has come at an opportune moment for me. I am presently pursuing a 
classical (relativistic) model for the deep-orbits and the virial theorem plays 
an important part in that. Unlike the quantum-mechanics model, the classical 
model assumes point-like electrons orbiting about the nucleus. While pondering 
the relationships between forces and potentials of finite bodies (e.g., F = 
-dV/dr), I finally realized that the virial thm is simply a statement of a 
stable orbit as one in which the Coulomb forces and the centrifugal 
(pseudo-)forces are equal. If the forces are equal, the net force is zero and 
this gives the condition of an inflection point (dV/dr = 0) for the net 
potential. So what does the time average have to do with this?

In a circular orbit, dV/dr = 0 and dV/dt = 0, so the average is the same as the 
instantaneous values. Any deviation from the electron's circular orbit will 
alter the instantaneous forces and potentials experienced. However, if their 
averages sum to zero, the orbit is still stable. This can only occur when the 
net potential is a well, rather than a peak. For an ideal case, only a single 
cycle is required to obtain an average value; whereas for any stable orbit the 
interaction time is infinite. For a net-potential well, perturbations on the 
orbit will not destabilize it. Nevertheless, the average values for each cycle 
might change over many cycles. Thus, for the virial thm, an average must be 
taken over an extended period.

The virial thm does not hold for an unbound orbit (although it would suggest 
that an unperturbed circular orbit could be considered bound even if it is on a 
peak rather than in a valley). Thus, mathematically, only unbound bodies have 
finite interaction times. I started my search for a LENR mechanism in the model 
of a 1-s atomic electron being able to be perturbed is such a manner that it 
could remain close to the H nucleus long enough to screen the Coulomb potential 
between fusing protons. The virial thm did not apply to this model; but, the 
concept of quantized time might have. When I found papers identifying 
deep-orbits for relativistic electrons, I changed my goals.

3. It seems that the logical assumption given item 1 above is that nuclear 
forces are really EM based forces.  (There is no need for weak and strong 
nuclear force concepts.)

I can suggest this and perhaps identify salient features to support it; but, I 
will not be able to "prove" it in this lifetime.

4. If time and/or space dimensions are quantized, how would this change the 
consideration of the interactions of