On Dec 29, 2011, at 8:18 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
Horace, have you heard about the degenerate state in focus fusion
device for pB11 fusion?
This is a different use of the term degenerate state. The more
specific term there is Fermi degeneracy as opposed to degenerate
quantum states,
Anyway, your theory is somewhat similar to the stage III that of Takashi,
when the nucleons of the TSC are captured by the nuclear force. TSC is
really a deflated ground state, simply because electrons screen to the
extreme the proton charge. But, the destiny of the electrons is not clear.
Yes, it does makes sense. But I would suggest you to study Takahashi's
model. Your idea seems to work to explain what happens to the electrons in
Phase III of his theory, that is, when the tetrahedron collapses. It is not
clear to me what happens to the electrons. I pointed out Lerner's theory
On Dec 30, 2011, at 5:09 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
Yes, it does makes sense. But I would suggest you to study
Takahashi's model. Your idea seems to work to explain what happens
to the electrons in Phase III of his theory, that is, when the
tetrahedron collapses. It is not clear to me what
Oh, nice! That's why he also congratulated you in that report. I didn't go
to the talk or take part in the CMNS list, so I cannot know. I am happy
that I got to similar conclusions as you did independently. Several people
reaching the same conclusions, in similar ways, is a sign of things going
On Dec 30, 2011, at 7:21 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
Oh, nice! That's why he also congratulated you in that report. I
didn't go to the talk or take part in the CMNS list, so I cannot
know. I am happy that I got to similar conclusions as you did
independently. Several people reaching the same
I didn't understand this part from the intermediate nucleus vicinity in
small increments by a trapped electron.
2011/12/30 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net
On Dec 30, 2011, at 7:21 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
Oh, nice! That's why he also congratulated you in that report. I didn't go
to the
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 11:58 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote:
The deflated state electron, pre-fusion, is not below ground state energy.
It is a degenerate form of the ground state, or whatever state the
hydrogen nucleus and associated electron occupy in the lattice.
What part do you not understand:
a. the mechanism of trapping of the post fusion nuclear electron
b. the low energy state of the post fusion nuclear electron
c. the mechanism by which the trapped electron absorbs the
fusion energy
d. why the fusion energy is not sufficient to
Your theory is just too similar to what I imagine that should happen in
Phase III that I get confused. You are correct in your stuff, but you don't
use many equations, mostly your intuition. So, I get lost reading your
papers.
Right, to be clear. a-e. Just show me where I can find in your papers.
What is Takahashi analogue to the deflated electron?
On Dec 30, 2011, at 13:21, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
Your theory is just too similar to what I imagine that should happen in Phase
III that I get confused. You are correct in your stuff, but you don't use
many equations,
Phase II of his theory. The eigenvalue radius of the ground state
dynamically shrinks due to the screening of protons and electrons. It just
happen with a very specific tetrahedron configuration of protons/deuterons
and electrons.
2011/12/30 Charles Hope lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com
What is
On Dec 30, 2011, at 9:15 AM, Charles HOPE wrote:
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 11:58 PM, Horace Heffner
hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
The deflated state electron, pre-fusion, is not below ground state
energy. It is a degenerate form of the ground state, or whatever
state the hydrogen
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote:
On Dec 27, 2011, at 9:05 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:
Horace,
Thanks for the comment.
What is needed are some toy models with some simple simulations.
I will check out your theory.
Do you believe any new
On Dec 29, 2011, at 3:08 PM, Charles HOPE wrote:
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Horace Heffner
hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
On Dec 27, 2011, at 9:05 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:
Horace,
Thanks for the comment.
What is needed are some toy models with some simple simulations.
I
On Dec 29, 2011, at 20:09, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
On Dec 29, 2011, at 3:08 PM, Charles HOPE wrote:
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net
wrote:
On Dec 27, 2011, at 9:05 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:
Horace,
Thanks
On Dec 29, 2011, at 4:42 PM, Charles Hope wrote:
On Dec 29, 2011, at 20:09, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net
wrote:
On Dec 29, 2011, at 3:08 PM, Charles HOPE wrote:
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Horace Heffner
hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
On Dec 27, 2011, at 9:05 AM,
Horace, have you heard about the degenerate state in focus fusion device
for pB11 fusion?
2011/12/30 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net
On Dec 29, 2011, at 4:42 PM, Charles Hope wrote:
On Dec 29, 2011, at 20:09, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
On Dec 29, 2011, at 3:08
There is no need for down-conversion to explain the lack of high
energy gammas associated with excess heat of LENR, provided those
gammas are not produced in the first place. If an energetically
trapped electron in the nucleus carries away the reaction heat away
from the nucleus in the
Horace,
Thanks for the comment.
What is needed are some toy models with some simple simulations.
I will check out your theory.
Do you believe any new physics is required
- or does standard QM suffice?
I am getting pretty boggled by the complexity of it all.
LP
There is no need for
On Dec 27, 2011, at 9:05 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:
Horace,
Thanks for the comment.
What is needed are some toy models with some simple simulations.
I will check out your theory.
Do you believe any new physics is required
- or does standard QM suffice?
I am getting pretty boggled by
On Dec 27, 2011, at 9:05 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:
Horace,
Thanks for the comment.
What is needed are some toy models with some simple simulations.
I will check out your theory.
Do you believe any new physics is required
- or does standard QM suffice?
I am getting pretty boggled by
On Dec 27, 2011, at 9:05 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:
Horace,
Thanks for the comment.
What is needed are some toy models with some simple simulations.
I will check out your theory.
Do you believe any new physics is required
- or does standard QM suffice?
I am getting pretty boggled by
Some insights from quantum mechanics…
Spontaneous parametric down-conversion
Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_parametric_down-conversion
The rule that comes out of this quantum mechanical process is that energy
is shared approximately equally between N entangled particles
? Is the process much
more efficient for high energy photons?
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Dec 26, 2011 3:47 am
Subject: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)
Some insights from quantum mechanics…
Spontaneous
? Is
the process much more efficient for high energy photons?
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Dec 26, 2011 3:47 am
Subject: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)
Some insights from quantum mechanics
Perhaps the same entanglement is responsible for the fusion such that if a
seemingly low probability fusion event occurs under these circumstances then
the down conversion will also occur? Two different facets of the same
environmental cause?
Fran
Axil Axil
Mon, 26 Dec 2011 08:33:20 -0800
[mailto:froarty...@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, December 26, 2011 11:26 AM
To: janap...@gmail.com
Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)
Perhaps the same entanglement is responsible for the fusion such that if a
seemingly low probability fusion event occurs
I think that the frequency of the outgoing down-converted photons will
remain the same whether the incoming high frequency photon is absorbed by
one atom or collectively by N-atoms. A coherent multi-atom absorption
will create a Schroedinger-Cat-like state of one excited atom and (N-1)
ground
29 matches
Mail list logo
