I did wonder about power gain, given that thermonic emission isn't very efficient. I spoke with a very competent BSEE field engineer some years ago and he said he and a fellow engineer wondered about efficiency figures in klystron transmitters - to the effect that they often seemed too high, once all the heat losses were considered.
________________________________ From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 9:07 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electron Repulsion Versus Distance I was not familiar with Nelson's invention. I am now. Its an interesting patent. However the discussion is ambiguous as to whether on not it creates usable energy over and above the energy needed to power the magnetic field and the electron gun used to create a cloud of electrons- - parts of the invention. It avoids the issue of whether the COP is greater than 1 or if there is COE in the operation of the device. It does point out an apparent attraction of electrons in the cloud of electrons that formed by the cathode (elect Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: Chris Zell<mailto:chrisz...@wetmtv.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 1:19 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Electron Repulsion Versus Distance http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2001/0040434.html I assume you are familiar with Lawrence Nelson's patents in regard to screened electrons. ________________________________ From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 2:36 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electron Repulsion Versus Distance Axil-- The Nature abstract, which I quoted, states that the that..."the formation of composite fermions resulting in a weak attractive interaction." Why didn't the authors make this screening clear? >From what you say the anyons are not composite Fermions but quasiholes. I can >understand that and even suggested that as a possible screening effect. Why doesn't the abstract say this. That's the reason I thought it was merely hand waving. Universal acceptance is pretty absolute. I doubt your inference is accurate. It sounded to me that the authors did not accept Cooper pairing mechanism as a possibility. I wonder if it is referenced in the full article? If you have the full article at hand, maybe you could answer this question. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: Axil Axil<mailto:janap...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 7:27 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electron Repulsion Versus Distance Bob said: The following quote from the abstract cited below from Nature seems like a lot of hand waving to me. Axil says: >From what I can tell, this theory of how the fractional quantum hall >effect(FQHE) works is universally accepted in science and is one of the >backbone theories of how cooper pairs of electrons form in a superconductor, Bob said: "In effect, the repulsive Coulomb interaction between electrons is overscreened in the = 5/2 state by the formation of composite fermions, resulting in a weak, attractive interaction." Overscreened by what? Axil says: A magnetic field will produce a pair of vortexes of magnetic flux that connects themselves to the electron. As the magnetic field increases, addition pairs of vortexes are created in quantum steps. These are Anyons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anyon "In physics, an anyon is a type of particle that occurs only in two-dimensional systems, with properties much less restricted than fermions and bosons; the operation of exchanging two identical particles may cause a global phase shift but cannot affect observables. Anyons are generally classified as abelian or non-abelian, as explained below." These vortexes are also called quasiholes. They have fractional positive charge. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_quantum_Hall_effect "Laughlin states and fractionally-charged quasiparticles: this theory, proposed by Laughlin, is based on accurate trial wave functions for the ground state at fraction as well as its quasiparticle and quasihole excitations. The excitations have fractional charge of magnitude e=c/q." Bob asks: A positive Coulomb charge? Axil answers: Yes, a fractional positive charge. Bob asks: Or maybe holes in the electron sea that seem a little positive with respect to the rest of the sea? Axil answers: Yes. These are quasiholes that form in a two dimensional system in the vacuum by a magnetic field and connect themselves to the electron. GOOGLE quasiholes to see the theory behind the concept and observe how much work has gone into this theory. On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 4:32 AM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com<mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com>> wrote: Axil and Dave-- The following quote from the abstract cited below from Nature seems like a lot of hand waving to me. "In effect, the repulsive Coulomb interaction between electrons is overscreened in the [nu] = 5/2 state by the formation of composite fermions, resulting in a weak, attractive interaction." Overscreened by what? A positive Coulomb charge? Or maybe holes in the electron sea that seem a little positive with respect to the rest of the sea? It seems that whatever is causing the attraction must get between the two particles being paired if its a screening effect. I think it is more likely that the charge of an electron is distributed over a volume--at least the source of the virtual photons that carry the force from an electron emanate from a volume of the electron. As the volumes of the pairing electrons coincide there is a reduced repulsive force, since the centers are inside the surface of each of the respective electron's spherical surfaces and the virtual photons can have no effect of force on the center of mass of either electron. Of course TMK no one knows the volume or the structure of an electron nor the charge density as the radius goes to 0 radius at the effective center. The spin attraction is a much shorter range force and acts within the spherical boundaries of the electrons.
