Bob, I was surprised to read that the angular energy was many times the mass of the electron according to Hotson. My first thought was-why does the mass to charge ratio of an electron appear to match that expected if the 511 keV mass is assumed. One would expect that the excess angular energy would result in additional mass for the electron which would be detected in experiments.
I am still reading the document and perhaps this issue might be explained later. I remain convinced that magnetic interaction plays an important role in LENR. Maybe it is spin coupling that allows the transport of such a large quantity of energy from the nucleus without the gammas. And, the density of the metal matrix is far greater than the level the plasma guys work with. Any evidence of spin coupling they encounter will be overwhelmed by the majority of reactions where it is not likely to be demonstrated. We need proof that large quantities of energy can be exchanged by spin...either to one or to many receptors. Another possibility is that spin coupling is frequently available among atoms and acts as a common exchange method. Of course one must wonder how this process could have escaped detection for so long. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Fri, Apr 25, 2014 12:02 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:They're finally catching up! Dave, Mark and Jones-- Hotson's reason for leaving physics for French identifies a real glitch in my mind. (See the item about the author at the beginning of the first paper.) This may be the issue behind the lack of consideration of angular momentum and spin as being energy as we know it, and why the standing physics community shuns the consideration of spin coupling in nuclear processes and hence lenr. Spin energy consideration opens a can of worms for them. >From the beginning (1989) in the case of D "fusion" I thought that the >reaction to form He was that He started out in a highly energetic spin state >and decayed to a lower energy ground state distributing its excess energy to >the lattice via spin coupling. Now I wonder what the spin energy of two >protons is? Hotson indicated that the spin energy of the electron is much >greater than the .511 Mev we associate with its creation. It may be that a >.511 Mev photon actually carries much more energy in the form of angular >momentum than is generally associated with the linear momentum particle model >and Einstein's photo electric effect. I did not realize that the angular momentum of the electron and positron amounted to so much energy. This is an interesting observation of Hotson, if it is valid which it seems to be. I wonder what school Hotson was at when they silenced him? Bob Cook ----- Original Message ----- From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 8:22 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:They're finally catching up! This is an interesting paper. It is good reading for those of us that wonder if current theory is flawed. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Fri, Apr 25, 2014 11:19 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:They're finally catching up! Thanks Terry-- I could not find any. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Terry Blanton" <hohlr...@gmail.com> To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 5:20 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:They're finally catching up! On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 10:13 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > Hotson’s essays move around. Most of my old links are dead. I have combined all three of Hotson's papers into a single .pdf file. The link provided here is for list members' use only: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8mt4mJOTGvBNEg4T25LS0FQM3c/edit?usp=sharing
