Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

[Eric Walker]

I wrote:

About the matter of the Coulomb barrier -- I like your and Dave's argument
> that the Coulomb barrier should be expected to work in one direction (and
> this would also seem to be implied by the shell theorem).  But Krane on
> three or so occasions has written things that imply that the Coulomb
> barrier works in two directions, suggesting that it's not just a
> misinterpretation on my part.
>

I think the difficulties come down to the fact that the Coulomb barrier not
only provides a force against which incoming charged particles must
counteract on approaching the nucleus (a classical effect). It also serves
as a Faraday cage of sorts that prevents charged particles, which can be
thought of as a type of RF, from "leaking" through it (a nonclassical
effect).  To the extent that that Faraday cage is weakened by surplus
electron charge, RF (charged particles) can leak (tunnel) through it in
either direction.

In this understanding, the Coulomb barrier works in one direction as a
center of Coulomb charge and in two directions as a Faraday cage.  The
analogy of a Faraday cage is meant to be illustrative and not taken too
literally.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Steorn Orbo cube phone-charger ~$1300

[esa ruoho]

Yep Jed.
a GSM / EDGE non-smart-phone
Orboost technology licensed to Wicked E-Juices for creation of never-charge  
E-Cig
and a gamecontroller for regular came-consoles
and the OCube for charging smartphones 2-3 times a day or 1 tablet per day.

and.. the one they don't talk about, which is the HephaHeat  water-boiler 
device.

There's a press-release, Jed, for the Orboost Wicked E-Juice E-Cig, 
http://www.wickedejuice.com/content/41-liquid-solutions-prepares-to-bring-the-orbo-never-die-battery-to-market

Liquid Solutions Prepares to bring the Orbo 'never die' battery to market
27 October 2015

Watch the fascinating and always entertaining visionaries from Irish energy 
company Steorn talking about the first commercial implementation of their never 
die energy technology. The founder of Wicked, Killian McGrath, also makes an 
appearance talking about the revolutionary use of these never die batteries 
being developed for e cigarettes.  These new products will be coming on stream 
in the next six months - watch this space. 

Liquid Solutions Prepares to bring the Orbo 'never die' battery to market
Liquid Solutions, the only Irish producer of certified e juice for e 
cigarettes, today announces it has licensed the revolutionary Orbo battery 
technology from Steorn to deliver an e cigarette that never needs charging.

Waterford based Liquid Solutions, the makers of Wicked e-juice, has been 
working with Steorn for the past three years to bring the never-die Orbo 
battery to market. This revolutionary move will allow consumers of e cigarettes 
never to charge the batteries in their e cigarettes again. In three short 
years, Liquid Solutions has created a battery small enough to fit into an e 
cigarette and still retain the self charging properties of Orbo.

Killian McGrath, founder of Liquid Solutions, recognized the impact of Orbo 
when first presented with the technology. The never die battery is the holy 
grail of all mobile device manufacturers. Increasingly people travel with 
energy banks, in-car chargers and charging points in public places.  To replace 
the humble battery with an ever-charged Orbo battery is to revolutionize the 
mobile populace.  Now the vaping community need never worry about charging 
their Wicked e cigarettes. We have a market winner.’

Dublin based Steorn headed up by Shaun McCarthy has enjoyed a roller coaster 
ride since its inception fifteen years ago. Their discovery of a constant 
energy source has attracted worldwide interest and criticism. Tonight (28 
October 2015, 7pm GMT) the company is beginning a series of webinars 
introducing their Orbo never die battery. As part of that process, the 
partnership with Liquid Solutions will be broadcast.

In terms of timing, Liquid Solutions intends having its first Orbo vaping 
products available to the Irish marketplace within the next six months. The 
never die batteries will be available to purchase from www.Wickedejuice.com

.

Ends

For more information, please visit www.Wickedejuice.com

Or contact me...@wickedejuice.com


---
| Esa Ruoho | +358403703659 | http://fi.linkedin.com/in/esaruoho 
 |
| http://lackluster.bandcamp.com  | 
http://lackluster.org  | http://esaruoho.tumblr.com 
 |
| http://twitter.com/esaruoho  | 
http://facebook.com/LacklusterOfficial  
|

> On 09 Dec 2015, at 16:38, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> 
> William Beaty > wrote:
>  
> Phone charger version.Heh, buy a bunch as xmas gifts!
> 
>  
> http://dispatchesfromthefuture.com/2015/12/steorn_taking_orders_for_ocube_preorders.html
>  
> 
> 
> Also, an e-cigarette?!?
> 
> - Jed
> 

Re: [Vo]:Steorn Orbo cube phone-charger ~$1300

[Jed Rothwell]

William Beaty  wrote:


> Phone charger version.Heh, buy a bunch as xmas gifts!
>
>
> http://dispatchesfromthefuture.com/2015/12/steorn_taking_orders_for_ocube_preorders.html


Also, an e-cigarette?!?

- Jed

[Vo]:Do not wait a perfect LENR technology soon- Rossi's Nrgative

[Peter Gluck]

Simple analysis- semantic, logical, technological

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/12/dec-9-2015-lenr-do-not-wait-perfections.html

Patience is not my main virtue, but we all need it

Peter
-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

[Vo]:Antigravity started at Vortex - Fluxliner

[John Berry]

Way back when multiple people apparently replicated the capwarp
successfully, reporting their results in Vort.

I recall one guy even made a capacitor using the pages of a book as the
dielectric and claimed results.
http://amasci.com/caps/capwarp.html

Well now there is a fascinating claim that a segmented circular capacitor
is at the heart of "alien reproduction vehicle" demoed at an exclusive
airshow in the 80's made by the US military contractors, much inline with
what Ben Rich, second director of Skunkworks has said, that we have built
the craft to go to the stars already.  And General Wesley Clark, the kind
of brass who might have attended an air show like the one in the following
video has said when he was running for president that his only faith based
initiative is that FTL travel is possible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZM8YsBiOw1c

This second video has more of McCandlish , and the second link points to a
part where an HV cap loses all weight, tried by a college student.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUVoWlSHkg4   especially from
https://youtu.be/SUVoWlSHkg4?t=2709

In an old Rex Research infolio I bought in the 90;'s, there was an account
of a science fare project by a Doyle (or Boyle?) who made an HV cap with
polystyrene insulation, and it lost weight, but unlike Brown's research, it
lost weight no mater which pole was up.

I also read about some of Brown's work where he distinguished between some
portion that was directional thrust, and another portion that was a
straight weight loss.

I can expand these correlations further but this is enough to show that
there is likely something to this.
While he magnitude of the effect seems to be dependent on the material used
as dielectric (ironically heavier is better) and the capacitor being
circular and perhaps segmented.


John

Re: [Vo]:Steorn Orbo cube phone-charger ~$1300

[Bob Higgins]

This motor is certainly not a perpetual motion machine, but it is an
electrostatic motor.  It bears a striking resemblance to a Wimshurst
generator, which could be used as a motor, and also to Jefimenko's
electrostatic motors.  Electrostatic motors are real - the original
demonstration may not have been faked.  The Earth's electric field varies
from 500V/m to >50kV/m and this can be harvested to do work as Jefimenko
showed with his motors (I have an electronic copy of his book somewhere).

So, this device does have vertical extent and will have an environmental
electrostatic field across it.  If made with sufficiently low rolling
resistance, this field may be enough to power the motor.

Bob Higgins

On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 11:06 PM, William Beaty  wrote:

>
> Also, here's a cool one below, dunno if it's been discussed:
>
>   Waller motor, electrostatic PM hoax?
>   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YreCJDvIX2Q
>
> It might genuinely operate as shown, if the plastic disk had first been
> "charged" by rubbing with fur.  If true, sell it as a toy!
>
> Or, if fur-rubbing can't provide sufficient energy to spin the wheel,
> instead use dielectric absorption, "capacitor soakage" with a 20KVDC supply
> and wetted metal electrodes (or conductive rubber, for intimate surface
> contact with surfaces of the plastic disk.)  Deeply charge up the plastic
> disk, then add the foil rectangles later.  The "de-sorption" of charge from
> the plastic should re-charge the foil slowly, and run the motor perhaps for
> many minutes, perhaps hours.
>
> The wood in the video would serve as a conductor, so those who build a
> plastic model would fail.   Replications:
>
>  w/6KV supplyhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S072ScKjx8s
>
>  Fake, w/#40ga connecting wires
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfSydbKEBpQ
>
>  w/VDG  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiqEtigpJaI
>
> Available again are high-volt negative-ionizer blocks, $4 power supplies,
> 6K to 8K VDC, on eBay,   search eBay: anion 12v
>
> I found that these work fine if powered by two 9V batt connected as 18V,
> and only draw excess current at input of 20V and above.  Crank the supply
> down to zero, and the KV output decreases roughly in proportion.  Build a
> many-KV variable bench supply for electrostatics.  Output below 10uA.   I
> haven't tried buying ten for series connection, and rigging up a 100KV
> supply powered by independent floating batteries.
>
>>
>>>  ( (  (   ((O))   )  ) ) 
>>> William J. Beatyhttp://staff.washington.edu/wbeaty/
>>> beaty, chem washington edu  Research Engineer
>>> billb, amasci com   UW Chem Dept,  Bagley Hall RM74
>>> x3-6195 Box 351700, Seattle, WA 98195-1700
>>>
>>

[Vo]:The conspiracies do exist!

[Blaze Spinnaker]

http://boingboing.net/2015/12/08/undercover-greenpeace-activist.html

I dunno if my emails have been censored from vortex or something though.
Nobody ever replies to them anymore :D

RE: [Vo]:The conspiracies do exist!

[Chris Zell]

I would point out that this prostitution can extend in any direction.  Recall 
that in the documentary, “Who Killed The Electric Car?” there was an academic 
who came forward to California authorities and spoke glowingly about the 
promise of fuel cells so that the EV-1 could be eliminated and destroyed.

Of course, here we are decades later with no mass use of such technology on our 
roads.  I hope he was well paid for his betrayal.

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

[Eric Walker]

On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 2:39 PM,  wrote:

So I suspect that it's just the naming convention that is confusing you.
>

In oblong nuclei, there is an angular dependency on the alpha tunneling
probability.  Alpha particles are more likely to tunnel out of poles of
such nuclei rather than at the circumference.  Krane writes, "Since many
alpha-emitting nuclei are deformed, these angular distribution measurements
can also help us to answer another question: if we assume a stable prolate
(elongated) nucleus, will more alpha's be emitted from the poles or from
the equator?  Figure 8.9 suggests a possible answer to this question: at
the larger radius of the poles, the alpha particle feels a weaker Coulomb
potential and therefore must penetrate a thinner and lower barrier."

I read this to mean that Krane believes that it is the Coulomb potential
and not the nuclear potential that is thinner and therefore easier to
traverse at the poles.  Do you disagree?

Eric

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

[mixent]

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Tue, 8 Dec 2015 20:00:24 -0600:
Hi,
[snip]
>About the matter of the Coulomb barrier -- I like your and Dave's argument 
>that the Coulomb barrier should be expected to work in one direction (and this 
>would also seem to be implied by the shell theorem).  But Krane on three or so 
>occasions has written things that imply that the Coulomb barrier works in two 
>directions, suggesting that it's not just a misinterpretation on my part.  One 
>possibility here is that a side effect of decreasing the Coulomb barrier 
>surrounding the nucleus is that this somehow alters the nuclear potential in a 
>way that makes it seem as though the Coulomb barrier works in two directions.

What is called the "Coulomb barrier" is the result of two opposing forces. The
repulsive Coulomb force (for positively charged particles), and the attractive
nuclear force. Most references make no distinction, but refer simply to the
Coulomb barrier, even when IMO they should be referring to the "Nuclear force
barrier", which I have never even seen mentioned. 
IOW the barrier does work in two directions (due to the two forces at work), but
is never named accordingly. So I suspect that it's just the naming convention
that is confusing you.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Antigravity started at Vortex - Fluxliner

[Blaze Spinnaker]

Anyways, here's another kind of subtle censorship:

http://boingboing.net/2015/12/08/undercover-greenpeace-activist.html

You academics sure are sneaky people.

On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 12:19 PM, Blaze Spinnaker 
wrote:

> Hey where was that great email about Wolfram.  Why am I not getting in
> email?
>
> The people complain about LENR censorship.  LOL!
>
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 11:20 AM, John Berry 
> wrote:
>
>> Way back when multiple people apparently replicated the capwarp
>> successfully, reporting their results in Vort.
>>
>> I recall one guy even made a capacitor using the pages of a book as the
>> dielectric and claimed results.
>> http://amasci.com/caps/capwarp.html
>>
>> Well now there is a fascinating claim that a segmented circular capacitor
>> is at the heart of "alien reproduction vehicle" demoed at an exclusive
>> airshow in the 80's made by the US military contractors, much inline with
>> what Ben Rich, second director of Skunkworks has said, that we have built
>> the craft to go to the stars already.  And General Wesley Clark, the kind
>> of brass who might have attended an air show like the one in the following
>> video has said when he was running for president that his only faith based
>> initiative is that FTL travel is possible.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZM8YsBiOw1c
>>
>> This second video has more of McCandlish , and the second link points to
>> a part where an HV cap loses all weight, tried by a college student.
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUVoWlSHkg4   especially from
>> https://youtu.be/SUVoWlSHkg4?t=2709
>>
>> In an old Rex Research infolio I bought in the 90;'s, there was an
>> account of a science fare project by a Doyle (or Boyle?) who made an HV cap
>> with polystyrene insulation, and it lost weight, but unlike Brown's
>> research, it lost weight no mater which pole was up.
>>
>> I also read about some of Brown's work where he distinguished between
>> some portion that was directional thrust, and another portion that was a
>> straight weight loss.
>>
>> I can expand these correlations further but this is enough to show that
>> there is likely something to this.
>> While he magnitude of the effect seems to be dependent on the material
>> used as dielectric (ironically heavier is better) and the capacitor being
>> circular and perhaps segmented.
>>
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Steorn Orbo cube phone-charger ~$1300

[Esa Ruoho]

Another Steorn video pops up on Facebook, here's another transcript.



https://www.facebook.com/thebatteryisdead/videos/10153398806872672/


"some additional details of the Orbo power cell", Transcribed by Esa Juhani
Ruoho / esaru...@icloud.com / http://lackluster.bandcamp.com/


OK so a lot of people are asking what's the difference between an Orbo
power cell and traditional batteries. Traditional batteries come in two
basic forms, what are known as primary batteries, or disposable batteries,
which, once you have drained the energy, they're disposable, you throw them
away - you should recycle them. Secondary batteries are the types of
batteries that you would see in things like your phone or in power-cubes
and so forth. Typically Lithium-Ion or Lithium-Polymer technology, and the
difference is once you've drained the energy in them, you can actually
re-charge them and replenish the energy.


What is common between primary and secondary batteries is that the energy
stored in them and they are empty storage devices - is stored as a
electro-chemical process. So, the output of these types of batteries in
terms of voltage is ultimately defined the inherent chemistry that it's
using.


What is different about an Orbo power cell, and again, we showed a brief
example of building, hand-building a very simple cell is that, first of
all, it is not an electrochemical device, so there is no ion transfer,
there's no electrolyte and so forth. It is based on the electromagnetic
field. And the second and probably the most difficult to accept aspect of
it is that it is an energy-generating device rather than an energy-storage
device.


What we showed in the clip building the tiny, hand-building the tiny little
cell, was a cell that had a voltage, an open-circuit voltage of VOC .3 .4
of a volt. One of the things that we said as we were building that is that
what makes it peculiar is that as you increase the surface area, the VOC
also increases.


So, what we have here is a hand-built version of the same, which is longer
and wound up a bit like a capacitor, and what we'll demonstrate is that the
VOC of this which is a simply, longer strips of the same materials, is at
about 2.5 volts, I think in this case, it's about 2.5, 2.6 volts. That
would be an unexpected result electrochemically, as in, you typically see
voltages of 3,7 volts in Lithium-Ion batteries, 1.2 and so forth, and
again, if we unwound this and cut this in half we would find that the
voltage itself reduced.


Probably the most interesting aspect to demonstrate that the Orbo power
cell is not a traditional battery is that if you short out a traditional
battery for an extended period of time, ultimately you drain all or
virtually all of the electrochemical energy that's stored in it. And so, if
you short it out and leave it for an extended period of time, remove the
short and then measure it, you'll find that the voltage is either
significantly below it's inherent voltage, or if it's left long enough, it
will be series. So, in order to demonstrate the fundamental difference
between an Orbo power cell and the traditional battery, what we're going to
do is short it out, and we're going to leave it shorted out approximately
30 minutes, and then demonstrate that the voltage in open-circuit
immediately bounces back to this 2.5 odd volts.


So, all that I'm doing here is shorting the positive and negative and as
you can see on the scope, as expected, we go to zero volts or very close to
zero volts, about a few milli-volts which is simply the offset of the
oscilloscope of itself, and we'll leave this running for 30 minutes.


(screen says: (Recorded over 36 minutes))


Ok, so we've had this Orbo power cell shorted out now for I think about 30
minutes. So, what I'm going to do is remove the short, simply pull the
wires apart, and what you'll notice is that we're immediately back to our
2.5 volt voltage level. What you would expect if this was an energy storage
device such as a capacitor, is obviously we would've drained the capacitor
at this stage, it's been 30 minutes in short circuit - or - if it was a
traditional electrochemical cell, we would see at least some drop-off in
voltage, but probably after 30 minutes, a very significant drop-off of
voltage.


What we're really demonstrating here is that unlike a traditional battery,
what Orbo really is is an energy generation technology. In terms of what it
looks like in it's production format, is that we aim for each cell to
produce 2 and a half volts, and our standard Orbo power-cell is a 5 volt
device, so it is two of these, professionally manufactured and
encapsulated, that produce 5 volts, so it's two in series, so again, just
to demonstrate that, that if I take the product-sized version of this, what
you can see is a - just over a five-volt output. Again, 5 volt is chosen
because our primary target market for this is mobile consumer electronics.

Re: [Vo]:Antigravity started at Vortex - Fluxliner

[Blaze Spinnaker]

Hey where was that great email about Wolfram.  Why am I not getting in
email?

The people complain about LENR censorship.  LOL!

On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 11:20 AM, John Berry  wrote:

> Way back when multiple people apparently replicated the capwarp
> successfully, reporting their results in Vort.
>
> I recall one guy even made a capacitor using the pages of a book as the
> dielectric and claimed results.
> http://amasci.com/caps/capwarp.html
>
> Well now there is a fascinating claim that a segmented circular capacitor
> is at the heart of "alien reproduction vehicle" demoed at an exclusive
> airshow in the 80's made by the US military contractors, much inline with
> what Ben Rich, second director of Skunkworks has said, that we have built
> the craft to go to the stars already.  And General Wesley Clark, the kind
> of brass who might have attended an air show like the one in the following
> video has said when he was running for president that his only faith based
> initiative is that FTL travel is possible.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZM8YsBiOw1c
>
> This second video has more of McCandlish , and the second link points to a
> part where an HV cap loses all weight, tried by a college student.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUVoWlSHkg4   especially from
> https://youtu.be/SUVoWlSHkg4?t=2709
>
> In an old Rex Research infolio I bought in the 90;'s, there was an account
> of a science fare project by a Doyle (or Boyle?) who made an HV cap with
> polystyrene insulation, and it lost weight, but unlike Brown's research, it
> lost weight no mater which pole was up.
>
> I also read about some of Brown's work where he distinguished between some
> portion that was directional thrust, and another portion that was a
> straight weight loss.
>
> I can expand these correlations further but this is enough to show that
> there is likely something to this.
> While he magnitude of the effect seems to be dependent on the material
> used as dielectric (ironically heavier is better) and the capacitor being
> circular and perhaps segmented.
>
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

[mixent]

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Tue, 8 Dec 2015 20:00:24 -0600:
Hi,
[snip]
>That would also create daughters with much higher energies.  A nice thing 
>about the lower energies involved in alpha captures is that the daughters end 
>up having ~ 300 keV/nucleon, which is not that much.  Also, 2 D's and 4 H's 
>require 3-body and 5-body reactions, which seem improbable to me.

If they are bound together in shrunken molecules it is only a two body reaction.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

[Eric Walker]

On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 2:39 PM,  wrote:

IOW the barrier does work in two directions (due to the two forces at
> work), but
> is never named accordingly. So I suspect that it's just the naming
> convention
> that is confusing you.
>

When calculating the tunneling probability of an alpha particle, the width
of the Coulomb barrier is an important term in the calculation.  The
tunneling rate ranges from fractions of a second to billions of years as a
result of small changes in this term. The Coulomb barrier width extends far
beyond the reach of the nuclear force, which is on the order of ~ 1 fm.  If
the nuclear force were the only thing keeping the alpha particle within the
potential well of the nucleus, one would expect any geometrical
considerations in the calculation to extend beyond the nucleus itself on
the order of ~ 1 fm, which is far from the case in this calculation.

I think we went over this ground earlier, and I'm having trouble finding
your reply.  Of course, you could very well be correct, and I will keep an
open mind.

Eric

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

[mixent]

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Wed, 9 Dec 2015 16:06:32 -0600:
Hi,
[snip]
>In oblong nuclei, there is an angular dependency on the alpha tunneling 
>probability.  Alpha particles are more likely to tunnel out of poles of such 
>nuclei rather than at the circumference.  Krane writes, "Since many 
>alpha-emitting nuclei are deformed, these angular distribution measurements 
>can also help us to answer another question: if we assume a stable prolate 
>(elongated) nucleus, will more alpha's be emitted from the poles or from the 
>equator?  Figure 8.9 suggests a possible answer to this question: at the 
>larger radius of the poles, the alpha particle feels a weaker Coulomb 
>potential and therefore must penetrate a thinner and lower barrier."
>I read this to mean that Krane believes that it is the Coulomb potential and 
>not the nuclear potential that is thinner and therefore easier to traverse at 
>the poles.  Do you disagree?

1) I'm curious as to how they know that tunneling from the poles is more likely,
given that they can't actually see what's going on. (Perhaps the anisotropy
shows up in experiments done in a strong magnetic field?)

2) If the nucleus is oblong because it is spinning, then particles at the poles
will be subject to a stronger centrifugal force.

3) Note that he only suggests the barrier is thinner as a *possible*
explanation, implying possibly that no one knows for sure.

4) A positively charged particle at a pole will feel the repulsive force of
*all* the other positively charged nucleons in the nucleus, pushing in the same
direction. A particle at the equator, will feel approximately equal numbers of
particles pushing from the one pole as from the other, so the repulsive forces
tend to counteract one another. 
At the equator there will be some component of the repulsive forces that is
perpendicular to the long axis, i.e. pointing out of the equator, but that will
be small compared to the absolute magnitude of the force. (sine of a small
angle).


5) In short, I doubt the validity of the proffered explanation.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:The conspiracies do exist!

[Lennart Thornros]

OK Blaze we do not want you to despair:)
I think this is (unfortunately) not a conspiracy. That is how our modern
world works. We have directed all the money to one entity. Now there is
only one way to influence the future. Electrical cars or medicine or risk
analysis does not matter what is correct as you know that the one with the
best connections and the biggest wallet will set the stage as it suits his
interests.
Conspiracy no - a one party state yes.Do not say there is two parties -
they have both the same ambition to be reelected. Everything is of no
interest.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)


On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Chris Zell  wrote:

> I would point out that this prostitution can extend in any direction.
> Recall that in the documentary, “Who Killed The Electric Car?” there was an
> academic who came forward to California authorities and spoke glowingly
> about the promise of fuel cells so that the EV-1 could be eliminated and
> destroyed.
>
>
>
> Of course, here we are decades later with no mass use of such technology
> on our roads.  I hope he was well paid for his betrayal.
>

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

[mixent]

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Wed, 9 Dec 2015 15:11:42 -0600:
Hi,
[snip]
>On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 2:39 PM,  wrote:
>
>IOW the barrier does work in two directions (due to the two forces at
>> work), but
>> is never named accordingly. So I suspect that it's just the naming
>> convention
>> that is confusing you.
>>
>
>When calculating the tunneling probability of an alpha particle, the width
>of the Coulomb barrier is an important term in the calculation.  The
>tunneling rate ranges from fractions of a second to billions of years as a
>result of small changes in this term. The Coulomb barrier width extends far
>beyond the reach of the nuclear force, which is on the order of ~ 1 fm.  If
>the nuclear force were the only thing keeping the alpha particle within the
>potential well of the nucleus, one would expect any geometrical
>considerations in the calculation to extend beyond the nucleus itself on
>the order of ~ 1 fm, which is far from the case in this calculation.
>
>I think we went over this ground earlier, and I'm having trouble finding
>your reply.  Of course, you could very well be correct, and I will keep an
>open mind.

Yes we did. :) When the width of the barrier is calculated, it is based upon the
energy remaining to the alpha particle once it has escaped. The lower that
energy, the longer is the half life.
Note however that if a particle once having escaped only has a little energy
left, then it apparently didn't have much to start with. If it didn't have much
to start with, then it's not surprising that it found it difficult to overcome
the nuclear barrier, hence the long half life.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

[Vo]:Wiki2 - Wikipedia Republished

[Daniel Rocha]

Maybe there is some hope...

https://en.wiki2.org/

-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

[David Roberson]

Guys, what would you expect to happen if the identity of individual nucleons is 
lost once they enter the nucleus?  Since each is supposed to be constructed 
from 3 quarks, it may be logical to assume that nearby nucleons behave as one 
greater one composed of 6 or more quarks.  How would one prove that each proton 
and neutron keeps its identity separate?

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: mixent 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Dec 9, 2015 10:00 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Wed, 9 Dec 2015 20:49:09 -0600:
Hi,
[snip]
>Understood.  I only wanted to get agreement on what Krane's understanding
>is.  I think Krane's understanding is the mainstream position. This is not
>necessarily the correct one, but it's good to know what it is if one is
>going to take a position against it.
>
>Given the extreme subtleties of the experimental data in this particular
>field and the success of practitioners in untangling a number of details,
>I'm personally inclined to go with Krane's understanding as a first pass,
>but this doesn't mean everyone should.
>
>Eric

I just thought of something else, which might better align with Krane's
explanation.

The nuclear force is very short range. In an elongated nucleus the curvature of
the surface at the poles is greater than the curvature at the equator. That
means that particles at the poles have on average fewer neighbors than those at
the equator, so the nuclear binding force they feel is also weaker. This
combined with the increased Coulomb repulsion makes the barrier thinner
(actually, it makes it lower, but the effect is the same).

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

RE: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

[Jones Beene]

From: Eric Walker 

 

The nuclear force is very short range.

 

Ø  Here is where I'm inclined to part with conventional wisdom.  Consider that 
1 barn is the approximate area of a medium-sized nucleus presented to an 
oncoming neutron, that nuclei such as 135Xe have neutron-capture cross sections 
of 1e6 barns, and that with a neutron the Coulomb interaction is not involved.  

 

Eric – 

 

This is arguable not true. A degree of Coulomb interaction can be involved at 
close range with neutrons due to the spatial geometry of charge distribution.

 

Don’t forget the neutron has a magnetic moment, and therefore has at least a 
near-field or segmented charge. Luis Alvarez discovered the neutron's magnetic 
moment many moons ago, and there is no doubt about this detail.

 

Now consider at the implications of having magnetic moment and zero net charge. 
For a particle to have an intrinsic magnetic moment, it must have both spin and 
electric charge at some level. The neutron has half spin, but no net charge. 
Now– place the emphasis on the “net” in net charge…

 

… so that when we consider that the neutron is composed of three charged quarks 
 “no net charge” is a relative statement. Consequently, the smaller negative 
down quark charge (of two down quarks) is technically balanced by the larger up 
charge of one quark – but there is spatial imbalance at femtometers geometry of 
this charge due to the location of charge carriers vis-à-vis the center of 
mass. This is a charge imbalance at close range. 

 

A similar oddity is seen when a deuteron approaches another deuteron – there is 
a bit of geometric shielding of net positive repulsion which is provided by the 
neutrons of either nucleon, which only appears at close range. 

 

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

[Eric Walker]

On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 8:26 PM,  wrote:

1) I'm curious as to how they know that tunneling from the poles is more
> likely,
> given that they can't actually see what's going on. (Perhaps the anisotropy
> shows up in experiments done in a strong magnetic field?)
>

Yes -- this type of experiment requires first aligning the magnetic dipole
or electric quadrupole moments of the alpha-emitting nuclei in a magnetic
field or a crystalline electric field gradient. In order to keep the spins
aligned they must keep the atoms below 0.01 K.

2) If the nucleus is oblong because it is spinning, then particles at the
> poles
> will be subject to a stronger centrifugal force.
>

I get the impression they were looking at deformed nuclei, whose ground
states are oblong.

3) Note that he only suggests the barrier is thinner as a *possible*
> explanation, implying possibly that no one knows for sure.
>

True.


> 4) A positively charged particle at a pole will feel the repulsive force of
> *all* the other positively charged nucleons in the nucleus, pushing in the
> same
> direction. A particle at the equator, will feel approximately equal
> numbers of
> particles pushing from the one pole as from the other, so the repulsive
> forces
> tend to counteract one another.
> At the equator there will be some component of the repulsive forces that is
> perpendicular to the long axis, i.e. pointing out of the equator, but that
> will
> be small compared to the absolute magnitude of the force. (sine of a small
> angle).
>

Yes, I imagine this is possible.

5) In short, I doubt the validity of the proffered explanation.
>

Understood.  I only wanted to get agreement on what Krane's understanding
is.  I think Krane's understanding is the mainstream position. This is not
necessarily the correct one, but it's good to know what it is if one is
going to take a position against it.

Given the extreme subtleties of the experimental data in this particular
field and the success of practitioners in untangling a number of details,
I'm personally inclined to go with Krane's understanding as a first pass,
but this doesn't mean everyone should.

Eric

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

[Eric Walker]

On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 9:06 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

Guys, what would you expect to happen if the identity of individual
> nucleons is lost once they enter the nucleus?


There is an assumption that the identity is lost, in a sense. Through meson
exchange, neutrons are thought to regularly become protons and vice versa,
very rapidly, and it might be considered experimentally impossible to keep
track of any one nucleon over time.

Since each is supposed to be constructed from 3 quarks, it may be logical
> to assume that nearby nucleons behave as one greater one composed of 6 or
> more quarks.  How would one prove that each proton and neutron keeps its
> identity separate?
>

I think the current understanding is that by using probes with sufficient
energy to "see" individual nucleons rather than the nucleus as a whole
(e.g., using electrons accelerated to very high energies), the data are
consistent with nucleons containing three valence quarks.  Beyond this I
don't know much more.

Eric

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

[David Roberson]

I realize I am asking strange questions, but sometimes it pays off to consider 
alternate ideas.

For example, is 12 a magic number when it comes to the number of quarks in one 
grouping?  Since alpha particles are emitted during some radioactive decays but 
no D's, perhaps 12 is magic while 6 is not strongly bound as an individual 
group.   The 6 quark combination of proton and neutron must be more firmly 
connected to the remainder of the nucleus than to each other.

We typically think of an alpha particle as composed of 4 units, when it might 
make sense to consider it 12 quarks of the best possible combination.  The 
binding energy of helium is unique when compared to other elements.  Just 
speculation. :-)

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Dec 9, 2015 10:21 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?




On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 9:06 PM, David Roberson  wrote:


Guys, what would you expect to happen if the identity of individual nucleons is 
lost once they enter the nucleus?


There is an assumption that the identity is lost, in a sense. Through meson 
exchange, neutrons are thought to regularly become protons and vice versa, very 
rapidly, and it might be considered experimentally impossible to keep track of 
any one nucleon over time.


Since each is supposed to be constructed from 3 quarks, it may be logical to 
assume that nearby nucleons behave as one greater one composed of 6 or more 
quarks.  How would one prove that each proton and neutron keeps its identity 
separate?





I think the current understanding is that by using probes with sufficient 
energy to "see" individual nucleons rather than the nucleus as a whole (e.g., 
using electrons accelerated to very high energies), the data are consistent 
with nucleons containing three valence quarks.  Beyond this I don't know much 
more.


Eric

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

[mixent]

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Wed, 9 Dec 2015 20:49:09 -0600:
Hi,
[snip]
>Understood.  I only wanted to get agreement on what Krane's understanding
>is.  I think Krane's understanding is the mainstream position. This is not
>necessarily the correct one, but it's good to know what it is if one is
>going to take a position against it.
>
>Given the extreme subtleties of the experimental data in this particular
>field and the success of practitioners in untangling a number of details,
>I'm personally inclined to go with Krane's understanding as a first pass,
>but this doesn't mean everyone should.
>
>Eric

I just thought of something else, which might better align with Krane's
explanation.

The nuclear force is very short range. In an elongated nucleus the curvature of
the surface at the poles is greater than the curvature at the equator. That
means that particles at the poles have on average fewer neighbors than those at
the equator, so the nuclear binding force they feel is also weaker. This
combined with the increased Coulomb repulsion makes the barrier thinner
(actually, it makes it lower, but the effect is the same).

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

[Eric Walker]

On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 9:00 PM,  wrote:

The nuclear force is very short range.


Here is where I'm inclined to part with conventional wisdom.  Consider that
1 barn is the approximate area of a medium-sized nucleus presented to an
oncoming neutron, that nuclei such as 135Xe have neutron-capture cross
sections of 1e6 barns, and that with a neutron the Coulomb interaction is
not involved.  It seems to me that the nuclear force must be working at
longer distance than the usual 1 fm that is mentioned.  Perhaps a more
nuanced analysis would show that it works on very fast nuclei at short
distances and on slower-moving nuclei at longer distances.

Eric

[Vo]:Fw: new message

[kowalskiL]

Hey!

 

Open message 

 

kowals...@mail.montclair.edu