Hirsch's papers clearly show that super conduction is a spin effect as
all his math is based on induced circular movement. If neighbor SO(4)
trajectories connect the electron magnetic flux can freely move through
any matter. As the radius of mass increases the Meissner rotation starts
as a simple analogy to the Coriolis force provided by electrons moving
outwards to a larger radius. Such an effect cannot be modeled by QM as
it needs a 4D (= 4 rotation) space concept to model a connected spin-orbit .
Regarding deep orbits:
There is absolutely no physical solution for the forces for any QM based
model for deep orbits. The basic rules of any physical model that
includes mass are given by the de Broglie radius. Any violation of the
coulomb mass/EM-mass relation needs an additional explanation by a new
physical concept, that has never been given by anybody that modeled deep
orbits.
E.g. a deep orbit of 400keV means that the electron mass classically
should increase to a manyfold value of 400keV. But there is no mechanism
to increase the classic central force if we do not include magnetic
central forces. But these forces are not covered by QM and need a
different treatment based on rotations only!
Jürg
On 11.06.2019 22:03, Axil Axil wrote:
From the theory of hole superconductivity by JE Hirsch that Holmlid
references, the electron position around the positive core of UDM is
defined by the meissner effect pushing electrons out away from the
positive core and the coulomb force pushing elections toward the
positive core. Electron orbits don't matter anymore when
superconductivity sets in. The meissner effect pushes out all
electrons from the positive core to an exterior location to minimize
kinetic energy as follows:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1302.4178
I would guess that the electron cloud would form a sub orbital spin
wave on the outside of the positive core.
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 12:51 PM JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net
<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>> wrote:
Andrew,
The similarity and contrasts between your work on dense (small)
hydrogen and that of several others is truly remarkable. Many
brilliant researchers are looking at the shadows on Plato’s cave.
A breakthrough is surely imminent.
Other scholarly papers would include those of Mills, Holmlid,
Vav’ra, Mayer, Dufour, Lawandy and several more - all of whom
have insight and mathematical formality … yet, are different in
details and are generally neglected - not given near enough credit
by mainstream physics. The common denominator is that hydrogen can
become densified and this change radically alters the dynamics of
nuclear reactions – some of which may be strongly energetic but
not real fusion, after all.
There is evidence from Russia/Germany that paired protons
collisions - which almost never actually fuse – will nevertheless
produce pions – as Holmlid suggests. This is more meaningful in
the context of Cerefolini’s “binuclear atom” and provides the easy
way to D fusion using the muon, as a decay product of the pion.
In the end – Not much fusion yet excess energy due to pion mass
being converted into energy. I wish the following paper went a
little deeper or there was a followup - “Near-threshold pion
production in diproton reactions” by Sergey Dymov for the ANKE
collaboration
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/295/1/012095
Most of the pieces of the puzzle are out there…
----------------
Andrew Meulenberg wrote: Jean-Luc Paillet and I are interested in
this 2nd link“A simple argument that small hydrogen may exist”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269319303624,
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269319303624>because
we think that 5 (out of 6) sections support our contention
that deep-orbit electrons are the theoretical basis for cold
fusion…
--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis
+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06
