Jones, I also wish that other spectral anomalies were observed - besides the broadband soft X-ray/EUV apparently due to hydrogen, but I believe that the 19.29 nm line is due to the oxidized cathode/anode surfaces - oxygen contamination.
However, I think this is a good experiment to repeat with higher voltages, higher currents and densities, stronger confining magnetic fields, etc. The Sternglass experiment could be repeated with minor modification. Still, if my speculation that high-energy, non-stationary e-p collisions generate the X-rays/EUV is correct, then perhaps a higher current/voltage, continuous plasma channel version would also generate neutrons, as seen by Sternglass. -- Lou Pagnucco Jones Beene wrote: > There are several possibilities for the UV, Lou - and your hat is now in > the > ring along with Randy Mills and a few others. > > Cleary EUV and soft x-rays are involved. Clearly the values are not > falling > into the expected Rydberg levels. One value that stands out in this study > is > the 19.29 nm wavelength. It should be 22.8 nm for Mills - and the excuse > given does not ring true. There could be some kind of cut-off but I'm not > buying it - simply because the graph would not be so spiked. > > I'm glad to see any well-considered suggestions to explain it. My > suggestion > is far-out as well (92 million miles out) but many heard have heard it > before and it is definitely a minority viewpoint. (so I take every > opportunity to "radiate it"). > > Curiously 19.3 nm is a value that turns up often in solar astronomy. > > http://www.azonano.com/news.aspx?newsID=26419 > > There could be one or more mundane explanations for this. In the paper > above, the detector was designed to look for this value, but for a good > reason. The the sun was photographed in ultraviolet light at a wavelength > of > 19.3 nanometers - 25 times shorter than wavelengths of visible light - > simply because it is characteristic of solar energy. That wavelength is > blocked by Earth's atmosphere, so to observe it astronomers must get above > the atmosphere. > > To cut to the chase - this mass-energy value, 19.3 nm, appears to be the > expected energy release from solar RPF. > > Solar RPF is a theory of "reversible proton fusion". It is also known as > the > diproton reaction. But make no mistake - the so-called "diproton" is > helium > and NOT hydrogen, even though its lifetime is extremely short. > > For every instance of real fusion on the sun there are about 10^20 > instances > of transient diprotons, which are fusing for a few femtoseconds and then > reversing back to protons. This instant reversibility is due basically to > the Pauli exclusion principle. However, due the short instant of binding > there are energetic QCD color changes which take place in the six quarks. > > In short, at least in this RPF hypothesis, nickel-hydrogen gain on earth, > is > based on the solar model of RPF and the relevant emission is EUV at 19.3 > nm > and not Mills' Rydberg value. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com > > Jones, > > A good find. > > I have only read it quickly, but maybe a simpler explanation suffices. > > Anomalous 'continuum' emissions occur only in proportion to hydrogen > present. This leads me to conjecture that: > > Elliptical Rydberg H-atoms form and ionize, creating fairly intense (mixed > e-p) current filaments, along with (in the lab frame) a strong magnetic > vector potential ('A-field') pointing in the plasma flow direction. > > Some of the ionizing e-p pairs form transient, non-stationary colliding > waveforms trapped in their own embracing coulomb potentials. > (Several QM texts cover the math of transient coulomb collisions.) > > As the e-p collide, they slow dramatically. In their collision frame > the vector potential (A-field) suddenly shrinks, donating it's field > energy to the collision (to obey momentum conservation.) > > By conventional physics (see Feynman ref[1] below), this must force e-p > wave function into highly localized, high kinetic energy, compressed > pairs - "compressive" collisions similar to colliding rubber balls, as > opposed to colliding billiards. > > When the proton recaptures the electron, returning to a stationary state, > the K.E. borrowed from the A-field is radiated and observed. > > The author rules out both bremsstrahlung and recombination. > My conjecture combines counter-intuitive elements of both. > If it's correct, no exothermic LENR occurs, but still a valuable > experiment. > > -- Lou Pagnucco > > [1] Feynman Lectures, v3, ch21, "Schrodinger's equation in a magnetic > field" > http://www.peaceone.net/basic/Feynman/V3%20Ch21.pdf > > Pertinent extract (p.21-5) - > "But remember what happens electrically when I suddenly turn on a flux. > During the short time that the flux is rising, there's an electric field > generated whose line integral is the rate of change of the flux with time: > > E = - dA/dt (21.16) > > That electric field is enormous if the flux is changing rapidly, and it > gives a force on the particle. The force is the charge times the electric > field, and so during the build up of the flux the particle obtains a total > impulse (that is, a change in mv) equal to -qA. In other words, if you > suddenly turn on a vector potential at a charge, this charge immediately > picks up an 'mv' momentum equal to -qA." > > > Jones Beene wrote: >> This paper was mentioned 18 months ago on vortex - but has almost been >> ignored by the LENR community since then ... possibly due to some kind >> of >> absurd jealousy over anything "Millsean" ... i.e. from Randell Mills >> >> http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/GEN3_Harvard.pdf >> >> Forget Randy - Read this paper in the context in Rossi-type LENR - >> instead >> of Mills. >> >> Pay close attention to detains in the nanometer geometry ! In my opinion >> this paper supports LENR, instead of Mills! Look at those spikes on the >> charts- clearly much more energy than chemical. >> >> In fact the details actually seem to go against some of Mills >> pronouncements >> - and consequently they can be read as confirming LENR - but in a >> non-exactly "nuclear". >> >> Maybe you can call it "quasi-nuclear" instead of "supra-chemical" but >> this >> paper may be the very best and most informative thing out there to >> bolster >> a >> variety of LENR... while shifting the emphasis away from BLP and away >> from >> LENR. >> >> Jones >> > > > > > >
