Re: [Vo]: Collective Phenomena
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Sat, 21 Dec 2013 08:28:54 -0800: Hi, [snip] >This sounds a little like a rogue wave phenomenon [1]; Jones mentioned >something similar sometime back [2]. I'm personally guessing the planets >in the simulation are being ejected because of a gradual floating point >error (I think James Bowery alluded to this) or just insufficiently >sophisticated handling of the startup of the system. > Things do occasionally get ejected from the Oort cloud. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]: Collective Phenomena
One of the things that concerns me is the lack of attention paid to Carver Mead's "Collective Electrodynamics" in which he extends the formal rigor of the vector potential. On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: > Eric, your description is basically correct. However, you are not aware > of all that has been observed and reported. In addition, the role of > transmutation in producing radiation is only now being realized. The small > amount of radiation is real and important to understanding the process. > However, it is not what is expected from hot fusion. > > CF is not like any nuclear process that has been observed or explained in > the past. We are looking at an entirely new phenomenon. Physicists simply > have not realized this fact. They keep tying to fit the process into their > models based on how hot fusion behaves. What is worse, people apply ideas > to CF that are in basic conflict with how nature normally behaves. CF is > not an exception to what we know. Is simply a phenomenon that has been > overlooked and ignored in the past because conventional "theory" said it > could not happen. (Yes Jones, this incorrect theory is based on QM.) We > only need to make a few changes in conventional theory to fit all the > observation into one understanding. > > Yes Eric, local energy can be released so rapidly, that local melting can > occur. This only happens where the concentration of NAE is very high, as a > result of the random distribution of NAE on the surface creating a few hot > spots. The fact that melting is possible shows that energy can be generated > by CF at temperatures up to the melting point of the surface. However, this > temperature is much less than the melting point of pure Pd. This is an > important conclusion having an impact on how the theory of the process has > to be structured. > > Ed Storms > > On Dec 22, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 1:36 AM, John Franks wrote: > > Really, the MB distribution should allow for these outliers then CF would >> be happening with a non-vanishing probability. >> > > I think you're referring to what goes on in nature, outside of CF labs, on > the assumption that cold fusion does not occur? If so, this I do not think > that we can peremptorily rule out cold fusion occurring in nature at this > point. > > >> I am still struggling with the putative process and the result,, which >> should give off gamma rays, neutrons and locally vaporise the lattice. >> > > There are several results -- the results that physicists insist should be > seen for CF to be real (1), the results that explanations should be aiming > to handle (2) and the results that are actually observed (3). > >1. Results that physicists have insisted should be seen in cold >fusion: copious gammas, neutrons, fast charged particles, byproducts >commensurate with the known branching ratios. >2. The results that explanations should be aiming to handle: the >results that are actually observed in the lab (3) and not the ones that >physicists insist should be seen (1). >3. The results that are actually observed: > >1. evolution of heat out of a system beyond what can be chemically > stored within it if it were, for example, a container of petroleum fuel > or > a very high-capacity battery; > 2. a very small number of gammas and charged particles, several > orders of magnitude below what would be needed to account for the > calorimetric measurements; > 3. in PdD systems, 4He embedded within the outer layers of the Pd > cathode in amounts beyond those seen in controls; > 4. in PdD systems, off-gas that includes an amount of 4He above > background levels commensurate with the heat measured if there were > d(d,ɣ)4He fusion reactions going on. > 5. in NiH systems, apparently heat, no gammas, and transmutations > (beyond this, we don't know much). > > An important point to emphasize here is that there are very few gammas and > fast particles. This is what is observed. The basic facts that an > explanation must contend with (assuming there is only one), then, are heat > beyond what is seen in known chemical reactions, and no gammas and charged > particles above a very low threshold. There are also interesting > observations of tritium and transmutations, but these observations seem to > be quite context dependent. > > Several studies have documented lattice dislocation sites and whole > regions that have been vaporized. Mizuno includes an interesting image of > one vaporization site on the cover of his book [1]. > > Eric > > [1] > http://www.amazon.com/Nuclear-Transmutation-Reality-Cold-Fusion/dp/1892925001 > > >
Re: [Vo]: Collective Phenomena
Eric, your description is basically correct. However, you are not aware of all that has been observed and reported. In addition, the role of transmutation in producing radiation is only now being realized. The small amount of radiation is real and important to understanding the process. However, it is not what is expected from hot fusion. CF is not like any nuclear process that has been observed or explained in the past. We are looking at an entirely new phenomenon. Physicists simply have not realized this fact. They keep tying to fit the process into their models based on how hot fusion behaves. What is worse, people apply ideas to CF that are in basic conflict with how nature normally behaves. CF is not an exception to what we know. Is simply a phenomenon that has been overlooked and ignored in the past because conventional "theory" said it could not happen. (Yes Jones, this incorrect theory is based on QM.) We only need to make a few changes in conventional theory to fit all the observation into one understanding. Yes Eric, local energy can be released so rapidly, that local melting can occur. This only happens where the concentration of NAE is very high, as a result of the random distribution of NAE on the surface creating a few hot spots. The fact that melting is possible shows that energy can be generated by CF at temperatures up to the melting point of the surface. However, this temperature is much less than the melting point of pure Pd. This is an important conclusion having an impact on how the theory of the process has to be structured. Ed Storms On Dec 22, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Eric Walker wrote: On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 1:36 AM, John Franks wrote: Really, the MB distribution should allow for these outliers then CF would be happening with a non-vanishing probability. I think you're referring to what goes on in nature, outside of CF labs, on the assumption that cold fusion does not occur? If so, this I do not think that we can peremptorily rule out cold fusion occurring in nature at this point. I am still struggling with the putative process and the result,, which should give off gamma rays, neutrons and locally vaporise the lattice. There are several results -- the results that physicists insist should be seen for CF to be real (1), the results that explanations should be aiming to handle (2) and the results that are actually observed (3). Results that physicists have insisted should be seen in cold fusion: copious gammas, neutrons, fast charged particles, byproducts commensurate with the known branching ratios. The results that explanations should be aiming to handle: the results that are actually observed in the lab (3) and not the ones that physicists insist should be seen (1). The results that are actually observed: evolution of heat out of a system beyond what can be chemically stored within it if it were, for example, a container of petroleum fuel or a very high-capacity battery; a very small number of gammas and charged particles, several orders of magnitude below what would be needed to account for the calorimetric measurements; in PdD systems, 4He embedded within the outer layers of the Pd cathode in amounts beyond those seen in controls; in PdD systems, off-gas that includes an amount of 4He above background levels commensurate with the heat measured if there were d(d,ɣ)4He fusion reactions going on. in NiH systems, apparently heat, no gammas, and transmutations (beyond this, we don't know much). An important point to emphasize here is that there are very few gammas and fast particles. This is what is observed. The basic facts that an explanation must contend with (assuming there is only one), then, are heat beyond what is seen in known chemical reactions, and no gammas and charged particles above a very low threshold. There are also interesting observations of tritium and transmutations, but these observations seem to be quite context dependent. Several studies have documented lattice dislocation sites and whole regions that have been vaporized. Mizuno includes an interesting image of one vaporization site on the cover of his book [1]. Eric [1] http://www.amazon.com/Nuclear-Transmutation-Reality-Cold-Fusion/dp/1892925001
Re: [Vo]: Collective Phenomena
On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 1:36 AM, John Franks wrote: Really, the MB distribution should allow for these outliers then CF would > be happening with a non-vanishing probability. > I think you're referring to what goes on in nature, outside of CF labs, on the assumption that cold fusion does not occur? If so, this I do not think that we can peremptorily rule out cold fusion occurring in nature at this point. > I am still struggling with the putative process and the result,, which > should give off gamma rays, neutrons and locally vaporise the lattice. > There are several results -- the results that physicists insist should be seen for CF to be real (1), the results that explanations should be aiming to handle (2) and the results that are actually observed (3). 1. Results that physicists have insisted should be seen in cold fusion: copious gammas, neutrons, fast charged particles, byproducts commensurate with the known branching ratios. 2. The results that explanations should be aiming to handle: the results that are actually observed in the lab (3) and not the ones that physicists insist should be seen (1). 3. The results that are actually observed: 1. evolution of heat out of a system beyond what can be chemically stored within it if it were, for example, a container of petroleum fuel or a very high-capacity battery; 2. a very small number of gammas and charged particles, several orders of magnitude below what would be needed to account for the calorimetric measurements; 3. in PdD systems, 4He embedded within the outer layers of the Pd cathode in amounts beyond those seen in controls; 4. in PdD systems, off-gas that includes an amount of 4He above background levels commensurate with the heat measured if there were d(d,ɣ)4He fusion reactions going on. 5. in NiH systems, apparently heat, no gammas, and transmutations (beyond this, we don't know much). An important point to emphasize here is that there are very few gammas and fast particles. This is what is observed. The basic facts that an explanation must contend with (assuming there is only one), then, are heat beyond what is seen in known chemical reactions, and no gammas and charged particles above a very low threshold. There are also interesting observations of tritium and transmutations, but these observations seem to be quite context dependent. Several studies have documented lattice dislocation sites and whole regions that have been vaporized. Mizuno includes an interesting image of one vaporization site on the cover of his book [1]. Eric [1] http://www.amazon.com/Nuclear-Transmutation-Reality-Cold-Fusion/dp/1892925001
Re: [Vo]: Collective Phenomena
*I am still struggling with the putative process and the result,, which should give off gamma rays, neutrons and locally vaporise the lattice* In many solid lattice LENR systems, all that negative behavior does happen and those static systems only work for a short time before they deteriorate. But in dynamically rebuild nano-particle systems, the nuclear active areas are constantly reworked by a spark or a heat pulse. On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 4:36 AM, John Franks wrote: > Really, the MB distribution should allow for these outliers then CF would > be happening with a non-vanishing probability. The electrons obey FD > statistics but contribute a small amount to the heat capacity. So there > again I cannot see a mechanism, even if they were to switch between MB and > FD. > > I am still struggling with the putative process and the result,, which > should give off gamma rays, neutrons and locally vaporise the lattice. > > > On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 1:59 AM, David Roberson wrote: > >> This concept is going to take a while to develop. The first question >> that comes to mind is whether or not repulsive forces that vary as 1/R^2 >> work in a similar fashion to attractive ones. This will take some >> simulation. In the case of planets, all of the interacting bodies attract >> each other. Wiki has an interesting article concerning "gravity assist" >> that is worth reading. It reveals how the process works with space ships. >> >> The other issue that has long escaped my understanding is the >> photoelectric effect that Einstein explained to get his Nobel prize. He >> used this phenomena to more or less prove that photons of light behave as >> particles. Each particle resulted in the emission of one electron instead >> of sharing the energy among a multitude of them residing on the surface of >> the metal. >> >> The wavelength of the incoming light is far larger than the size of a >> single electron yet only one receives the photon energy and is ejected. I >> still do not understand why this is so. >> >> Is it possible that other many body reactions exist that can give a large >> quantity of the shared energy to one member? If this is true, then one >> might expect the inverse reaction to also occur which would be able to >> explain why the fusion energy is released into the larger body of particles >> instead of having to be emitted as one energetic gamma. Perhaps it is time >> to look into the emission of gamma rays from nickel nuclei to see if there >> is anything suspicious occurring. >> >> This exercise will likely lead to a dead end, but it could offer some >> helpful insight. >> >> Dave >> >> >> >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: John Franks >> To: vortex-l >> Sent: Sat, Dec 21, 2013 8:31 pm >> Subject: Re: [Vo]: Collective Phenomena >> >> So if that little guy is a proton against the 10^8 -10^9 collective of >> other protons with thermal energy 25meV or so, that gets you in the ball >> park... >> >> What are the conditions to make this so - H2 loading, cracks, a lattice >> over say a liquid (no-one uses Hg). Any other pointers? >> >> Still having trouble with what happens after the reaction because of >> the femto level it is free space compared to the lattice on the 0.1nm level >> and the thermal wavelength of the heavy nuclei can't be making them overlap >> to behave collectively. >> >> >> On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 1:13 AM, David Roberson wrote: >> >>> ... >> >> When one of the bodies is much smaller than the other two, the little guy >>> can be sent packing in a hurry. >>> >>> Dave >>> >>> >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: John Franks >>> To: vortex-l >>> Sent: Sat, Dec 21, 2013 11:43 am >>> Subject: Re: [Vo]: Collective Phenomena >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_drift >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Eric Walker wrote: >>> >>>> Hi :) >>>> >>>> On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 8:05 AM, John Franks wrote: >>>> >>>> I was thinking about your desire to have quasi-particles, which are >>>>> low energy collective phenomena operating over several 10s of nm, somehow >>>>> do the impossible and behave like a real particle with reduced charge etc. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Personally, I think the quasi-particle lead is a red herring when it >>>> comes to explaining LENR.
Re: [Vo]: Collective Phenomena
Really, the MB distribution should allow for these outliers then CF would be happening with a non-vanishing probability. The electrons obey FD statistics but contribute a small amount to the heat capacity. So there again I cannot see a mechanism, even if they were to switch between MB and FD. I am still struggling with the putative process and the result,, which should give off gamma rays, neutrons and locally vaporise the lattice. On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 1:59 AM, David Roberson wrote: > This concept is going to take a while to develop. The first question > that comes to mind is whether or not repulsive forces that vary as 1/R^2 > work in a similar fashion to attractive ones. This will take some > simulation. In the case of planets, all of the interacting bodies attract > each other. Wiki has an interesting article concerning "gravity assist" > that is worth reading. It reveals how the process works with space ships. > > The other issue that has long escaped my understanding is the > photoelectric effect that Einstein explained to get his Nobel prize. He > used this phenomena to more or less prove that photons of light behave as > particles. Each particle resulted in the emission of one electron instead > of sharing the energy among a multitude of them residing on the surface of > the metal. > > The wavelength of the incoming light is far larger than the size of a > single electron yet only one receives the photon energy and is ejected. I > still do not understand why this is so. > > Is it possible that other many body reactions exist that can give a large > quantity of the shared energy to one member? If this is true, then one > might expect the inverse reaction to also occur which would be able to > explain why the fusion energy is released into the larger body of particles > instead of having to be emitted as one energetic gamma. Perhaps it is time > to look into the emission of gamma rays from nickel nuclei to see if there > is anything suspicious occurring. > > This exercise will likely lead to a dead end, but it could offer some > helpful insight. > > Dave > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: John Franks > To: vortex-l > Sent: Sat, Dec 21, 2013 8:31 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]: Collective Phenomena > > So if that little guy is a proton against the 10^8 -10^9 collective of > other protons with thermal energy 25meV or so, that gets you in the ball > park... > > What are the conditions to make this so - H2 loading, cracks, a lattice > over say a liquid (no-one uses Hg). Any other pointers? > > Still having trouble with what happens after the reaction because of the > femto level it is free space compared to the lattice on the 0.1nm level and > the thermal wavelength of the heavy nuclei can't be making them overlap to > behave collectively. > > > On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 1:13 AM, David Roberson wrote: > >> ... > > When one of the bodies is much smaller than the other two, the little guy >> can be sent packing in a hurry. >> >> Dave >> >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: John Franks >> To: vortex-l >> Sent: Sat, Dec 21, 2013 11:43 am >> Subject: Re: [Vo]: Collective Phenomena >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_drift >> >> >> On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Eric Walker wrote: >> >>> Hi :) >>> >>> On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 8:05 AM, John Franks wrote: >>> >>> I was thinking about your desire to have quasi-particles, which are >>>> low energy collective phenomena operating over several 10s of nm, somehow >>>> do the impossible and behave like a real particle with reduced charge etc. >>>> >>> >>> Personally, I think the quasi-particle lead is a red herring when it >>> comes to explaining LENR. I understand that quasi-particles are only very >>> weakly bound -- the binding energy being much less than an eV. I also am >>> not impressed by coherent-motion theories. (As a physics dilettante, I >>> have no basis for not being impressed. I'm just not.) >>> >>> >>>> I was looking at the wandering planets thread and probably the reason >>>> for the observed ejection is a phenomena called "digital energy drift" >>>> (wiki it). >>>> >>> >>> This sounds a little like a rogue wave phenomenon [1]; Jones mentioned >>> something similar sometime back [2]. I'm personally guessing the planets >>> in the simulation are being ejected because of a gradual floating point >>> error (I think James Bowery alluded to this) or just insufficiently >>> sophisticated handling of the startup of the system. >>> >>> Eric >>> >>> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_wave >>> [2] http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg22649.html >>> >>> >> >
Re: [Vo]: Collective Phenomena
When dealing with photons and electrons, Maxwell equations tell the tale. Photons can be confined close to the surface of a metal when it is insulated by a dialectic gas. The surface electrons can combine with these photons and lose most of their weight. Being near weightless the excitons will readily reach a state of coherence and entanglement. This state of EMF confinement is like a black hole where the light and electrons become very dense and increase in energy over the entire condensate as more excitons are created. This process is the beginning of the LENR reaction. On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 8:59 PM, David Roberson wrote: > This concept is going to take a while to develop. The first question > that comes to mind is whether or not repulsive forces that vary as 1/R^2 > work in a similar fashion to attractive ones. This will take some > simulation. In the case of planets, all of the interacting bodies attract > each other. Wiki has an interesting article concerning "gravity assist" > that is worth reading. It reveals how the process works with space ships. > > The other issue that has long escaped my understanding is the > photoelectric effect that Einstein explained to get his Nobel prize. He > used this phenomena to more or less prove that photons of light behave as > particles. Each particle resulted in the emission of one electron instead > of sharing the energy among a multitude of them residing on the surface of > the metal. > > The wavelength of the incoming light is far larger than the size of a > single electron yet only one receives the photon energy and is ejected. I > still do not understand why this is so. > > Is it possible that other many body reactions exist that can give a large > quantity of the shared energy to one member? If this is true, then one > might expect the inverse reaction to also occur which would be able to > explain why the fusion energy is released into the larger body of particles > instead of having to be emitted as one energetic gamma. Perhaps it is time > to look into the emission of gamma rays from nickel nuclei to see if there > is anything suspicious occurring. > > This exercise will likely lead to a dead end, but it could offer some > helpful insight. > > Dave > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: John Franks > To: vortex-l > Sent: Sat, Dec 21, 2013 8:31 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]: Collective Phenomena > > So if that little guy is a proton against the 10^8 -10^9 collective of > other protons with thermal energy 25meV or so, that gets you in the ball > park... > > What are the conditions to make this so - H2 loading, cracks, a lattice > over say a liquid (no-one uses Hg). Any other pointers? > > Still having trouble with what happens after the reaction because of the > femto level it is free space compared to the lattice on the 0.1nm level and > the thermal wavelength of the heavy nuclei can't be making them overlap to > behave collectively. > > > On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 1:13 AM, David Roberson wrote: > >> ... > > When one of the bodies is much smaller than the other two, the little guy >> can be sent packing in a hurry. >> >> Dave >> >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: John Franks >> To: vortex-l >> Sent: Sat, Dec 21, 2013 11:43 am >> Subject: Re: [Vo]: Collective Phenomena >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_drift >> >> >> On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Eric Walker wrote: >> >>> Hi :) >>> >>> On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 8:05 AM, John Franks wrote: >>> >>> I was thinking about your desire to have quasi-particles, which are >>>> low energy collective phenomena operating over several 10s of nm, somehow >>>> do the impossible and behave like a real particle with reduced charge etc. >>>> >>> >>> Personally, I think the quasi-particle lead is a red herring when it >>> comes to explaining LENR. I understand that quasi-particles are only very >>> weakly bound -- the binding energy being much less than an eV. I also am >>> not impressed by coherent-motion theories. (As a physics dilettante, I >>> have no basis for not being impressed. I'm just not.) >>> >>> >>>> I was looking at the wandering planets thread and probably the reason >>>> for the observed ejection is a phenomena called "digital energy drift" >>>> (wiki it). >>>> >>> >>> This sounds a little like a rogue wave phenomenon [1]; Jones mentioned >>> something similar sometime back [2]. I'm personally guessing the planets >>> in the simulation are being ejected because of a gradual floating point >>> error (I think James Bowery alluded to this) or just insufficiently >>> sophisticated handling of the startup of the system. >>> >>> Eric >>> >>> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_wave >>> [2] http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg22649.html >>> >>> >> >
Re: [Vo]: Collective Phenomena
The motion of free protons inside the lattice might be accelerated by the collective motion of the host lattice. Harry On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 8:31 PM, John Franks wrote: > So if that little guy is a proton against the 10^8 -10^9 collective of > other protons with thermal energy 25meV or so, that gets you in the ball > park... > > What are the conditions to make this so - H2 loading, cracks, a lattice > over say a liquid (no-one uses Hg). Any other pointers? > > Still having trouble with what happens after the reaction because of the > femto level it is free space compared to the lattice on the 0.1nm level and > the thermal wavelength of the heavy nuclei can't be making them overlap to > behave collectively. > > > On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 1:13 AM, David Roberson wrote: > >> ... > > When one of the bodies is much smaller than the other two, the little guy >> can be sent packing in a hurry. >> >> Dave >> >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: John Franks >> To: vortex-l >> Sent: Sat, Dec 21, 2013 11:43 am >> Subject: Re: [Vo]: Collective Phenomena >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_drift >> >> >> On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Eric Walker wrote: >> >>> Hi :) >>> >>> On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 8:05 AM, John Franks wrote: >>> >>> I was thinking about your desire to have quasi-particles, which are >>>> low energy collective phenomena operating over several 10s of nm, somehow >>>> do the impossible and behave like a real particle with reduced charge etc. >>>> >>> >>> Personally, I think the quasi-particle lead is a red herring when it >>> comes to explaining LENR. I understand that quasi-particles are only very >>> weakly bound -- the binding energy being much less than an eV. I also am >>> not impressed by coherent-motion theories. (As a physics dilettante, I >>> have no basis for not being impressed. I'm just not.) >>> >>> >>>> I was looking at the wandering planets thread and probably the reason >>>> for the observed ejection is a phenomena called "digital energy drift" >>>> (wiki it). >>>> >>> >>> This sounds a little like a rogue wave phenomenon [1]; Jones mentioned >>> something similar sometime back [2]. I'm personally guessing the planets >>> in the simulation are being ejected because of a gradual floating point >>> error (I think James Bowery alluded to this) or just insufficiently >>> sophisticated handling of the startup of the system. >>> >>> Eric >>> >>> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_wave >>> [2] http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg22649.html >>> >>> >> >
Re: [Vo]: Collective Phenomena
This concept is going to take a while to develop. The first question that comes to mind is whether or not repulsive forces that vary as 1/R^2 work in a similar fashion to attractive ones. This will take some simulation. In the case of planets, all of the interacting bodies attract each other. Wiki has an interesting article concerning "gravity assist" that is worth reading. It reveals how the process works with space ships. The other issue that has long escaped my understanding is the photoelectric effect that Einstein explained to get his Nobel prize. He used this phenomena to more or less prove that photons of light behave as particles. Each particle resulted in the emission of one electron instead of sharing the energy among a multitude of them residing on the surface of the metal. The wavelength of the incoming light is far larger than the size of a single electron yet only one receives the photon energy and is ejected. I still do not understand why this is so. Is it possible that other many body reactions exist that can give a large quantity of the shared energy to one member? If this is true, then one might expect the inverse reaction to also occur which would be able to explain why the fusion energy is released into the larger body of particles instead of having to be emitted as one energetic gamma. Perhaps it is time to look into the emission of gamma rays from nickel nuclei to see if there is anything suspicious occurring. This exercise will likely lead to a dead end, but it could offer some helpful insight. Dave -Original Message- From: John Franks To: vortex-l Sent: Sat, Dec 21, 2013 8:31 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: Collective Phenomena So if that little guy is a proton against the 10^8 -10^9 collective of other protons with thermal energy 25meV or so, that gets you in the ball park... What are the conditions to make this so - H2 loading, cracks, a lattice over say a liquid (no-one uses Hg). Any other pointers? Still having trouble with what happens after the reaction because of the femto level it is free space compared to the lattice on the 0.1nm level and the thermal wavelength of the heavy nuclei can't be making them overlap to behave collectively. On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 1:13 AM, David Roberson wrote: ... When one of the bodies is much smaller than the other two, the little guy can be sent packing in a hurry. Dave -Original Message- From: John Franks To: vortex-l Sent: Sat, Dec 21, 2013 11:43 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: Collective Phenomena http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_drift On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Eric Walker wrote: Hi :) On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 8:05 AM, John Franks wrote: I was thinking about your desire to have quasi-particles, which are low energy collective phenomena operating over several 10s of nm, somehow do the impossible and behave like a real particle with reduced charge etc. Personally, I think the quasi-particle lead is a red herring when it comes to explaining LENR. I understand that quasi-particles are only very weakly bound -- the binding energy being much less than an eV. I also am not impressed by coherent-motion theories. (As a physics dilettante, I have no basis for not being impressed. I'm just not.) I was looking at the wandering planets thread and probably the reason for the observed ejection is a phenomena called "digital energy drift" (wiki it). This sounds a little like a rogue wave phenomenon [1]; Jones mentioned something similar sometime back [2]. I'm personally guessing the planets in the simulation are being ejected because of a gradual floating point error (I think James Bowery alluded to this) or just insufficiently sophisticated handling of the startup of the system. Eric [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_wave [2] http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg22649.html
Re: [Vo]: Collective Phenomena
So if that little guy is a proton against the 10^8 -10^9 collective of other protons with thermal energy 25meV or so, that gets you in the ball park... What are the conditions to make this so - H2 loading, cracks, a lattice over say a liquid (no-one uses Hg). Any other pointers? Still having trouble with what happens after the reaction because of the femto level it is free space compared to the lattice on the 0.1nm level and the thermal wavelength of the heavy nuclei can't be making them overlap to behave collectively. On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 1:13 AM, David Roberson wrote: > ... When one of the bodies is much smaller than the other two, the little guy > can be sent packing in a hurry. > > Dave > > > > -Original Message- > From: John Franks > To: vortex-l > Sent: Sat, Dec 21, 2013 11:43 am > Subject: Re: [Vo]: Collective Phenomena > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_drift > > > On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > >> Hi :) >> >> On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 8:05 AM, John Franks wrote: >> >> I was thinking about your desire to have quasi-particles, which are low >>> energy collective phenomena operating over several 10s of nm, somehow do >>> the impossible and behave like a real particle with reduced charge etc. >>> >> >> Personally, I think the quasi-particle lead is a red herring when it >> comes to explaining LENR. I understand that quasi-particles are only very >> weakly bound -- the binding energy being much less than an eV. I also am >> not impressed by coherent-motion theories. (As a physics dilettante, I >> have no basis for not being impressed. I'm just not.) >> >> >>> I was looking at the wandering planets thread and probably the reason >>> for the observed ejection is a phenomena called "digital energy drift" >>> (wiki it). >>> >> >> This sounds a little like a rogue wave phenomenon [1]; Jones mentioned >> something similar sometime back [2]. I'm personally guessing the planets >> in the simulation are being ejected because of a gradual floating point >> error (I think James Bowery alluded to this) or just insufficiently >> sophisticated handling of the startup of the system. >> >> Eric >> >> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_wave >> [2] http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg22649.html >> >> >
Re: [Vo]: Collective Phenomena
The total energy and momentum of the system which consists of three bodies (such as a two planets and a central star) does not need to drift in order for a planet to be send into the outer reaches. It just has to be redistributed. When one of the bodies is much smaller than the other two, the little guy can be sent packing in a hurry. Dave -Original Message- From: John Franks To: vortex-l Sent: Sat, Dec 21, 2013 11:43 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: Collective Phenomena http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_drift On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Eric Walker wrote: Hi :) On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 8:05 AM, John Franks wrote: I was thinking about your desire to have quasi-particles, which are low energy collective phenomena operating over several 10s of nm, somehow do the impossible and behave like a real particle with reduced charge etc. Personally, I think the quasi-particle lead is a red herring when it comes to explaining LENR. I understand that quasi-particles are only very weakly bound -- the binding energy being much less than an eV. I also am not impressed by coherent-motion theories. (As a physics dilettante, I have no basis for not being impressed. I'm just not.) I was looking at the wandering planets thread and probably the reason for the observed ejection is a phenomena called "digital energy drift" (wiki it). This sounds a little like a rogue wave phenomenon [1]; Jones mentioned something similar sometime back [2]. I'm personally guessing the planets in the simulation are being ejected because of a gradual floating point error (I think James Bowery alluded to this) or just insufficiently sophisticated handling of the startup of the system. Eric [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_wave [2] http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg22649.html
Re: [Vo]: Collective Phenomena
Eric, I am fairly confident that planets are ejected from star systems when they interact with their neighbors. The same process is used to sling shot space craft into the outer solar system and beyond. I read about a trick using that phenomena years ago where it was possible to send a space ship to a double star system where a well planned path would end up accelerating the ship far faster than the velocity with which it entered the region. In these cases, angular momentum is conserved for the three bodies by taking some out of the two stars pair and giving it to the space ship. The overall angular momentum is conserved so no laws are violated. I have never given this idea consideration when thinking about interactions at LENR levels, but there may be something there. Gravitational interaction falls off with the second power of distance just as electric forces between particles. Even though this may not be the effect we search for, it is worth consideration. Thank you John for putting the idea on the table. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l Sent: Sat, Dec 21, 2013 11:29 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: Collective Phenomena Hi :) On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 8:05 AM, John Franks wrote: I was thinking about your desire to have quasi-particles, which are low energy collective phenomena operating over several 10s of nm, somehow do the impossible and behave like a real particle with reduced charge etc. Personally, I think the quasi-particle lead is a red herring when it comes to explaining LENR. I understand that quasi-particles are only very weakly bound -- the binding energy being much less than an eV. I also am not impressed by coherent-motion theories. (As a physics dilettante, I have no basis for not being impressed. I'm just not.) I was looking at the wandering planets thread and probably the reason for the observed ejection is a phenomena called "digital energy drift" (wiki it). This sounds a little like a rogue wave phenomenon [1]; Jones mentioned something similar sometime back [2]. I'm personally guessing the planets in the simulation are being ejected because of a gradual floating point error (I think James Bowery alluded to this) or just insufficiently sophisticated handling of the startup of the system. Eric [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_wave [2] http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg22649.html
Re: [Vo]: Collective Phenomena
You are letting your common sense distort the true vision of reality. It is difficult to come to a true understanding of what is real using the limited perception of your sences. The world of the fish is different from the world of the bird. The world of water is different from the world of air. If we measure pressure in air, it will read differently from a pressure reading in water. Each phase of matter is another world that we must understand. When one views the world as a whole and does not make allowances for the differences between the phases of matter, then confusion abounds. We live in many worlds at the same time, and it is a challenge to perceive them each in the totality of their particular context. Mills has made the ‘only one world mistake’. There are at least 500 different phases of matter; each phase lives in its own world”. To understand that particular world, one must study it in its own context. (Phys.org)—“Forget solid, liquid, and gas: there are in fact more than 500 phases of matter. In a major paper in today's issue of Science, Perimeter Faculty member Xiao-Gang Wen reveals a modern reclassification of all of them. Using modern mathematics, Wen and collaborators reveal a new system which can, at last, successfully classify symmetry-protected phases of matter. Their new classification system will provide insight about these quantum phases of matter, which may in turn increase our ability to design states of matter for use in superconductors or quantum computers. This paper, titled, "Symmetry-Protected Topological Orders in Interacting Bosonic Systems," is a revealing look at the intricate and fascinating world of quantum entanglement, and an important step toward a modern reclassification of all phases of matter.” Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-12-phases-phase.html#jCp The world inside the Ni/H reactor is far different than what we know here in the “real world”. Like an open minded and adaptable intergalactic explorer, in order to make sense of Ni/H reactions, one must study what is happening in that world with reason and imagination. In like manor, the world of the Plasmonics experiments is its own world with its own phases of matter and with its own rules of the road. Here are some rules that apply to the nano world where light and matter con join together to for a new phase of matter Nanostructures for Surface Plasmon enhanced light emission Mònica Alfonso Larrégola September 2008 http://upcommons.upc.edu/pfc/bitstream/2099.1/6656/1/Diploma%20catal%C3%A0.pdf Mixing all the various worlds that we must live in will lead to hopeless confusion. I think this “there is only one world” outlook is the mistake that Mills has made. Don’t make the same mistake. On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Eric Walker wrote: > Hi :) > > On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 8:05 AM, John Franks wrote: > > I was thinking about your desire to have quasi-particles, which are low >> energy collective phenomena operating over several 10s of nm, somehow do >> the impossible and behave like a real particle with reduced charge etc. >> > > Personally, I think the quasi-particle lead is a red herring when it comes > to explaining LENR. I understand that quasi-particles are only very weakly > bound -- the binding energy being much less than an eV. I also am not > impressed by coherent-motion theories. (As a physics dilettante, I have no > basis for not being impressed. I'm just not.) > > >> I was looking at the wandering planets thread and probably the reason for >> the observed ejection is a phenomena called "digital energy drift" (wiki >> it). >> > > This sounds a little like a rogue wave phenomenon [1]; Jones mentioned > something similar sometime back [2]. I'm personally guessing the planets > in the simulation are being ejected because of a gradual floating point > error (I think James Bowery alluded to this) or just insufficiently > sophisticated handling of the startup of the system. > > Eric > > [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_wave > [2] http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg22649.html > >
Re: [Vo]: Collective Phenomena
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_drift On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > Hi :) > > On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 8:05 AM, John Franks wrote: > > I was thinking about your desire to have quasi-particles, which are low >> energy collective phenomena operating over several 10s of nm, somehow do >> the impossible and behave like a real particle with reduced charge etc. >> > > Personally, I think the quasi-particle lead is a red herring when it comes > to explaining LENR. I understand that quasi-particles are only very weakly > bound -- the binding energy being much less than an eV. I also am not > impressed by coherent-motion theories. (As a physics dilettante, I have no > basis for not being impressed. I'm just not.) > > >> I was looking at the wandering planets thread and probably the reason for >> the observed ejection is a phenomena called "digital energy drift" (wiki >> it). >> > > This sounds a little like a rogue wave phenomenon [1]; Jones mentioned > something similar sometime back [2]. I'm personally guessing the planets > in the simulation are being ejected because of a gradual floating point > error (I think James Bowery alluded to this) or just insufficiently > sophisticated handling of the startup of the system. > > Eric > > [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_wave > [2] http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg22649.html > >
Re: [Vo]: Collective Phenomena
Hi :) On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 8:05 AM, John Franks wrote: I was thinking about your desire to have quasi-particles, which are low > energy collective phenomena operating over several 10s of nm, somehow do > the impossible and behave like a real particle with reduced charge etc. > Personally, I think the quasi-particle lead is a red herring when it comes to explaining LENR. I understand that quasi-particles are only very weakly bound -- the binding energy being much less than an eV. I also am not impressed by coherent-motion theories. (As a physics dilettante, I have no basis for not being impressed. I'm just not.) > I was looking at the wandering planets thread and probably the reason for > the observed ejection is a phenomena called "digital energy drift" (wiki > it). > This sounds a little like a rogue wave phenomenon [1]; Jones mentioned something similar sometime back [2]. I'm personally guessing the planets in the simulation are being ejected because of a gradual floating point error (I think James Bowery alluded to this) or just insufficiently sophisticated handling of the startup of the system. Eric [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_wave [2] http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg22649.html
[Vo]: Collective Phenomena
Vo, I was thinking about your desire to have quasi-particles, which are low energy collective phenomena operating over several 10s of nm, somehow do the impossible and behave like a real particle with reduced charge etc. It is understood that quasi particles are a approximation attempt to multi-body dynamics - the lattice (i.e. everything else) distorts around the particles of interest and we say they are paired etc. I was sceptical of low energy collective phenomena which apply to electrons (leptons) being applied to hadrons (the wavelength would be too short) but is there another way... I was looking at the wandering planets thread and probably the reason for the observed ejection is a phenomena called "digital energy drift" (wiki it). However it is known that collective systems of particles in orbit can chaotically throw out a member we high energy. Is there some basis in collections of atoms ejecting an atom at high energy so that it over comes the Coulomb barrier? You'd still need to explain lack of neutrons and gamma and how all that energy gets dissipated. Just a thought. JF.
