Re: [Vo]:Cross section reduction at lower energies

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 9:40 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe < > stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> Good question, as I understand there is standing wave fields between the >> shells so the volume is indeed filled up

Re: [Vo]:Cross section reduction at lower energies

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe < stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote: > Good question, as I understand there is standing wave fields between the > shells so the volume is indeed filled up electromagnetically couldn't this > explain what you are after. > The volume in

Re: [Vo]:Cross section reduction at lower energies

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 7:14 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe < stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote: The end result is that you get a 6 digit match between calculated and > meassured ionisation energy for Hydrogene and similar accuracy for the one > electron ions. > I assume this a claim that goes back to

Re: [Vo]:Cross section reduction at lower energies

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 8:40 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 7:14 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe < > stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The end result is that you get a 6 digit match between calculated and >> meassured ionisation energy for Hydrogene and

Re: [Vo]:Cross section reduction at lower energies

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 5:52 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 3:12 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe < > stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >In the model of infinitesimally thin orbitspheres with a charge >> distribution >described by spherical harmonics, how

Re: [Vo]:Cross section reduction at lower energies

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 3:12 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe < stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote: >In the model of infinitesimally thin orbitspheres with a charge > distribution >described by spherical harmonics, how does Mills account for > electron >degeneracy levels? Are they explained by having

Re: [Vo]:Cross section reduction at lower energies

allowed at any location. > > Dave > > -Original Message- > From: Stefan Israelsson Tampe <stefan.ita...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Sun, Oct 11, 2015 4:40 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cross section reduction at lower energies > > Eric Walker s

Re: [Vo]:Cross section reduction at lower energies

Eric walker said: > Is this your thinking, or does this go back to Mills? Mills is not participating in discussions of these questions as far as I know. I asked and got a few insights in what the nature of matter could be and then draw my own conclusions which I find logical. >Also, the standard

Re: [Vo]:Cross section reduction at lower energies

I presume that you guys are also integrating into your thought in this thread, the paper written 13-July-1964 in Physical Review, Vol. 135, No. 1B, "Classically Radiationless Motions and Possible Implications for Quantum Theory", by G. H. Goedecke from New Mexico State University. My

Re: [Vo]:Cross section reduction at lower energies

> If I understand this, it appears to be the orbitsphere with differential charge density across the surface of the sphere. I have seen a few diagrams in Blacklight's promotional literature to this effect. It appears to be an ad hoc > modification to account for something that was lost when

Re: [Vo]:Cross section reduction at lower energies

Eric Walker said: " The orbitsphere is proposed to be an infinitesimally thin sphere of circulating current. The overlaying of spherical harmonics on top of this sphere seems to imply one of: - The sphere is not infinitesimally thin and instead can vary in thickness, and the accumulation

Re: [Vo]:Cross section reduction at lower energies

Hi, On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 3:08 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe < stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote: No it is not arbritary. It is a simple matter to prove that these charge > distribution would lead to non radiation for certain internal standing > waves. > The orbitsphere is proposed to be an

Re: [Vo]:Cross section reduction at lower energies

On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe < stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote: If you magnify it large enough I'm sure you will see some structure, maybe > a thickness. But to a practical approximation I think a zero thickness is > fine. > I believe that what matter is is a singular

Re: [Vo]:Cross section reduction at lower energies

<stefan.ita...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Sun, Oct 11, 2015 4:40 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cross section reduction at lower energies Eric Walker said: " The orbitsphere is proposed to be an infinitesimally thin sphere of circulating current. The overla

Re: [Vo]:Cross section reduction at lower energies

-Original Message- From: Stefan Israelsson Tampe <stefan.ita...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Sun, Oct 11, 2015 4:08 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cross section reduction at lower energies > If I understand this, it appears to be the orbitsphere wi

RE: [Vo]:Cross section reduction at lower energies

From: Stefan Israelsson Tampe * Not sure that you could rule out a spherical wave. Who knows, but the fact is that the missing radiation is a mystery and I reckon that in a cold fusion event in a solid state, it sure is many orders of magnitude more spherical symmetric than hot fusion,

Re: [Vo]:Cross section reduction at lower energies

On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 3:59 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe < stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote: Now really what you have in Mills is Re(Ylm(e)exp(iwt) but that means that > this photon field inside > the orbitsphere is a standing wave. > If I understand this, it appears to be the orbitsphere with

Re: [Vo]:Cross section reduction at lower energies

No The traped photon scalar potential, could be described as j_l(r w / c) Ylm(e) exp(iwt) if at the orbitsphere r w / c equal 0, then he adds a source terns of the form C Ylm(e) exp(iwt) to the scalar field equation and the outer part of the orbitsphere has zero scalar potential field (the

Re: [Vo]:Cross section reduction at lower energies

Hi, On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe < stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote: j_l(|w|/c r)Ylm(e)exp(iwt), with e the spherical part of x, and r the > radial part. Here you are using spherical harmonics -- Ylm(e). These are implicitly disavowed by Mills, who offers instead the

Re: [Vo]:Cross section reduction at lower energies

> This may apply to the Lipinski/ Unified Gravity theory and experiments. This is the group that claims to have found a low energy window for lithium fusion - around 200 eV. Yes I think that my argument is independent on basic theory though and well aligned with sound basic physical intuition

RE: [Vo]:Cross section reduction at lower energies

From: Stefan Israelsson Tampe * * I think that Mills theory for two atom molecules can be used to explain an increase in cross-sections that I've not seen mentioned when discussing the recent notes from Louis DeChiaro. This may apply to the Lipinski/ Unified Gravity theory and

RE: [Vo]:Cross section reduction at lower energies

From: Stefan Israelsson Tampe Ø This is a really good argument for not expecting the same radiation and would give an argument for why we don't see much of radiation in CF research. Maybe the energy is released through highly spinning entities or whatnot. Why not radiation through a EM

[Vo]:Cross section reduction at lower energies

I think that Mills theory for two atom molecules can be used to explain an increase in cross-sections that I've not seen mentioned when discussing the recent notes from Louis DeChiaro. The short story is that one of the factors that demand such high energies in standard theory is that any small