The M.O. List
It could be helpful - to anyone approaching Ni-H from a the theoretical
perspective, to have a list of all possible gainful routes which are
either non-nuclear, new-nuclear, supra-chemical, or a hybrid. Your
submission will be appreciated.
Since many of these overlap, I will await
Add multibody H reaction; not H+H but H+H+H+H . . . Not sure how many times.
- Jed
_
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 10:42 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Mass-to-Energy
The M.O. List
It could be helpful - to anyone approaching Ni-H from a the theoretical
perspective
:03:48 AM
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Mass-to-Energy
7) Antenna for dark energy - hydrogen is changed (IRH), or contained, in
such
a way in nanopores that it acts like an antenna for dark energy.
Jones, this might get into what Robin and I were discussing regarding why the
heat extraction
You may want to add the Brightsen model of antimatter clusters within the H
nucleus.
--On Thursday, May 05, 2011 7:42 AM -0700 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
wrote:
The M.O. List
It could be helpful - to anyone approaching Ni-H from a the theoretical
perspective, to have a list of all
From all experimental indications, I agree that this multi proton fusion is
what makes the Rossi reactor and go. To put some conceptual meat on this
bone, at least 60 some odd protons and maybe many more are packed into a
small (sub nanometer?) hole in the lattice of nickel.
These protons are
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Thu, 5 May 2011 13:21:00 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
Some trigger event happens to this collection of protons that convert some
substantial fraction of these many protons to neutrons comprised of one up
quark and two down quarks. Some ultra low energy based factor in
Most casual observers of the Rossi device believe that the only two choices
for the kilowatt levels of heat which is seen (aside from trickery) are
chemical or nuclear. What else is there?
During a chemical reaction both mass and energy are conserved, and the
weight of the ash (reaction
Jones Beene wrote:
It was not as clear then, as now, that this Rossi
reaction has NO radiation signature. It all goes back to the excellent VB
report - which in summary suggests that 10^17 nuclear reaction should have
been detected over the long and energetic run, but in fact no nuclear
No - with palladium and deuterium - helium is expected and documented.
Tritium is also expected in another branch and is documented
Deuterium is very active for nuclear reactions as Farnsworth demonstrated
(in his Fusor) long before PF. The Fusor is not cold fusion, but it shows
how easy it is to
Jones Beene wrote:
Hydrogen and deuterium are extremely different in many ways. There is plenty
of reason why deuterium can be active for nuclear reactions and hydrogen not
active.
So you are suggesting that the mechanism for the Pd-D effect may be
entirely different from Ni-H? One is fusion
: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 2:49 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Mass-to-Energy
Jones Beene wrote:
Hydrogen and deuterium are extremely different in many ways. There is plenty
of reason why deuterium can be active for nuclear reactions and hydrogen not
active.
So you
-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell
And yes, I think that if you can find any cold fusion reaction with
deuterium, which is operating a 4 kilowatts of excess - then the VB setup
would have shown gammas.
JR: There have been plenty of reactions at 10 to 100 W, ~40 times less.
Jones Beene wrote:
JR: There have been plenty of reactions at 10 to 100 W, ~40 times less.
Surely, if they can detect gamma from 4 kW they could also detect them
from 0.1 kW.
100 watts continuous and no signal? Where and when?
FP, Nice, France. They had every kind detector money can buy.
But you are missing the main point. If gammas are seen at all, and
especially at the low levels you mention - then it proves without question
that deuterium is active for nuclear reactions at low energy.
Gammas are not seen with hydrogen. Hydrogen is not active for LENR.
QED
-Original
Let me refine this slightly:
But you are missing the main point. If gammas are seen at all, and
especially at the low levels you mention - then it proves without question
that deuterium is active for nuclear reactions at low energy.
Gammas are not seen with hydrogen. Hydrogen is not active for
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 4 May 2011 12:48:56 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
When helium is the main ash, and when the strong gamma signature is absent
at ~24 MeV (invoking some kind of phonon explanation) then we have
essentially an alpha emission, and easily shielded. Therefore, you have to
David Thomson wrote:
I think I'm getting tired of trying to show people the Aether Physics Model.
I'm ready to just turn within and work on my own development and let people
discover the answers to physics for themselves.
Sorry to jump in, as my time only permits me to follow my own threads
Hi Paul,
Let me see, Einstein explained the photoelectric effect, but none of the
others items in your list rings a bell when I look over his papers. I have
written a 27 page basic introduction to the theory, which I had to keep as
short as possible but still present the theory. In that paper,
David Thomson wrote:
Hi Paul,
Let me see, Einstein explained the photoelectric effect, but none of the
others items in your list rings a bell when I look over his papers.
Hi,
I'll point out the difference. Einstein's paper was aimed at one thing, The
Photoelectric Effect. I provided you
Hi Steven,
When these smaller atomic nuclei are created wouldn't that also mean that
the individual protons and neutrons within these lighter elements have to
suddenly regain lost mass if their atomic number is less that Fe?
This is exactly what I have been saying. I'm glad somebody is
Hello David,
When these smaller atomic nuclei are created wouldn't
that also mean that the individual protons and neutrons
within these lighter elements have to suddenly regain
lost mass if their atomic number is less that Fe?
This is exactly what I have been saying. I'm glad
somebody is
Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:
There has been lively debate in regards to whether E=mc^2 is an accurate
mathematical equation to describe whether energy is actually being converted
back and forth between mass and energy. No doubt many are likely to consider
it outrageous to challenge
Hi Stephen,
Finally, uranium itself may seem to be a puzzle: Where did it come
from? What reaction formed it? The universe started with hydrogen; how
did atoms like uranium climb the energy hill? The answer, as I
understand it, is supernova explosions:
The supernova explosion theory is
Hello Dave,
Hi Stephen, [Lawrence]
Finally, uranium itself may seem to be a puzzle: Where did it come
from? What reaction formed it? The universe started with hydrogen; how
did atoms like uranium climb the energy hill? The answer, as I
understand it, is supernova explosions:
The
In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Thu, 08 Mar 2007 15:55:17 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
Finally, uranium itself may seem to be a puzzle: Where did it come
from? What reaction formed it? The universe started with hydrogen; how
did atoms like uranium climb the energy hill? The answer, as I
There has been lively debate in regards to whether E=mc^2 is an accurate
mathematical equation to describe whether energy is actually being converted
back and forth between mass and energy. No doubt many are likely to consider
it outrageous to challenge considering who came up with the equation in
27 matches
Mail list logo
