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 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 > > >
