RE: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
-Original Message- From: Bob Cook … the size of the Z point or line [1D interface] must be pretty small, between the proton size and the Heisenberg dimension of about 10^-35 cm. It may be that the wave of the proton is such that it can fit inside the dimension of the single line of the Dirac sea and become a virtual charge, combine with an electron and hence pop out of the constrained sea (line) as an H with lots of extra energy. -- That is an intuitive way to look at the detail of how this extra dimensional modality could happen with protons. With a deuteron instead of a proton, and especially with the Mizuno experiment, the same M.O. seems to be not quite as elegant at first glance - but obviously, having both an electron and a positron transfer into 3-space from the Dirac sea provides a way to have two protons appear in place of one deuteron - and retain conservation of charge at the same time with more net energy. Unlike most observers of LENR, I'm of the firm opinion that there can exist several if not many modalities for gain happening at the same time in any experiment - of which the Dirac sea modality is but one. It seems to work better for hydrogen than for deuterium, on paper- however, the more one thinks about the sea in the context of Mizuno - the better the whole hypothesis sounds. There are so few satisfactory ways to explain what looks like deuterium fission, that this one could be the best. It would be very helpful to know that Mizuno's result (of deuterium splitting into two protons) was repeatable by another group - and to know exactly how much radiation is seen. I am assuming that some radiation is seen but that it is highly disproportional to the thermal output. If radiation (or transmutation) is not highly disproportional, then there could be several routes to gain in the Mizuno experiment. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
It struck me that if quarks exist within the confines of a volume for hadrons--protons, neutrons etc.--then why not other virtual particles within a linear space? The Dirac sea seems to fit this definition of a linear space also with virtual particles--like a linear particle. Even the skeptics should be able to accept Dirac's idea. It may even have a bigger variety of virtual particles for potential reactions over and above that offered by a neutron and protons in hot fusion. The force fields--gravity, electrostatic, magnetic--may tend to line up the linear Dirac sea along a preferred angular momentum, spin, direction and hence facilitate the reaction of the Dirac sea with real particles, also aligned with the preferred direction. The statistics of such interactions would be good to know. Intense fields may also squeeze the Dirac sea to a smaller dimension and hence make the momentum of its virtual particles greater, consistent with the uncertainty principle. A knowledge of the spectrum of energy and momentum of the particles coming out of the sea would allow further understanding the relation of external field strength to the effective size of the Dirac sea via the Uncertainty Principle. Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 7:28 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen -Original Message- From: Bob Cook … the size of the Z point or line [1D interface] must be pretty small, between the proton size and the Heisenberg dimension of about 10^-35 cm. It may be that the wave of the proton is such that it can fit inside the dimension of the single line of the Dirac sea and become a virtual charge, combine with an electron and hence pop out of the constrained sea (line) as an H with lots of extra energy. -- That is an intuitive way to look at the detail of how this extra dimensional modality could happen with protons. With a deuteron instead of a proton, and especially with the Mizuno experiment, the same M.O. seems to be not quite as elegant at first glance - but obviously, having both an electron and a positron transfer into 3-space from the Dirac sea provides a way to have two protons appear in place of one deuteron - and retain conservation of charge at the same time with more net energy. Unlike most observers of LENR, I'm of the firm opinion that there can exist several if not many modalities for gain happening at the same time in any experiment - of which the Dirac sea modality is but one. It seems to work better for hydrogen than for deuterium, on paper- however, the more one thinks about the sea in the context of Mizuno - the better the whole hypothesis sounds. There are so few satisfactory ways to explain what looks like deuterium fission, that this one could be the best. It would be very helpful to know that Mizuno's result (of deuterium splitting into two protons) was repeatable by another group - and to know exactly how much radiation is seen. I am assuming that some radiation is seen but that it is highly disproportional to the thermal output. If radiation (or transmutation) is not highly disproportional, then there could be several routes to gain in the Mizuno experiment.
RE: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
From: Bob Higgins Well, yes, it is semantics. What you are describing is not chemical energy at all. Chemical energy specifically deals with the shared electron binding energy in formation of compounds with other atoms. What you are describing is the possible ability of monatomic H, D, or T to access and tap the zero point energy. This is not exactly correct, Bob. We are NOT talking about monatomic atoms. I also made that slip, earlier in the thread. (after all, this is vortex). It is a fifteen orders of magnitude mistake. We are talking about the bare proton only. To access the 1D interface of Dirac’s sea (one dimensional interface) any atom in 3-space with electrons attached is too large (with the possible exception of the DDL or deep Dirac layer of hydrogen which is much more compact). Consider this: Monatomic H has a an atomic radius of about 0.25 Å which is still in the realm of 3-D. The textbook radius of a proton is 0.88 ± 0.01 femtometers (fm, or 10^-15 m). The angstrom is 10^-10 m or 0.1 nm, so there is a massive geometry decrease in going from Monatomic H to the bare proton - which is almost 10^-5 difference in radius (or the cube of that, if expressed as smaller volume). This is like going from an inch to a mile ! and proper geometry is what it is all about according to the proponents of the Dirac sea or Ps hypothesis. Essentially, this is why the bare proton can be a proper conduit for zero point but not much else. And even then we must define the Dirac sea as ZPE, which some do like. In short, monatomic H is about 1,000,000,000,000,000 larger in effective volume than a proton, which keeps it in 3-space. The alpha particle is a candidate for a Dirac sea interfacial excursion, but completely ionizing helium is not easy. In short, the Dirac sea is one-dimensional (1D) and the bare proton permits an interface with that dimension, whereas no other atom can easily do this. This would not be chemical, but would fall into the category of ZPE. The two are not incompatible. The only reason to call ZPE as a non-chemical reaction is to protect the notion of Conservation of Energy. That is not a good enough reason IMO. Such possibilities may exist (only postulated to exist), but they should not be classified as chemical. Why not? We are talking about electron effects (in the sense of lack of electrons) and this is chemical. The is not a nuclear effect. Forcing the Ni-H version of LENR into another category such as ZPE - is only the skeptic’s way to marginalize the effect. In the eyes of those skeptics who think ZPE is a figment of the imagination, they avoid mentioning Dirac, since they do not want to acknowledge a possible route to LENR via mainstream science. They realize at some level that a figment of Dirac’s imagination is worth more than their entire careers. Jones
Re: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
Jones said-- Forcing the Ni-H version of LENR into another category such as ZPE - is only the skeptic’s way to marginalize the effect. In the eyes of those skeptics who think ZPE is a figment of the imagination, they avoid mentioning Dirac, since they do not want to acknowledge a possible route to LENR via mainstream science. They realize at some level that a figment of Dirac’s imagination is worth more than their entire careers. Well said. Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 7:34 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen From: Bob Higgins Well, yes, it is semantics. What you are describing is not chemical energy at all. Chemical energy specifically deals with the shared electron binding energy in formation of compounds with other atoms. What you are describing is the possible ability of monatomic H, D, or T to access and tap the zero point energy. This is not exactly correct, Bob. We are NOT talking about monatomic atoms. I also made that slip, earlier in the thread. (after all, this is vortex). It is a fifteen orders of magnitude mistake. We are talking about the bare proton only. To access the 1D interface of Dirac’s sea (one dimensional interface) any atom in 3-space with electrons attached is too large (with the possible exception of the DDL or deep Dirac layer of hydrogen which is much more compact). Consider this: Monatomic H has a an atomic radius of about 0.25 Å which is still in the realm of 3-D. The textbook radius of a proton is 0.88 ± 0.01 femtometers (fm, or 10^-15 m). The angstrom is 10^-10 m or 0.1 nm, so there is a massive geometry decrease in going from Monatomic H to the bare proton - which is almost 10^-5 difference in radius (or the cube of that, if expressed as smaller volume). This is like going from an inch to a mile ! and proper geometry is what it is all about according to the proponents of the Dirac sea or Ps hypothesis. Essentially, this is why the bare proton can be a proper conduit for zero point but not much else. And even then we must define the Dirac sea as ZPE, which some do like. In short, monatomic H is about 1,000,000,000,000,000 larger in effective volume than a proton, which keeps it in 3-space. The alpha particle is a candidate for a Dirac sea interfacial excursion, but completely ionizing helium is not easy. In short, the Dirac sea is one-dimensional (1D) and the bare proton permits an interface with that dimension, whereas no other atom can easily do this. This would not be chemical, but would fall into the category of ZPE. The two are not incompatible. The only reason to call ZPE as a non-chemical reaction is to protect the notion of Conservation of Energy. That is not a good enough reason IMO. Such possibilities may exist (only postulated to exist), but they should not be classified as chemical. Why not? We are talking about electron effects (in the sense of lack of electrons) and this is chemical. The is not a nuclear effect. Forcing the Ni-H version of LENR into another category such as ZPE - is only the skeptic’s way to marginalize the effect. In the eyes of those skeptics who think ZPE is a figment of the imagination, they avoid mentioning Dirac, since they do not want to acknowledge a possible route to LENR via mainstream science. They realize at some level that a figment of Dirac’s imagination is worth more than their entire careers. Jones
Re: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
Jones-- From your earlier comment: In short, the Dirac sea is one-dimensional (1D) and the bare proton permits an interface with that dimension, whereas no other atom can easily do this. Does the Dirac theory address a mechanism of interaction between the proton and the sea? Does the Uncertainty Principle apply to the proton at the interface? The constraint to one dimension may be important to increasing the proton's energy and momentum in that direction. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 7:34 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen From: Bob Higgins Well, yes, it is semantics. What you are describing is not chemical energy at all. Chemical energy specifically deals with the shared electron binding energy in formation of compounds with other atoms. What you are describing is the possible ability of monatomic H, D, or T to access and tap the zero point energy. This is not exactly correct, Bob. We are NOT talking about monatomic atoms. I also made that slip, earlier in the thread. (after all, this is vortex). It is a fifteen orders of magnitude mistake. We are talking about the bare proton only. To access the 1D interface of Dirac’s sea (one dimensional interface) any atom in 3-space with electrons attached is too large (with the possible exception of the DDL or deep Dirac layer of hydrogen which is much more compact). Consider this: Monatomic H has a an atomic radius of about 0.25 Å which is still in the realm of 3-D. The textbook radius of a proton is 0.88 ± 0.01 femtometers (fm, or 10^-15 m). The angstrom is 10^-10 m or 0.1 nm, so there is a massive geometry decrease in going from Monatomic H to the bare proton - which is almost 10^-5 difference in radius (or the cube of that, if expressed as smaller volume). This is like going from an inch to a mile ! and proper geometry is what it is all about according to the proponents of the Dirac sea or Ps hypothesis. Essentially, this is why the bare proton can be a proper conduit for zero point but not much else. And even then we must define the Dirac sea as ZPE, which some do like. In short, monatomic H is about 1,000,000,000,000,000 larger in effective volume than a proton, which keeps it in 3-space. The alpha particle is a candidate for a Dirac sea interfacial excursion, but completely ionizing helium is not easy. In short, the Dirac sea is one-dimensional (1D) and the bare proton permits an interface with that dimension, whereas no other atom can easily do this. This would not be chemical, but would fall into the category of ZPE. The two are not incompatible. The only reason to call ZPE as a non-chemical reaction is to protect the notion of Conservation of Energy. That is not a good enough reason IMO. Such possibilities may exist (only postulated to exist), but they should not be classified as chemical. Why not? We are talking about electron effects (in the sense of lack of electrons) and this is chemical. The is not a nuclear effect. Forcing the Ni-H version of LENR into another category such as ZPE - is only the skeptic’s way to marginalize the effect. In the eyes of those skeptics who think ZPE is a figment of the imagination, they avoid mentioning Dirac, since they do not want to acknowledge a possible route to LENR via mainstream science. They realize at some level that a figment of Dirac’s imagination is worth more than their entire careers. Jones
RE: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
From: Bob Cook In short, the Dirac sea is one-dimensional (1D) and the bare proton permits an interface with that dimension, whereas no other atom can easily do this. Does the Dirac theory address a mechanism of interaction between the proton and the sea? The interaction would most likely be electrostatic. Wiki has a pretty good writeup http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_sea which mentions some of the controversy. What you may be angling for is the chiral anomaly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiral_anomaly which can partially explain many things of interest … on the fringe … Does the Uncertainty Principle apply to the proton at the interface? My assumption is yes. Jones From: Bob Higgins Well, yes, it is semantics. What you are describing is not chemical energy at all. Chemical energy specifically deals with the shared electron binding energy in formation of compounds with other atoms. What you are describing is the possible ability of monatomic H, D, or T to access and tap the zero point energy. This is not exactly correct, Bob. We are NOT talking about monatomic atoms. I also made that slip, earlier in the thread. (after all, this is vortex). It is a fifteen orders of magnitude mistake. We are talking about the bare proton only. To access the 1D interface of Dirac’s sea (one dimensional interface) any atom in 3-space with electrons attached is too large (with the possible exception of the DDL or deep Dirac layer of hydrogen which is much more compact). Consider this: Monatomic H has a an atomic radius of about 0.25 Å which is still in the realm of 3-D. The textbook radius of a proton is 0.88 ± 0.01 femtometers (fm, or 10^-15 m). The angstrom is 10^-10 m or 0.1 nm, so there is a massive geometry decrease in going from Monatomic H to the bare proton - which is almost 10^-5 difference in radius (or the cube of that, if expressed as smaller volume). This is like going from an inch to a mile ! and proper geometry is what it is all about according to the proponents of the Dirac sea or Ps hypothesis. Essentially, this is why the bare proton can be a proper conduit for zero point but not much else. And even then we must define the Dirac sea as ZPE, which some do like. In short, monatomic H is about 1,000,000,000,000,000 larger in effective volume than a proton, which keeps it in 3-space. The alpha particle is a candidate for a Dirac sea interfacial excursion, but completely ionizing helium is not easy. In short, the Dirac sea is one-dimensional (1D) and the bare proton permits an interface with that dimension, whereas no other atom can easily do this. This would not be chemical, but would fall into the category of ZPE. The two are not incompatible. The only reason to call ZPE as a non-chemical reaction is to protect the notion of Conservation of Energy. That is not a good enough reason IMO. Such possibilities may exist (only postulated to exist), but they should not be classified as chemical. Why not? We are talking about electron effects (in the sense of lack of electrons) and this is chemical. The is not a nuclear effect. Forcing the Ni-H version of LENR into another category such as ZPE - is only the skeptic’s way to marginalize the effect. In the eyes of those skeptics who think ZPE is a figment of the imagination, they avoid mentioning Dirac, since they do not want to acknowledge a possible route to LENR via mainstream science. They realize at some level that a figment of Dirac’s imagination is worth more than their entire careers. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
Bob, Another point for consideration, especially in invoking a “Dirac sea” modality for some or all of the energy gain in Ni-H involves magnetism, but in the context of one dimensionality. It is clear that many experiments (Ahern et al) show a peak in thermal gain near the Curie point of nickel – (or the Néel temperature) meaning that the modality is magnetic, to some extent. This is unlikely to be coincidental and the implication is that there is oscillation around the Curie point (or the Néel temperature which is an alternate magnetic modality). H2 is diamagnetic. With monatomic H, the single electron provides an effective field of something like 12.5 Tesla at Angstrom dimension. With the bare proton, no electron, the situation is less clear. Believe it or not, this has not been measured accurately. The real problem is that the magnetic moment of the proton is 660 times smaller than that of the electron, which means that any field is considerably harder to detect from a distance. OTOH, due to inverse square, at the interface with 1D, the effective magnetic field of the proton should be in the millions of Tesla. http://phys.org/news/2011-06-magnetic-properties-proton.html#jCp http://phys.org/news/2011-06-magnetic-properties-proton.html Even if the Dirac sea does not normally feel a magnetic field from 3-space, there is lots of negative charge in that dimension, and it should feel some bleed-over from 3-space at the interface with a proton. Therefore a magnetic component is likely to be found - in the situation where a bare proton interacts with the Dirac sea in a gainful way. _ From: Bob Cook In short, the Dirac sea is one-dimensional (1D) and the bare proton permits an interface with that dimension, whereas no other atom can easily do this. Does the Dirac theory address a mechanism of interaction between the proton and the sea? The interaction would most likely be electrostatic. Wiki has a pretty good writeup http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_sea which mentions some of the controversy. What you may be angling for is the chiral anomaly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiral_anomaly which can partially explain many things of interest … on the fringe … Does the Uncertainty Principle apply to the proton at the interface? My assumption is yes. Jones From: Bob Higgins Well, yes, it is semantics. What you are describing is not chemical energy at all. Chemical energy specifically deals with the shared electron binding energy in formation of compounds with other atoms. What you are describing is the possible ability of monatomic H, D, or T to access and tap the zero point energy. This is not exactly correct, Bob. We are NOT talking about monatomic atoms. I also made that slip, earlier in the thread. (after all, this is vortex). It is a fifteen orders of magnitude mistake. We are talking about the bare proton only. To access the 1D interface of Dirac’s sea (one dimensional interface) any atom in 3-space with electrons attached is too large (with the possible exception of the DDL or deep Dirac layer of hydrogen which is much more compact). Consider this: Monatomic H has a an atomic radius of about 0.25 Å which is still in the realm of 3-D. The textbook radius of a proton is 0.88 ± 0.01 femtometers (fm, or 10^-15 m). The angstrom is 10^-10 m or 0.1 nm, so there is a massive geometry decrease in going from Monatomic H to the bare proton - which is almost 10^-5 difference in radius (or the cube of that, if expressed as smaller volume). This is like going from an inch to a mile ! and proper geometry is what it is all about according to the proponents of the Dirac sea or Ps hypothesis. Essentially, this is why the bare proton can be a proper conduit for zero point but not much else. And even then we must define the Dirac sea as ZPE, which some do like. In short, monatomic H is about 1,000,000,000,000,000 larger in effective volume than a proton, which keeps it in 3-space. The alpha particle is a candidate for a Dirac sea interfacial excursion, but completely ionizing helium is not easy. In short, the Dirac sea is one-dimensional (1D) and the bare proton permits an interface with that dimension, whereas no other atom can easily do this. This would
Re: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
Jones, Do you think a strong magnetic field, such as a million watt 3 GHz electromagnetic pulse from a doppler microwave radar tower can entice particles (positively charged) from the Dirac Sea? Stewart On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Bob, Another point for consideration, especially in invoking a “Dirac sea” modality for some or all of the energy gain in Ni-H involves magnetism, but in the context of one dimensionality. It is clear that many experiments (Ahern et al) show a peak in thermal gain near the Curie point of nickel – (or the Néel temperature) meaning that the modality is magnetic, to some extent. This is unlikely to be coincidental and the implication is that there is oscillation around the Curie point (or the Néel temperature which is an alternate magnetic modality). H2 is diamagnetic. With monatomic H, the single electron provides an effective field of something like 12.5 Tesla at Angstrom dimension. With the bare proton, no electron, the situation is less clear. Believe it or not, this has not been measured accurately. The real problem is that the magnetic moment of the proton is 660 times smaller than that of the electron, which means that any field is considerably harder to detect from a distance. OTOH, due to inverse square, at the interface with 1D, the effective magnetic field of the proton should be in the millions of Tesla. http://phys.org/news/2011-06-magnetic-properties-proton.html#jCp http://phys.org/news/2011-06-magnetic-properties-proton.html Even if the Dirac sea does not normally feel a magnetic field from 3-space, there is lots of negative charge in that dimension, and it should feel some bleed-over from 3-space at the interface with a proton. Therefore a magnetic component is likely to be found - in the situation where a bare proton interacts with the Dirac sea in a gainful way. _ From: Bob Cook In short, the Dirac sea is one-dimensional (1D) and the bare proton permits an interface with that dimension, whereas no other atom can easily do this. Does the Dirac theory address a mechanism of interaction between the proton and the sea? The interaction would most likely be electrostatic. Wiki has a pretty good writeup http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_sea which mentions some of the controversy. What you may be angling for is the chiral anomaly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiral_anomaly which can partially explain many things of interest … on the fringe … Does the Uncertainty Principle apply to the proton at the interface? My assumption is yes. Jones From: Bob Higgins Well, yes, it is semantics. What you are describing is not chemical energy at all. Chemical energy specifically deals with the shared electron binding energy in formation of compounds with other atoms. What you are describing is the possible ability of monatomic H, D, or T to access and tap the zero point energy. This is not exactly correct, Bob. We are NOT talking about monatomic atoms. I also made that slip, earlier in the thread. (after all, this is vortex). It is a fifteen orders of magnitude mistake. We are talking about the bare proton only. To access the 1D interface of Dirac’s sea (one dimensional interface) any atom in 3-space with electrons attached is too large (with the possible exception of the DDL or deep Dirac layer of hydrogen which is much more compact). Consider this: Monatomic H has a an atomic radius of about 0.25 Å which is still in the realm of 3-D. The textbook radius of a proton is 0.88 ± 0.01 femtometers (fm, or 10^-15 m). The angstrom is 10^-10 m or 0.1 nm, so there is a massive geometry decrease in going from Monatomic H to the bare proton - which is almost 10^-5 difference in radius (or the cube of that, if expressed as smaller volume). This is like going from an inch to a mile ! and proper geometry is what it is all about according to the proponents of the Dirac sea or Ps hypothesis. Essentially, this is why the bare proton can be a proper conduit for zero point but not much else. And even then we must define the Dirac sea as ZPE, which some do like. In short, monatomic H is about 1,000,000,000,000,000 larger in effective volume than a proton, which keeps it in 3-space. The alpha particle is a candidate for a Dirac sea interfacial excursion, but completely ionizing helium is not easy. In short, the Dirac sea is
Re: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
Yes, I think it(the vacuum) might be CREATING the high humidity, I am not sure it is just friction. High vacuum concentration in our atmosphere = high humidity. I think maybe the vacuum ionizes O2 producing 2O-- which is combining with protons from the vacuum to form water vapor H2O That is why I think it is HIGH concentrations of vacuum energy stringing in our jet streams that are creating hurricanes. The vacuum is also ionizing oxygen and creating water vapor. Hurricanes are really HURRIBRANES (of vacuum) decaying in our jet streams. You get a tremendous amount of lightning/electromagentic discharge near the eyewalls of hurricanes. See my weather model based upon decaying string/branes of vacuum. In other words our primary weather is actually decaying strings of vacuum from our quantum vacuum gravity field streaming from the Sun. The vacuum is bending/scattering doppler radiation. The vacuum gradually ionizes the Earth (and us) and triggers seismic activity underneath jet streams. Our atmosphere has a vacuum layer (Dirac Sea) and a molecular layer (Air Water Vapor) and our weather is an interaction between the two. Of course to believe that you would need to believe the Core of the Earth is really just folded up vacuum (probably a 6-d torus) http://darkmattersalot.com/2013/04/15/is-it-our-brane-thats-still-foggy-or-is-it-just-string-theory-for-dummies-me/ Just my take on it. Stewart On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* ChemE Stewart Do you think a strong magnetic field, such as a million watt 3 GHz electromagnetic pulse from a doppler microwave radar tower can entice particles (positively charged) from the Dirac Sea? Stewart, Hmm… the EM pulse alone would probably not be enough; however, free protons could tap into the Dirac sea if they were available in a statistical over-abundance (at least as I understand it). Free protons would be available in a significant way on a very humid day due to hydronium, H3O+ which is a natural cation with a loose bond on one proton. With 100% humidity, there should be temporarily available protons which could be freed by 3 GHz radiation. (Note that the natural hydroxyl (OH) bond of water has a peak in absorption spectrum of 1.6 and 2.48 GHz). Does the physical effect which you are searching for happen more often in high humidity? That kind of evidence could lead somewhere - towards Dirac. In fact, we have talked here before about studies which show that about half the energy of a hurricane or cyclone cannot be accounted for - due to the water temperature differential, where the storm forms. Thus it is possibly that hot humid air rapidly moving with friction buildup, will tap into the Dirac sea for some of the energy of the tropical storm - especially with triboelectric effects. Maybe they should name the next big storm following a successful Rossi demo: Hurricane LENRard.
Re: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
Jones-- Assuming the Uncertainty Principle applies to a proton approaching the Dirac sea it may gain substantial energy given the dimensional constraint. This energy may be enough to allow it to react in 3-d space and explain the coupling between the ZPE and the proton. On the other hand the size of the Z point or line as it may be must be pretty small, between the proton size and the Heisenberg dimension of about 10^-35 cm. It may be that the wave of the proton is such that it can fit inside the dimension of the single line of the Dirac sea and become a virtual charge, combine with an electron and hence pop out of the constrained sea (line) as an H with lots of extra energy. Maybe the production of the H in the Muzino experiment is the production of H from D that must have a size about that of a proton and may fit inside the Dirac sea better but end up as two protons being spit out with some energy. Since quarks were not known when Dirac hypothesized the sea, he probably did not address them. Has anyone to your knowledge addressed quarks (not sharks) in the Dirac sea? And could this explain the Heisenberg constant--ie., the association with the dimension of the Dirac sea? Lastly, I am surprised that you would say that the interaction between the sea and 3-d is electrostatic and not also magnetic. It may be that the Dirac sea has magnetic monopoles that get together with other virtual particles to form the 3-d particles we know with magnetic moments. I read about an experiment a month or so ago where a researcher had claimed existence of a magnetic monopole for a short time near 0 degrees K. I've got more questions than answers. Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 9:30 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen Bob, Another point for consideration, especially in invoking a “Dirac sea” modality for some or all of the energy gain in Ni-H involves magnetism, but in the context of one dimensionality. It is clear that many experiments (Ahern et al) show a peak in thermal gain near the Curie point of nickel – (or the Néel temperature) meaning that the modality is magnetic, to some extent. This is unlikely to be coincidental and the implication is that there is oscillation around the Curie point (or the Néel temperature which is an alternate magnetic modality). H2 is diamagnetic. With monatomic H, the single electron provides an effective field of something like 12.5 Tesla at Angstrom dimension. With the bare proton, no electron, the situation is less clear. Believe it or not, this has not been measured accurately. The real problem is that the magnetic moment of the proton is 660 times smaller than that of the electron, which means that any field is considerably harder to detect from a distance. OTOH, due to inverse square, at the interface with 1D, the effective magnetic field of the proton should be in the millions of Tesla. http://phys.org/news/2011-06-magnetic-properties-proton.html#jCp http://phys.org/news/2011-06-magnetic-properties-proton.html Even if the Dirac sea does not normally feel a magnetic field from 3-space, there is lots of negative charge in that dimension, and it should feel some bleed-over from 3-space at the interface with a proton. Therefore a magnetic component is likely to be found - in the situation where a bare proton interacts with the Dirac sea in a gainful way. _ From: Bob Cook In short, the Dirac sea is one-dimensional (1D) and the bare proton permits an interface with that dimension, whereas no other atom can easily do this. Does the Dirac theory address a mechanism of interaction between the proton and the sea? The interaction would most likely be electrostatic. Wiki has a pretty good writeup http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_sea which mentions some of the controversy. What you may be angling for is the chiral anomaly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiral_anomaly which can partially explain many things of interest … on the fringe … Does the Uncertainty Principle apply to the proton at the interface? My assumption is yes. Jones From: Bob Higgins Well, yes, it is semantics. What you are describing is not chemical energy at all. Chemical energy specifically deals with the shared electron binding energy in formation of compounds with other atoms. What you are describing is the possible ability of monatomic H, D, or T to access and tap the zero point energy. This is not exactly correct, Bob. We are NOT talking about monatomic atoms. I also made that slip, earlier in the thread. (after all, this is vortex). It is a fifteen orders of magnitude mistake. We are talking about the bare proton only. To access the 1D interface of Dirac’s sea (one dimensional interface) any atom in 3-space with electrons attached is too large (with the possible exception of the DDL
Re: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
While it is an interesting hypothesis that the real nascent energy of pre-split monatomic H is greater than previously ascribed by a factor of 2-3, this has nothing to do with the eCat's COP of 2.5. The eCat input is not burning H2, it is primarily electric. When the eCat is run for a long time and an overall COP of 2.5 (to pick an example) is achieved, that COP is from the (heat energy out)/(electrical energy in). For a COP of 2.5, there is 1.5x the input ELECTRICAL energy as excess heat out. If this goes on for a long time, the excess heat out can be hundreds or thousands of times the energy available from any chemical source which could be hypothetically contained inside the reactor. It is from this that the Ragone plot is taken. These experiments are generally run with a small fixed charge of H2, which puts strict limits on the available energy from H2 burning or chemical energy in general. Conclusion: a long term test with COP = 2.5 produced by chemical means would require a chemical output that is hundreds or thousands of times greater than what could produced according to today's chemical enthalpy of H. So, arguing that the COP of 2.4 could be explained with a mistake in H enthalpy of a factor of 2.4 is off the mark by a huge factor (100's to 10's of thousands) and the statement is wholly specious. Bob Higgins On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Just to be clear, one can state with certainty that burning hydrogen only returns ~one third more energy than is expended to split the gases - so if the gases are made monatomic, then the net gain for the reaction is in the range of COP 2.4 over combustion - and that is chemical gain. This can be illustrated schematically but if the image does not appear, the URL is: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/molecule/imgmol/beng2.gif
RE: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
From: Bob Higgins These experiments are generally run with a small fixed charge of H2, which puts strict limits on the available energy from H2 burning or chemical energy in general. Hi Bob, Actually no. The fixed charge of H2 puts a limit only on available nuclear energy, but not on a contribution from positronium (vacuum energy which is essentially vast, according to Dirac). You can complain that “semantics” should not allow this type of gain to be called chemical energy – but clearly it is not nuclear energy, therefore “chemical” is closer than nuclear - if those are the only two choices, since the kinetics are chemical and nowhere close to nuclear. Conclusion: a long term test with COP = 2.5 produced by chemical means would require a chemical output that is hundreds or thousands of times greater than what could produced according to today's chemical enthalpy of H. Not exactly true. A sequential “chemical” gain (from Ps) would require only slight net gain (3.4 eV) which does not result in a permanent change of the hydrogen, to insure reuse… IOW a gain which keeps protons in play for the next iteration. So, arguing that the COP of 2.4 could be explained with a mistake in H enthalpy of a factor of 2.4 is off the mark by a huge factor (100's to 10's of thousands) and the statement is wholly specious. Not at all. In fact you have clarified your error in the underlying assumption- to one which assumes that anything not chemical is nuclear, which is wrong – since in fact this excess energy is in the range of chemical (10 eV) but it is sequential, iterative and continuing over time. There is no mistake in H enthalpy, only a mistake in the assumption that there is but a single iteration per active atom. Jones Beene wrote: Just to be clear, one can state with certainty that burning hydrogen only returns ~one third more energy than is expended to split the gases - so if the gases are made monatomic, then the net gain for the reaction is in the range of COP 2.4 over combustion - and that is chemical gain. This can be illustrated schematically but if the image does not appear, the URL is: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/molecule/imgmol/beng2.gif
RE: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
I agree carbon or oxygen both will reduce excess gain reactions. IMHO chemical reactions are always the path of least resistance ahead of Dirac mechanisms and also result in compounds more difficult to reverse back to monatomic and often fixed to and modifying the surrounding geometry in a manner that reduces the suppression level..ie growing whiskers perpendicular to parallel surfaces to relieve the Casimir force. as the field of super catalysts flourishes we will likely discover creation and activation is best accomplished and maintained in a vacuum or inert cover gas that inhibits chemical reactions and allow these excess gain reactions to persist – the heat sink may likewise need to be a permanent companion because once these reactions are given more robust geometry and environment they will still destroy themselves unless the energy is already being transported away..and this may again shed some light on the difficulty Rossi and other researches encounter initiating this “system” where the entire environment including the heat sink has to creep up to the reaction point via resistive heating before the system can self sustain –enough heat to start without damage while slowly increasing the reaction and heat sinking rate to make it overunity a while also backing out the resistive heating contribution[keeping just enough to control the reaction via duty factor pulses]. Fran From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2014 9:13 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen From: David Roberson My reason for asking about the hydrocarbon was that it is contains a great deal of hydrogen that must be stripped away from the carbon when burned. Once free, I would expect it to behave much like a broken apart hydrogen molecule. Do you understand why free hydrogen taken from a hydrocarbon would be different than the free hydrogen derived from an H2 molecule? Dave, Please do not confuse me with an expert on Dirac vis-à-vis LENR. Much of this information and speculation has been floating around on Vortex and other parts of the web for years, and my role in this thread has been simply to try to regurgitate it into a framework that attempts to explain what is actually seen and what is not seen, in the Rossi effect. This is in anticipation of upcoming results showing very few indicia of nuclear reactions. However, these results could instead show evidence that indicates Rossi’s original idea of nickel transmuting to copper. As for why hydrocarbons would seem to be less likely to participate in excess gain reactions following combustion – such as an induced epo interaction, my guess is that carbon is loaded with valence electrons to begin with - which then become free and will flood the local environment, making it less likely that a bare proton will be able to attract negative energy in its short lifetime. In contrast, carbon which is in the form of CNT would have all the valence electrons strongly bound, and therefore would be more conducive to promoting the epo reaction. Just a guess…
Re: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
Well, yes, it is semantics. What you are describing is not chemical energy at all. Chemical energy specifically deals with the shared electron binding energy in formation of compounds with other atoms. What you are describing is the possible ability of monatomic H, D, or T to access and tap the zero point energy. This would not be chemical, but would fall into the category of ZPE. Such possibilities may exist (only postulated to exist), but they should not be classified as chemical. If Mills is correct in his hydrino postulate, then that may be yet another energy category - call it atomic instead of nuclear or chemical. It does involve the electron, but not in formation of compounds with other atoms, so it is not chemical. Since the hydrino formation does not involve the nucleus, it is not nuclear. I don't think I ever mentioned nuclear in my previous post. Bob On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* Bob Higgins These experiments are generally run with a small fixed charge of H2, which puts strict limits on the available energy from H2 burning or chemical energy in general. Hi Bob, Actually no. The fixed charge of H2 puts a limit only on available nuclear energy, but not on a contribution from positronium (vacuum energy which is essentially vast, according to Dirac). You can complain that “semantics” should not allow this type of gain to be called chemical energy – but clearly it is not nuclear energy, therefore “chemical” is closer than nuclear - if those are the only two choices, since the kinetics are chemical and nowhere close to nuclear. Conclusion: a long term test with COP = 2.5 produced by chemical means would require a chemical output that is hundreds or thousands of times greater than what could produced according to today's chemical enthalpy of H. Not exactly true. A sequential “chemical” gain (from Ps) would require only slight net gain (3.4 eV) which does not result in a permanent change of the hydrogen, to insure reuse… IOW a gain which keeps protons in play for the next iteration. So, arguing that the COP of 2.4 could be explained with a mistake in H enthalpy of a factor of 2.4 is off the mark by a huge factor (100's to 10's of thousands) and the statement is wholly specious. Not at all. In fact you have clarified your error in the underlying assumption- to one which assumes that anything not chemical is nuclear, which is wrong – since in fact this excess energy is in the range of chemical (10 eV) but it is sequential, iterative and continuing over time. There is no mistake in H enthalpy, only a mistake in the assumption that there is but a single iteration per active atom. Jones Beene wrote: Just to be clear, one can state with certainty that burning hydrogen only returns ~one third more energy than is expended to split the gases - so if the gases are made monatomic, then the net gain for the reaction is in the range of COP 2.4 over combustion - and that is chemical gain. This can be illustrated schematically but if the image does not appear, the URL is: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/molecule/imgmol/beng2.gif
Re: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
Or maybe we should give credit where it is due and call it Positronic Energy, a la Asimov.
Re: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
I agree. That pins it as not nuclear and not chemical. A different kind of energy. Do you think the fission guys and fusion guys would agree with its reality any more than, if it were fission or fusion as they want to consider those terms? That's probably why they do not mention Dirac's sea very often, even though he was instrumental in developing quantum mechanics? Bob Bob - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 9:22 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen Or maybe we should give credit where it is due and call it Positronic Energy, a la Asimov.
RE: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
The only problem is that Asimov was not looking at positrons (or the Dirac sea) as an energy source - AFAIK. In fact it was a MacGuffin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positronic_brain Does anyone remember who first proposed this for LENR? -Original Message- From: Bob Cook I agree. That pins it as not nuclear and not chemical. A different kind of energy. Do you think the fission guys and fusion guys would agree with its reality any more than, if it were fission or fusion as they want to consider those terms? That's probably why they do not mention Dirac's sea very often, even though he was instrumental in developing quantum mechanics? Bob Bob - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton Or maybe we should give credit where it is due and call it Positronic Energy, a la Asimov.
RE: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
Does anyone remember who first proposed this for LENR? Hmmm... could it be Julian Schwinger ??? Not a bad pedigree.
RE: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
Does anyone remember who first proposed this for LENR? Hmmm... could it be Julian Schwinger ??? Not a bad pedigree for the field. Sorry to pun-ish you, but wouldn't this make Jules the original free swinger ? “If you can’t join them, beat them.” - Julian Schwinger, Nobel prize winner in Physics, 1965
Re: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
It may have been Martin Deutsch--Nobel Prize 1956--He worked on the Manhattan Project and was at MIT. Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 10:25 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen Does anyone remember who first proposed this for LENR? Hmmm... could it be Julian Schwinger ??? Not a bad pedigree for the field. Sorry to pun-ish you, but wouldn't this make Jules the original free swinger ? “If you can’t join them, beat them.” - Julian Schwinger, Nobel prize winner in Physics, 1965
RE: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
He discovered Ps but I doubt if he was supportive of LENR. He was considered for the Nobel but lost out, if this obit is correct http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2002/deutsch Deutsch was negative on LENR IIRC and went out of his way to criticize PF. -Original Message- From: Bob Cook It may have been Martin Deutsch--Nobel Prize 1956--He worked on the Manhattan Project and was at MIT. Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene Does anyone remember who first proposed this for LENR? Hmmm... could it be Julian Schwinger ??? Not a bad pedigree for the field. Sorry to pun-ish you, but wouldn't this make Jules the original free swinger ? “If you can’t join them, beat them.” - Julian Schwinger, Nobel prize winner in Physics, 1965
Re: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: The only problem is that Asimov was not looking at positrons (or the Dirac sea) as an energy source - AFAIK. True; but, his robot series was this engineer's first encounter with positrons.
Re: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
conciously... On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: The only problem is that Asimov was not looking at positrons (or the Dirac sea) as an energy source - AFAIK. True; but, his robot series was this engineer's first encounter with positrons.
RE: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
This discussion about the 'real' energy of nascent hydrogen is symptomatic of a continuing refusal to red Mills' papers carefully. Is emphasis on *nascent* applies to molecules of 'H2O created by chemical reactions apart from the liquid state or vapor state. The essential feature the potential energy of the nascent [newly created] molecule which fits the 3 times criterion for resnant energy transfer in the blacklight reaction. Itg applies to the molecule, not to atoms themselves. Mike Carrell -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 1:26 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen Does anyone remember who first proposed this for LENR? Hmmm... could it be Julian Schwinger ??? Not a bad pedigree for the field. Sorry to pun-ish you, but wouldn't this make Jules the original free swinger ? “If you can’t join them, beat them.” - Julian Schwinger, Nobel prize winner in Physics, 1965 This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
RE: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
Mike said [snip] Itg applies to the molecule, not to atoms themselves.[/snip] Agreed! Call it hydrino , fractional or inverted Rydberg no matter but think we all agree if the atoms are unbound they will transform between fractional states without opposition. To produce excess energy reactions require these states to be bound by molecular or other means in order to force these translations to expend energy. In the case of a molecular bond between hydrinos the bond will oppose the normally free translation of the atoms back to ground state and it will discount the disassociation threshold.. Fran -Original Message- From: Mike Carrell [mailto:mi...@medleas.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 3:54 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen This discussion about the 'real' energy of nascent hydrogen is symptomatic of a continuing refusal to red Mills' papers carefully. Is emphasis on *nascent* applies to molecules of 'H2O created by chemical reactions apart from the liquid state or vapor state. The essential feature the potential energy of the nascent [newly created] molecule which fits the 3 times criterion for resnant energy transfer in the blacklight reaction. Itg applies to the molecule, not to atoms themselves. Mike Carrell -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 1:26 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen Does anyone remember who first proposed this for LENR? Hmmm... could it be Julian Schwinger ??? Not a bad pedigree for the field. Sorry to pun-ish you, but wouldn't this make Jules the original free swinger ? “If you can’t join them, beat them.” - Julian Schwinger, Nobel prize winner in Physics, 1965 This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
Re: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
Jones-- Your are right. Deutsch had 2 students win Nobel Prizes. He did not win it for his discovery of Ps which was in 1951. Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 11:39 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen He discovered Ps but I doubt if he was supportive of LENR. He was considered for the Nobel but lost out, if this obit is correct http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2002/deutsch Deutsch was negative on LENR IIRC and went out of his way to criticize PF. -Original Message- From: Bob Cook It may have been Martin Deutsch--Nobel Prize 1956--He worked on the Manhattan Project and was at MIT. Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene Does anyone remember who first proposed this for LENR? Hmmm... could it be Julian Schwinger ??? Not a bad pedigree for the field. Sorry to pun-ish you, but wouldn't this make Jules the original free swinger ? “If you can’t join them, beat them.” - Julian Schwinger, Nobel prize winner in Physics, 1965
RE: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
To continue with the argument that chemical energy from hydrogen can be thermodynamically overunity without violating Conservation of Energy principles, and without any nuclear reaction - due to the ubiquity of interfacial positronium (the Dirac epo field at the interface of 3-space) there is an old subject that keeps cropping up - the water arc explosion. Mills' recent demo, a blatant knockoff of the Graneau ongoing work of twenty years, shows this route to gain. The textbook energy from burning hydrogen in oxygen is 2.85 eV per molecule of H2O - which is both higher than can be achieved in practice and significantly higher than the energy required to split water catalytically. In short there is a large asymmetric energy gap which can be exploited in practice, and which is seen in a re-evaluation of the thermodynamics of Langmuir's torch, and which anomaly continues all the way to LENR, even when water is not used. Consider the combination of two molecules of H2 with one molecule of O2 to form two molecules of H2O. Energetically, the process requires very high initial energy to dissociate the H2 and O2, which is actually greater by far than the net yield. This required energy to dissociate the H2 and O2 is about eight times higher than required for splitting water. This is one basis for reports of water fuel and Brown's gas and HHO, going back to Dad Garrett in the Thirties http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg14027.html Just to be clear, one can state with certainty that burning hydrogen only returns ~one third more energy than is expended to split the gases - so if the gases are made monatomic, then the net gain for the reaction is in the range of COP 2.4 over combustion - and that is chemical gain. This can be illustrated schematically but if the image does not appear, the URL is: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/molecule/imgmol/beng2.gif We should also appreciate that 1.23 volts is the threshold required to split a proton from water using an electrolyte, but it is electrical potential - not mass energy, whereas 2.85 eV as a calculated chemical gain is mass-energy. And it is based on the assumption that it requires 9.7 eV net to dissociate the gases - which is far from true with a spillover catalyst like nickel. Anyway, one can calculate eV from volts by multiplying elementary charge (coulombs); since the energy (eV) is equal to the voltage V times the electric charge, the value of both is the same per atom when there is no recombination. Thus, the standard way of accounting for energy balance in hydrogen redox chemistry may not seem to hold water especially in circumstances where there is spillover-type catalysis, or plasma, and where most of the heat of a (predecessor) reaction is retained in a sequence, without recombination. The only thing holding us back is the notion of conservation of energy. That is where positronium enters the picture. We are not talking about antimatter annihilation - only capturing the binding energy of 6.8 eV of positronium or part of it - which can be done when any proton is split-off and made nascent near the threshold requirement of 1.23 volts per unit of charge in an electron-starved environment. In this case, the electron from Ps is available instead of the free electron from 3-space. A bare proton at Angstrom geometry is as close to one dimensional as possible - and exists at the interface of 3-space with reciprocal space (Dirac's term) until it grabs the electron from somewhere - such as from Ps, leaving the positron in reciprocal space. A UV photon comes along with the electron and there is evidence that two photons of 3.4 eV are shed in this reaction and one of them follows the electron. The coupling is electrostatic by proximity at the interface of 3-space to another dimension. Virtual positronium is real positronium at the one-dimensional interface for an instant. In fact, this time limit is critical, and seems to limit the ratio of gain (when figured this way) to something less than 3.4/1.23 = 2.76 which is the maximum COP available per pass. The problem of achieving net gain (in excess of chemical but less than nuclear) is twofold. First challenge is simply to remove heat to prevent a runaway, but not remove too much heat, so that the residual, which provides the energy required for continuity, is not compromised. The second is to avoid recombination losses. This is what Rossi appears to have accomplished catalytically with the E-Cat. Yet, it is arguable that with gain 1, it should be possible to avoid any power input at all - which results in infinite COP. That is partly true, but if there is an absolute need for a threshold of thermal momentum - from continuously applied heat, added heat must be provided if it cannot be retained. The added heat is to provide the kind of solid floor for phonon coherence which is never possible with insulation alone. Since runaway is possible, one cannot solve the problem by
Re: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
The only way a quantum theory of gravity is going to fly is by using extra dimensions decaying to gravitons. The atmosphere around pulsed microwave radar towers is donating protons and dissolving limestone, I have 50 years of data in Florida pointing to it around multiple towers. Our weather phenom are really low pressure vacuum disturbances, not just hot and cold We are in a push-me pull-me with the vacuum our entire lives. We should go from cosmologymeteorologygeology and connect the dots. Jet Streams cause Earthquakes as well as Hurricanes. Jet streams anomalies as possible short-term precursors of earthquakes with M6.0 http://www.pagepress.org/journals/index.php/rg/article/view/rg.2014.4939 Stewart On Sunday, April 13, 2014, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: To continue with the argument that chemical energy from hydrogen can be thermodynamically overunity without violating Conservation of Energy principles, and without any nuclear reaction - due to the ubiquity of interfacial positronium (the Dirac epo field at the interface of 3-space) there is an old subject that keeps cropping up - the water arc explosion. Mills' recent demo, a blatant knockoff of the Graneau ongoing work of twenty years, shows this route to gain. The textbook energy from burning hydrogen in oxygen is 2.85 eV per molecule of H2O - which is both higher than can be achieved in practice and significantly higher than the energy required to split water catalytically. In short there is a large asymmetric energy gap which can be exploited in practice, and which is seen in a re-evaluation of the thermodynamics of Langmuir's torch, and which anomaly continues all the way to LENR, even when water is not used. Consider the combination of two molecules of H2 with one molecule of O2 to form two molecules of H2O. Energetically, the process requires very high initial energy to dissociate the H2 and O2, which is actually greater by far than the net yield. This required energy to dissociate the H2 and O2 is about eight times higher than required for splitting water. This is one basis for reports of water fuel and Brown's gas and HHO, going back to Dad Garrett in the Thirties http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg14027.html Just to be clear, one can state with certainty that burning hydrogen only returns ~one third more energy than is expended to split the gases - so if the gases are made monatomic, then the net gain for the reaction is in the range of COP 2.4 over combustion - and that is chemical gain. This can be illustrated schematically but if the image does not appear, the URL is: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/molecule/imgmol/beng2.gif We should also appreciate that 1.23 volts is the threshold required to split a proton from water using an electrolyte, but it is electrical potential - not mass energy, whereas 2.85 eV as a calculated chemical gain is mass-energy. And it is based on the assumption that it requires 9.7 eV net to dissociate the gases - which is far from true with a spillover catalyst like nickel. Anyway, one can calculate eV from volts by multiplying elementary charge (coulombs); since the energy (eV) is equal to the voltage V times the electric charge, the value of both is the same per atom when there is no recombination. Thus, the standard way of accounting for energy balance in hydrogen redox chemistry may not seem to hold water especially in circumstances where there is spillover-type catalysis, or plasma, and where most of the heat of a (predecessor) reaction is retained in a sequence, without recombination. The only thing holding us back is the notion of conservation of energy. That is where positronium enters the picture. We are not talking about antimatter annihilation - only capturing the binding energy of 6.8 eV of positronium or part of it - which can be done when any proton is split-off and made nascent near the threshold requirement of 1.23 volts per unit of charge in an electron-starved environment. In this case, the electron from Ps is available instead of the free electron from 3-space. A bare proton at Angstrom geometry is as close to one dimensional as possible - and exists at the interface of 3-space with reciprocal space (Dirac's term) until it grabs the electron from somewhere - such as from Ps, leaving the positron in reciprocal space. A UV photon comes along with the electron and there is evidence that two photons of 3.4 eV are shed in this reaction and one of them follows the electron. The coupling is electrostatic by proximity at the interface of 3-space to another dimension. Virtual positronium is real positronium at the one-dimensional interface for an instant. In fact, this time limit is critical, and seems to limit the ratio of gain (when figured this way) to something less than 3.4/1.23 = 2.76 which is the maximum COP available per pass. The problem of achieving net
Re: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
Jones-- You stated: The textbook energy from burning hydrogen in oxygen is 2.85 eV per molecule of H2O Is that energy based on the differential mass of (H2 molecule + O2 molecule) and 2H2O molecules? Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2014 11:52 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen To continue with the argument that chemical energy from hydrogen can be thermodynamically overunity without violating Conservation of Energy principles, and without any nuclear reaction - due to the ubiquity of interfacial positronium (the Dirac epo field at the interface of 3-space) there is an old subject that keeps cropping up - the water arc explosion. Mills' recent demo, a blatant knockoff of the Graneau ongoing work of twenty years, shows this route to gain. The textbook energy from burning hydrogen in oxygen is 2.85 eV per molecule of H2O - which is both higher than can be achieved in practice and significantly higher than the energy required to split water catalytically. In short there is a large asymmetric energy gap which can be exploited in practice, and which is seen in a re-evaluation of the thermodynamics of Langmuir's torch, and which anomaly continues all the way to LENR, even when water is not used. Consider the combination of two molecules of H2 with one molecule of O2 to form two molecules of H2O. Energetically, the process requires very high initial energy to dissociate the H2 and O2, which is actually greater by far than the net yield. This required energy to dissociate the H2 and O2 is about eight times higher than required for splitting water. This is one basis for reports of water fuel and Brown's gas and HHO, going back to Dad Garrett in the Thirties http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg14027.html Just to be clear, one can state with certainty that burning hydrogen only returns ~one third more energy than is expended to split the gases - so if the gases are made monatomic, then the net gain for the reaction is in the range of COP 2.4 over combustion - and that is chemical gain. This can be illustrated schematically but if the image does not appear, the URL is: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/molecule/imgmol/beng2.gif We should also appreciate that 1.23 volts is the threshold required to split a proton from water using an electrolyte, but it is electrical potential - not mass energy, whereas 2.85 eV as a calculated chemical gain is mass-energy. And it is based on the assumption that it requires 9.7 eV net to dissociate the gases - which is far from true with a spillover catalyst like nickel. Anyway, one can calculate eV from volts by multiplying elementary charge (coulombs); since the energy (eV) is equal to the voltage V times the electric charge, the value of both is the same per atom when there is no recombination. Thus, the standard way of accounting for energy balance in hydrogen redox chemistry may not seem to hold water especially in circumstances where there is spillover-type catalysis, or plasma, and where most of the heat of a (predecessor) reaction is retained in a sequence, without recombination. The only thing holding us back is the notion of conservation of energy. That is where positronium enters the picture. We are not talking about antimatter annihilation - only capturing the binding energy of 6.8 eV of positronium or part of it - which can be done when any proton is split-off and made nascent near the threshold requirement of 1.23 volts per unit of charge in an electron-starved environment. In this case, the electron from Ps is available instead of the free electron from 3-space. A bare proton at Angstrom geometry is as close to one dimensional as possible - and exists at the interface of 3-space with reciprocal space (Dirac's term) until it grabs the electron from somewhere - such as from Ps, leaving the positron in reciprocal space. A UV photon comes along with the electron and there is evidence that two photons of 3.4 eV are shed in this reaction and one of them follows the electron. The coupling is electrostatic by proximity at the interface of 3-space to another dimension. Virtual positronium is real positronium at the one-dimensional interface for an instant. In fact, this time limit is critical, and seems to limit the ratio of gain (when figured this way) to something less than 3.4/1.23 = 2.76 which is the maximum COP available per pass. The problem of achieving net gain (in excess of chemical but less than nuclear) is twofold. First challenge is simply to remove heat to prevent a runaway, but not remove too much heat, so that the residual, which provides the energy required for continuity, is not compromised. The second is to avoid recombination losses. This is what Rossi appears to have accomplished catalytically with the E-Cat. Yet, it is arguable that with gain 1, it should
RE: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
-Original Message- From: Bob Cook The textbook energy from burning hydrogen in oxygen is 2.85 eV per molecule of H2O Is that energy based on the differential mass of (H2 molecule + O2 molecule) and 2H2O molecules? Well yes, it can be stated that way - although it is a chemical reaction... nevertheless - there is mass-to-energy conversion, just as with a nuclear reaction. Obviously, only a tiny mass is involved so we normally do not state it that way. The URL: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/molecule/boneng.html shows the gain in energy (loss of mass) at 5.7 eV for two molecules. It would be hard to weigh that photon on a scale with any accuracy :)
Re: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
Jones, I am having a difficult time following your example. The diagram illustrating the energy balance appears to add up properly to me. If you take another reaction, such as burning of a liquid hydrocarbon, does your technique still demonstrate an unbalance? Any time I see a process that violates the COE, I ask for greater details describing the parts of the reaction. My suspicion is that the energy will in fact balance when extreme care is taken to include all of the variables. As example, in the case of water formed by stationary molecules of hydrogen it must be important to take into account the phases and thermal energy of the particles. The example given indicates that the hydrogen and oxygen molecules are at zero Kelvin since they have no thermal energy. Water as a single molecule can also be at zero and low energy. But to change a large quantity of water molecules from a vapor into frozen ice you must remove plenty of energy. How are these energy storage methods taken into account? Perhaps you could demonstrate how the numbers balance in the case of gasoline listed above. I suspect the same sort of problem will appear. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Apr 13, 2014 2:52 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen To continue with the argument that chemical energy from hydrogen can be thermodynamically overunity without violating Conservation of Energy principles, and without any nuclear reaction - due to the ubiquity of interfacial positronium (the Dirac epo field at the interface of 3-space) there is an old subject that keeps cropping up - the water arc explosion. Mills' recent demo, a blatant knockoff of the Graneau ongoing work of twenty years, shows this route to gain. The textbook energy from burning hydrogen in oxygen is 2.85 eV per molecule of H2O - which is both higher than can be achieved in practice and significantly higher than the energy required to split water catalytically. In short there is a large asymmetric energy gap which can be exploited in practice, and which is seen in a re-evaluation of the thermodynamics of Langmuir's torch, and which anomaly continues all the way to LENR, even when water is not used. Consider the combination of two molecules of H2 with one molecule of O2 to form two molecules of H2O. Energetically, the process requires very high initial energy to dissociate the H2 and O2, which is actually greater by far than the net yield. This required energy to dissociate the H2 and O2 is about eight times higher than required for splitting water. This is one basis for reports of water fuel and Brown's gas and HHO, going back to Dad Garrett in the Thirties http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg14027.html Just to be clear, one can state with certainty that burning hydrogen only returns ~one third more energy than is expended to split the gases - so if the gases are made monatomic, then the net gain for the reaction is in the range of COP 2.4 over combustion - and that is chemical gain. This can be illustrated schematically but if the image does not appear, the URL is: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/molecule/imgmol/beng2.gif We should also appreciate that 1.23 volts is the threshold required to split a proton from water using an electrolyte, but it is electrical potential - not mass energy, whereas 2.85 eV as a calculated chemical gain is mass-energy. And it is based on the assumption that it requires 9.7 eV net to dissociate the gases - which is far from true with a spillover catalyst like nickel. Anyway, one can calculate eV from volts by multiplying elementary charge (coulombs); since the energy (eV) is equal to the voltage V times the electric charge, the value of both is the same per atom when there is no recombination. Thus, the standard way of accounting for energy balance in hydrogen redox chemistry may not seem to hold water especially in circumstances where there is spillover-type catalysis, or plasma, and where most of the heat of a (predecessor) reaction is retained in a sequence, without recombination. The only thing holding us back is the notion of conservation of energy. That is where positronium enters the picture. We are not talking about antimatter annihilation - only capturing the binding energy of 6.8 eV of positronium or part of it - which can be done when any proton is split-off and made nascent near the threshold requirement of 1.23 volts per unit of charge in an electron-starved environment. In this case, the electron from Ps is available instead of the free electron from 3-space. A bare proton at Angstrom geometry is as close to one dimensional as possible - and exists at the interface of 3-space with reciprocal space (Dirac's term) until it grabs the electron from somewhere - such as from Ps, leaving the positron in reciprocal space. A UV photon comes along
RE: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
From: David Roberson If you take another reaction, such as burning of a liquid hydrocarbon, does your technique still demonstrate an unbalance? No- bare protons must be present for positronium to get involved. We are talking about the need to reach an interface with another spatial dimension - and if the proton approaches one dimensionality, it may be possible to disrupt that other dimension. The main possibility for a continuous energy anomaly with nascent hydrogen seems to be a reactor where H2 is repeatedly split into protons using a spillover catalyst and then recombining, over and over again, sequentially - but where there is no significant nuclear reaction. Sound familiar? If there is excess heat with little gamma radiation and little transmutation - there are only a few possible ways to explain the situation. Mills provides one hypothetical way, but I think his explanation is insufficient for the Rossi effect. A reversible diproton reaction is also possible. Conceivably, several relatively exotic hydrogen reactions could be happening at the same time. This is one of them. The bottom line is that this epo hypothesis is being offered as an alternative for understanding the results which Rossi's collaborators will likely report in a few weeks. Jones
Re: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
A question: what would be the net effect of all these extra electrons being pulled over from the Dirac Sea? Would this not eventually produce some kind of unholy electrostatic issue. Or worse? Steve High On Apr 13, 2014, at 6:40 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: David Roberson If you take another reaction, such as burning of a liquid hydrocarbon, does your technique still demonstrate an unbalance? No- bare protons must be present for positronium to get involved. We are talking about the need to reach an interface with another spatial dimension – and if the proton approaches one dimensionality, it may be possible to disrupt that other dimension. The main possibility for a continuous energy anomaly with nascent hydrogen seems to be a reactor where H2 is repeatedly split into protons using a spillover catalyst and then recombining, over and over again, sequentially - but where there is no significant nuclear reaction. Sound familiar? If there is excess heat with little gamma radiation and little transmutation – there are only a few possible ways to explain the situation. Mills provides one hypothetical way, but I think his explanation is insufficient for the Rossi effect. A reversible diproton reaction is also possible. Conceivably, several relatively exotic hydrogen reactions could be happening at the same time. This is one of them. The bottom line is that this epo hypothesis is being offered as an alternative for understanding the results which Rossi’s collaborators will likely report in a few weeks. Jones
RE: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
From: Steve High A question: what would be the net effect of all these extra electrons being pulled over from the Dirac Sea? Would this not eventually produce some kind of unholy electrostatic issue. Or worse? Good question, Steve. The answer may lie in an existing electrostatic compensation mechanism such as the “fair weather” field of earth. There could be other natural leveling mechanisms as well. The aurora phenomenon comes to mind. Needless to say, this subject is only partly mainstream, despite the imprimatur of Dirac. On a “fair” or clear day, there is a fairly strong electric field on the surface of the earth, relative to the ionosphere. The ionosphere can be thought of as a positive electrode above earth, in contrast to the relatively negatively charged earth. “Ground” has a negative charge connotation for a good reason. The gradient can be hundred of volts per meter when a storm moves through. But the point is that electric charges are continuously leveled out on a vast natural scale, so it would probably take a major accumulation of LENR reactors to alter that dynamic balance, if most of them were tapping into the Dirac sea. An E-cat or hundred of them would not be noticed, but a billion of them could be a problem. However, high voltage grid transmission lines are spewing out excess electrons already, so one is led to believe that even strong local fields are self-compensating to some degree. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
Perhaps there is a reaction of the type you are describing Jones. I cling to the classical ideas about COE and might overlook this system. My reason for asking about the hydrocarbon was that it is contains a great deal of hydrogen that must be stripped away from the carbon when burned. Once free, I would expect it to behave much like a broken apart hydrogen molecule. Do you understand why free hydrogen taken from a hydrocarbon would be different than the free hydrogen derived from an H2 molecule? Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Apr 13, 2014 6:40 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen From:David Roberson If you take another reaction, such as burning of a liquid hydrocarbon, doesyour technique still demonstrate an unbalance? No- bareprotons must be present for positronium to get involved. We are talking aboutthe need to reach an interface with another spatial dimension – and ifthe proton approaches one dimensionality, it may be possible to disrupt thatother dimension. The main possibilityfor a continuous energy anomaly with nascent hydrogen seems to be a reactorwhere H2 is repeatedly split into protons using a spillover catalyst and then recombining,over and over again, sequentially - but where there is no significant nuclearreaction. Sound familiar? If thereis excess heat with little gamma radiation and little transmutation –there are only a few possible ways to explain the situation. Mills provides onehypothetical way, but I think his explanation is insufficient for the Rossieffect. A reversible diproton reaction is also possible. Conceivably, several relativelyexotic hydrogen reactions could be happening at the same time. This is one ofthem. Thebottom line is that this epo hypothesis is being offered as an alternative for understandingthe results which Rossi’s collaborators will likely report in a fewweeks. Jones
RE: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
From: David Roberson My reason for asking about the hydrocarbon was that it is contains a great deal of hydrogen that must be stripped away from the carbon when burned. Once free, I would expect it to behave much like a broken apart hydrogen molecule. Do you understand why free hydrogen taken from a hydrocarbon would be different than the free hydrogen derived from an H2 molecule? Dave, Please do not confuse me with an expert on Dirac vis-à-vis LENR. Much of this information and speculation has been floating around on Vortex and other parts of the web for years, and my role in this thread has been simply to try to regurgitate it into a framework that attempts to explain what is actually seen and what is not seen, in the Rossi effect. This is in anticipation of upcoming results showing very few indicia of nuclear reactions. However, these results could instead show evidence that indicates Rossi’s original idea of nickel transmuting to copper. As for why hydrocarbons would seem to be less likely to participate in excess gain reactions following combustion – such as an induced epo interaction, my guess is that carbon is loaded with valence electrons to begin with - which then become free and will flood the local environment, making it less likely that a bare proton will be able to attract negative energy in its short lifetime. In contrast, carbon which is in the form of CNT would have all the valence electrons strongly bound, and therefore would be more conducive to promoting the epo reaction. Just a guess…
Re: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
Jones That idea may explain heat release, however, such a reaction would not account for the transmutations being seen in Japan and other evidence of new nuclear species. I doubt such a reaction with small amounts of Ps can explain the large energy releases associated with explosive reactions, researchers have incurred. Jones you said: It is not a violation of conservation of energy, if one admits to the reality of the Dirac sea. Is there an energy release from the Dirac sea? What is the coupling from the sea to the Ps transition. Does something happen to cool the environment? Is there any reference concerning the nature of the energy available in a Dirac sea? I am not familiar with this idea. Where does the Ps come from in reactions involving D only if the reaction is not nuclear? I am thinking of the Muzino research which produced H from D apparently. Finally, as far as I know, spin coupled reactions do not involve gamma radiation, yet I believe they are considered to be nuclear, at least where nuclei are involve. (Spin coupling between electrons is probably not considered nuclear. I do not know about Cooper Pairing of protons.) However spin orbital force interactions are considered nuclear as are transitions in nuclear magnetic resonant states of nuclei. None of these reaction produce gammas or high energy photons. They may involve low energy photons--absorption and emission--as energy states change. You may want to consider some of these issues in your addition of your poser. Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, April 11, 2014 8:43 AM Subject: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen Poser: does the bare proton: H- (hydrogen cation) aka nascent hydrogen possess anomalous chemical energy, and is that energy related to why is it neutralized so quickly? With the Rossi report coming up soon (we hope) and the likelihood that it will show apparent gain above chemical, but without gamma radiation or other indicia of a nuclear reaction, we need to more closely examine the magnitude of the real chemical energy available from hydrogen manipulation. It is not as clear-cut as you think, at least not when using water as the physical model for hydrogen redox reactions. The following presents the case for an apparent and natural COP of around 2.4 (6.8 eV instead of 2.85) being consistent with the real upper limit of the chemical energy of nascent hydrogen neutralization via Ps. This is NOT a related explanation to the one Mills gives in his theory, but it may sound similar, since anything to do hydrogen (or positronium) involves Rydberg multiples. It is not a violation of conservation of energy, if one admits to the reality of the Dirac sea. In the case of positronium, the binding energy is 6.8 eV. Mills' theory neglects the important role of positronium - and his view is tied to redundant hydrogen orbitals. However, the best explanation for the rapid (picosecond) neutralization of a free proton in nature is the ubiquity of the Dirac sea of (virtual) positronium. Here is another version of Dirac's field - epola, ps-BEC, ZPF or a host of other names for those who are intimidated by Hotson. http://www.epola.co.uk/introduction/precis/precis.htm Perhaps Rossi will demonstrate a robust version of this curiosity, one that has lurked in redox chemistry for decades going back to Langmuir's torch: which is the possibility that asymmetric gain will be available in special circumstances from sequential free proton formation and recombination. This gain is actually quite similar to chemical energy but higher and non-nuclear. In other words - there is a good argument that the real chemical energy of hydrogen manipulation can be about 2.4 times higher than it seems from combustion, due to an active vacuum and nascent hydrogen neutralization via disruption of the binding energy of Ps (which energy remains in 3-space as a UV photon). This argument will be continued in another post with more detail. Jones
Re: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
Jones-- Thanks for those good fast responses. Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, April 11, 2014 10:49 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen -Original Message- From: Bob Cook That idea may explain heat release, however, such a reaction would not account for the transmutations being seen in Japan and other evidence of new nuclear species. The transmutation seen by Piantelli, Mizuno and many others in Japan is real, but miniscule - in the comparative picture. We are talking about a few thousand counts over hours - which is sub-femtogram level. Tiny levels of transmutation are expected - and trace levels of gamma - but this is a side-effect of the occasional higher energy annihilation reaction, which is many orders of magnitude too low to account for excess heat. I doubt such a reaction with small amounts of Ps can explain the large energy releases associated with explosive reactions, researchers have incurred. Why do you say small amounts? The vacuum is teeming with quantum foam, according to Wheeler, Dirac and other who have looked into this. The energy which can be seen, in a large release, would be double an explosion of hydrogen in oxygen. (but non nuclear) Is there an energy release from the Dirac sea? Well, there is a long line of reported gain from nascent hydrogen, starting with Langmuir. Rossi could be following in this progression, and would be further evidence. It will be interesting to see what conclusion the Swedes come up with. What is the coupling from the sea to the Ps transition. A bare proton is almost one dimensional - at the interface of 3-space with reciprocal space (Dirac's term) and it grabs the electron from Ps, leaving the positron in reciprocal space. The UV photon (6.8 eV) comes along with the electron some of the time. The coupling is electrostatic and by proximity at the interface of 3-space to another dimension. Does something happen to cool the environment? This would be expected in some circumstances, and Ahern's finding of anomalous cooling would be an example. In that particular case energy from 3-space transfers into reciprocal space. Is there any reference concerning the nature of the energy available in a Dirac sea? I am not familiar with this idea. Oh yes. Very good references. The cited URL will lead you to many others. http://www.epola.co.uk/introduction/precis/precis.htm http://blog.hasslberger.com/2010/05/diracs_equation_and_the_sea_of.html Don Hotson's papers are highly recommended. Jones
