On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote:
>
> This argument applies to all other neutron creation ideas brought up in
> this thread - ie. cosmic rays, stray gammas, nanoantennas etc. While these
> mechanisms are probable, it just is not occuring at the correct rates to
> explain the phen
Excellent series of posts Axil.
Till now, I still thought of electrons as particles that flow along the
nanotubes. I could not get a handle on how a nanotube would force a
one-dimensional flow and how charge could accumulate on the nanotube. Your
posts made it clear. Thank you.
Now a quest
*However, I think you identified an important problem - electromagnetically
coupled charged particles can behave in very strange counterintuitive
ways.
Common sense may be failing us and leading us astray in LENR.
*
See my posts under the many worlds of charge screening.
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 11
The one dimensional world has its own unique rules and ways of acting. The
three dimensional world of charge screening that we described in my last
post has absolutely nothing in common with the one dimensional world we
look at now. We will now fall down the hard to understand rabbit hole of
quantu
Excellent questions.
I will try to find some good references.
But, I think only masochists try to understand magnetism.
Dave Roberson wrote:
>
> What happens if you assume a frame of reference that is at the same
> velocity as the moving electrons? No relative motion exists under that
> conditio
Jaro,
Of course all explanations should be considered with suspicion when rare
(possibly imaginary), counterintuitive LENR events occur.
It is relatively easy to contrive more mechanical examples in 3-d, say
with balls coupled with elastic springs impacting a randomly placed
obstacle.
However, I
Yes, Lou's freight train analogy is nice, unfortunately, it is not a very
accurate analogy.
In the train example, we expect the energy of the 100 cars behind the lead
car to impart all its energy to the lead car. This only becomes true when
the lead car can "absorb", "Store" and "concentrate"
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 6:33 PM, wrote:
> In reply to Guenter Wildgruber's message of Sun, 10 Jun 2012 12:04:57 +0100
> (BST):
> Hi,
> [snip]
>
> Piezoelectric effects could also create EM radiation that might affect the
> electronics of the detectors.
The two kinds of dectors work differently,
In reply to Guenter Wildgruber's message of Sun, 10 Jun 2012 12:04:57 +0100
(BST):
Hi,
[snip]
Piezoelectric effects could also create EM radiation that might affect the
electronics of the detectors.
>is making the rounds:
>"Piezonuclear Fission Reactions in Rocks"
>( A. Carpinteri G. Lacidogn
What happens if you assume a frame of reference that is at the same velocity as
the moving electrons? No relative motion exists under that condition to allow
coupling.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Harry Veeder
To: vortex-l
Sent: Sun, Jun 10, 2012 1:52 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ed Stor
I have been attempting to understand how the many electrons couple together to
allow one to achieve the .78 MeV energy. Does this mechanism behave in a
manner that is substantially different than normal where an electron is subject
to motion due to an electric field? I picture myself riding u
I wrote:
> Suppose you have a crack that serves as an antenna, along the lines Lou
> has suggested. Now add a soup of free electrons in the vicinity of the
> crack (a plasmon). Now bring in a cosmic ray or a gamma ray from an
> earlier event. The high-energy incoming photon does something funn
Axil,
very interesting!
Boiling this down to its essence, it means that we can exploit the intrinsic
features of nature by forcing them into carbon-monolayers, onedimensional
structures plus quantum-computers, which compute the Doug Adams number.
Ultimatley we trim down the second law to slight
In the quantum world of the crack, one concept that needs a place at the
table is Luttinger liquids.
This concept has recently been established as a fundamental paradigm vital
to our understanding of the properties of one-dimensional quantum systems,
which has only recently led to a number of theo
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote:
>
> Ed calculates that the energy of formation for a neutron is 0.76MeV. This
> energy must be concentrated from a "sea" of energy less than 0.1 eV.
>
Not necessarily. That's only one of several approaches.
Suppose you have a crack that serves
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 12:59 AM, wrote:
>
> Surface plasmons provide good examples of coherent charge currents.
> The electric field can also provide analogous coupling.
>
> A mechanical analog
>
> - One uncoupled freight train car traveling 50 km/h cannot climb a 10m hill
> - but the lead car
Fair questions, Jaro,
Yes, there is a 782 Kev barrier to overcome.
Maybe I misunderstand the objection, but why is "0.1 ev" relevant?
Google "superfocusing nanoantenna plasmon" - aren't the electrons in
fields of nanostructure hotspots vastly more energetic than that?
Your starting baseline and
thanks, Jed, for the correction,
because this is such an important issue, maybe you can clarify from Your point
of view, why the replications failed.
I have not been near the Max Planck Institute of Plasmaphysics in the 90s, but
as far as I can remember, they tried to replicate and failed.
Th
Hello Jaro,
First, I am not proposing anyone's theory.
I am citing classical physics analogs to W-L theory that look supportive.
Since I don't know Ahern's theory, I can't comment on it.
I'm not sure why you think the 2nd law is violated.
Concentrating energy can be done in many ways - with anten
Just to add to my earlier thought.
Ed calculates that the energy of formation for a neutron is 0.76MeV. This
energy must be concentrated from a "sea" of energy less than 0.1 eV.
What mechanism will accumulate energy over 7,000,000 times its
concentration, and concentrate it on one location t
Guenter Wildgruber wrote:
> As far as memory serves, the Pons/Fleischmann Pd-material has been
> delivered by an italian manufacturer, who had a very peculiar way of
> processing the material.
> Because P/F were not aware of that, they did not disclose it as relevant.
> So also did not the repli
Dear Friends,
In the spirit of collegiality and in accordance ith the developing
traditions of the Internet, Ed Storms has answered my quetions:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/06/ed-storms-answers-to-5-questions.html
Motivated by my insatiable curiosity and by my dedication to LENR
I have
is making the rounds:
"Piezonuclear Fission Reactions in Rocks"
( A. Carpinteri • G. Lacidogna • A. Manuello • O. Borla)
http://theatomunexplored.com/wp-content/docs/Carpinteri_Rock_Mech_Eng.pdf
...
Abstract:
Neutron emission measurements, by means of
He3 devices and bubble detectors, were perfo
Abd Ul, Peter,
this is a very enlightening discussion.
let me comment on some issues, where I hopefully can contribute something of
value.
Let me concentrate on one.
'reliability'
Abd Ul says.
>
A complete theory will include explanation of the variability (which you call
"the re
on one side it is annoying and frightening.
but in a way, for business there is no reason, and many reasons against, to
do independet testing before the product is manufactured.
so the behavior of Rossi and Defkalion is more frightening because they
communicate, which is irrational, than because
25 matches
Mail list logo
