Re: [Vo]:RSH in Electric Fields
I ran across an interesting recent paper on the collapse of coherent dipolar BECs when subject to confinement within an optical lattice. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1205.5176v1.pdf Since Rydberg matter can act as a condensate if you remove the heat, I thought this was applicable. I realize the leap of faith in believing something that happens @ approx. 300K-500K lower temperatures applies to the CF case, but I see it just as believable as a fusion which typically happens at multi-millions of degrees K higher temperatures. On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 1:01 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It would be ideal if the pseudo neutron can be formed which would then penetrate the nucleus but I am afraid that the energy equations would not balance. If there are two different paths to the same ultimate result, they should release the same net energy. What would be the proposed reactions so that we can look at these? Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Sep 3, 2012 12:04 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:RSH in Electric Fields Le Sep 2, 2012 à 7:07 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com a écrit : Okay, but what I'm sayin' is that in the crevasse of a partial crystal lattice, those partial bound electrons restrict where the RSH fermion might reside by exclusion. Well, I can't go there. And I can't go there. Fritz! Let's just plunge into this these here bound quarks and make a neutron. I was hoping the proton end of the mono-hydrogen Rydberg atom would behave like a pseudo neutron, avoiding the need for neutron production. Eric
RE: [Vo]:RSH in Electric Fields
This is a good find with possible relevance for Ni-H, Stewart, but many observers will have a different take on how far one can take the BEC due to thermal issues. The classic dipolar boson and probably the only one which has a chance to form a BEC at high temperature, since it has greatly reduced statistical energy states which need to be aligned - is the short-lived nucleus Helium-2. The following reversible nuclear reaction, common on the Sun, lasts only a tiny fraction of a second: P+P-2He-P+P It is dipolar, since the only thing keeping it from happening permanently is anti-aligned spin. The fact it forms at all, and so often, indicates how easy it would be to fuse permanently, but for the spin. And yes, technically it disproves Pauli, if your clock is fast enough. Importantly, this is by far the most common nuclear reaction in the Universe - 99.99+% of all nuclear reactions on stars consist of only this reversible reaction. Fortunately, on occasion, before the fused 2He can decay back to protons - there will be a rare beta decay to deuterium, which is the ultimate source of solar energy.. So while the basic reaction gives almost no net energy, since it starts with protons and ends with protons. things could be very different in a warm cavity environment, such as a nickel pore. In fact, although we often think of a cryogenic BEC of consisting of tens of thousands of atoms - a warm BEC involved in Ni-H at relatively high temperature could consist of only 4 atoms. From: ChemE Stewart I ran across an interesting recent paper on the collapse of coherent dipolar BECs when subject to confinement within an optical lattice. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1205.5176v1.pdf Since Rydberg matter can act as a condensate if you remove the heat, I thought this was applicable. I realize the leap of faith in believing something that happens @ approx. 300K-500K lower temperatures applies to the CF case, but I see it just as believable as a fusion which typically happens at multi-millions of degrees K higher temperatures. David Roberson wrote: It would be ideal if the pseudo neutron can be formed which would then penetrate the nucleus but I am afraid that the energy equations would not balance. If there are two different paths to the same ultimate result, they should release the same net energy.
Re: [Vo]:RSH in Electric Fields
I understand and agree. I also understand that fusion also has thermal issues since it typically occurs at millions of degrees Kelvin. Maybe DGT's trojan horse theory is correct, who knows at this point. On Monday, September 3, 2012, Jones Beene wrote: This is a good find with possible relevance for Ni-H, Stewart, but many observers will have a different take on how far one can take the BEC due to thermal issues. ** ** The classic “dipolar boson” and probably the only one which has a chance to form a BEC at high temperature, since it has greatly reduced statistical energy states which need to be aligned - is the short-lived nucleus Helium-2. The following reversible nuclear reaction, common on the Sun, lasts only a tiny fraction of a second: ** ** P+P-2He-P+P ** ** It is dipolar, since the only thing keeping it from happening permanently is anti-aligned spin. The fact it forms at all, and so often, indicates how easy it would be to fuse permanently, but for the spin. And yes, technically it disproves Pauli, “if your clock is fast enough”. Importantly, this is by far the most common nuclear reaction in the Universe - 99.99+% of all nuclear reactions on stars consist of only this reversible reaction. Fortunately, on occasion, before the fused 2He can decay back to protons – there will be a rare beta decay to deuterium, which is the ultimate source of solar energy…. ** ** So while the basic reaction gives “almost no” net energy, since it starts with protons and ends with protons… things could be very different in a warm cavity environment, such as a nickel pore. In fact, although we often think of a cryogenic BEC of consisting of tens of thousands of atoms – a warm BEC involved in Ni-H at relatively high temperature could consist of only 4 atoms. ** ** ** ** *From:* ChemE Stewart ** ** I ran across an interesting recent paper on the collapse of coherent dipolar BECs when subject to confinement within an optical lattice. ** ** http://arxiv.org/pdf/1205.5176v1.pdf ** ** Since Rydberg matter can act as a condensate if you remove the heat, I thought this was applicable. I realize the leap of faith in believing something that happens @ approx. 300K-500K lower temperatures applies to the CF case, but I see it just as believable as a fusion which typically happens at multi-millions of degrees K higher temperatures. David Roberson wrote: It would be ideal if the pseudo neutron can be formed which would then penetrate the nucleus but I am afraid that the energy equations would not balance. If there are two different paths to the same ultimate result, they should release the same net energy. ** **
Re: [Vo]:RSH in Electric Fields
I don't know how Kim at Purdue is regarded in this group, but aside from his theoretical work, his ICCF-17 paper proposes three experiments along these lines. They are: (a) Determine the velocity distribution of deuterons in metals, which he states is expected to be different from an ideal gas. (b) Additional measurements of the diffusion rates in metals. (c) Put metal nanoparticles in 4He and see what happens. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KimYEconvention.pdf Jeff On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 8:18 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: I understand and agree. I also understand that fusion also has thermal issues since it typically occurs at millions of degrees Kelvin. Maybe DGT's trojan horse theory is correct, who knows at this point. On Monday, September 3, 2012, Jones Beene wrote: This is a good find with possible relevance for Ni-H, Stewart, but many observers will have a different take on how far one can take the BEC due to thermal issues. ** ** The classic “dipolar boson” and probably the only one which has a chance to form a BEC at high temperature, since it has greatly reduced statistical energy states which need to be aligned - is the short-lived nucleus Helium-2. The following reversible nuclear reaction, common on the Sun, lasts only a tiny fraction of a second: ** ** P+P-2He-P+P ** ** It is dipolar, since the only thing keeping it from happening permanently is anti-aligned spin. The fact it forms at all, and so often, indicates how easy it would be to fuse permanently, but for the spin. And yes, technically it disproves Pauli, “if your clock is fast enough”. Importantly, this is by far the most common nuclear reaction in the Universe - 99.99+% of all nuclear reactions on stars consist of only this reversible reaction. Fortunately, on occasion, before the fused 2He can decay back to protons – there will be a rare beta decay to deuterium, which is the ultimate source of solar energy…. ** ** So while the basic reaction gives “almost no” net energy, since it starts with protons and ends with protons… things could be very different in a warm cavity environment, such as a nickel pore. In fact, although we often think of a cryogenic BEC of consisting of tens of thousands of atoms – a warm BEC involved in Ni-H at relatively high temperature could consist of only 4 atoms. ** ** ** ** *From:* ChemE Stewart ** ** I ran across an interesting recent paper on the collapse of coherent dipolar BECs when subject to confinement within an optical lattice. ** ** http://arxiv.org/pdf/1205.5176v1.pdf ** ** Since Rydberg matter can act as a condensate if you remove the heat, I thought this was applicable. I realize the leap of faith in believing something that happens @ approx. 300K-500K lower temperatures applies to the CF case, but I see it just as believable as a fusion which typically happens at multi-millions of degrees K higher temperatures. David Roberson wrote: It would be ideal if the pseudo neutron can be formed which would then penetrate the nucleus but I am afraid that the energy equations would not balance. If there are two different paths to the same ultimate result, they should release the same net energy. ** **
Re: [Vo]:RSH in Electric Fields
At 12:03 PM 9/3/2012, Jeff Berkowitz wrote:
I don't know how Kim at Purdue is regarded in
this group, but aside from his theoretical work,
his ICCF-17 paper proposes three experiments
along these lines. They are: (a) Determine the
velocity distribution of deuterons in metals,
which he states is expected to be different
from an ideal gas. (b) Additional measurements
of the diffusion rates in metals. (c) Put metal
nanoparticles in 4He and see what happens.
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KimYEconvention.pdfhttp://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KimYEconvention.pdf
Conventional Nuclear Theory of Low-Energy
Nuclear Reactions in Metals: Alternative
Approach to Clean Fusion Energy Generation
Oh, I so much wish that scientists in this field
would stop jumping way, way ahead, to give
implications way behind what they are actually able to write about.
We know that
1. If LENR is real, and
2. If it can be made practical,
then
Yes, there are huge implications for our energy future.
It took many years of research to establish the
first proposition, and that work did not
establish the second. That fact is often cited by
pseudoskeptics as some kind of proof against the
first proposition, but that's preposterous. An
effect can easily be real but not be practically
accessible, such as the Fleischmann-Pons Heat
Effect, which is famously unreliable, requires
expensive materials, and it looks like the
reaction ultimately destroys the reaction sites, in rather short order.
And we don't have confirmed science yet on the
alternative approaches, such as NiH. We don't
even know the ash from NiH, not to mention have a
clear and widely-confirmed handle on heat from it.
Cryogenic ignition of deuteron fusion in metal
particles is proposed as an alternative
approach to clean fusion energy generation.
B. D+D Reaction Channels in Metals
From many experimental measurements by
Fleischmann and Pons [16] in 1989, and many
others [17-19] over 23 years since then, the
following experimental observations have
emerged from experimental results reported from
electrolysis and gas-loading experiments. They
are summarized below (as of 2011, not complete:
exit reaction channels {4}, {5}, and {6} are
defined below and are shown in Fig.1):
(1) The Coulomb barrier between two deuterons are suppressed.
(2) Production of nuclear ashes with anomalous rates:
R{4} R{6} and R{5} R{6}.
(3) 4He production commensurate with excess heat
production, no 23.8 MeV .-ray.
(4) Excess heat production (the amount of excess
heat indicates its nuclear origin).
(5) More tritium is produced than neutron R{4} R{5}.
(6) Production of hot spots and micro-scale craters on metal surface.
(7) Detection of radiations.
(8) Heat-after-death.
(9) Requirement of deuteron mobility (D/Pd ~0.9,
electric current, pressure gradient, etc.).
(10) Requirement of deuterium purity (H/D 1).
[...] [list of reactions for item 2]
{4} D(m) + D(m) . p(m) + T(m) + 4.03 MeV (m);
{5} D(m) + D(m) . n(m) + 3He(m) + 3.27 MeV (m);
{6} D(m) + D(m) . 4He(m) + 23.8 MeV (m),
where m represents a host metal lattice or metal particle.
Aw, this drives me nuts. Good thing I was already
nuts, or this would be a serious problem
Kim is unfortunately confusing conclusions,
largely premature, from experimental observation
with the observations themselves. Some of what he
states is closely rooted in observation, some is
reasonable conclusion from it, some is
speculation. All mixed together. Let's look:
1. That's not an experimental observation,
period. It would be very difficult to observe, at
best. It's a conclusion from the fact of LENR,
but not all forms of LENR necessarily involve a
suppression of the Coulomb barrier.
2. The ashes are confused with a set of reactions
that would produce them. The ashes may be
produced -- and almost certainly are produced --
by other reactions. R4 and R5 are certainly not
happening, but the evidence that R6 is happening
is weak, because of the missing gammas. While
someone, including Kim, might yet pull a rabbit
out of the hat, it looks, at first sight, that R6
is not happening either. There are other LENRs
that can produce helium, the most notable being 4D - Be-8 - 2 He-4.
3. Correct.
4. Correct.
5. Correct.
6. Correct, apparently.
7. Radiation is only detected at low levels, and confirmation is weak.
8. Correct.
9. Correct. But electric current is not required.
This is merely some kind of misstatement.
10. Correct for PdD, apparently. About 1% H, atom
percent, is adequate to poison the effect.
Number 10 actually shows that he's only talking
about the FPHE, and thus *not* about reasonable
clean fusion energy generation.
That's fine, in itself, I'm only complaining
about connecting energy generation with what
should primarily be, as it should have been in
1989, pure science. That linkage, then, weakens
the presentation, as obvious counterarguments become legitimate.
Now, to the
Re: [Vo]:RSH in Electric Fields
At 12:03 PM 9/3/2012, Jeff Berkowitz wrote: I don't know how Kim at Purdue is regarded in this group, but aside from his theoretical work, his ICCF-17 paper proposes three experiments along these lines. They are: (a) Determine the velocity distribution of deuterons in metals, which he states is expected to be different from an ideal gas. (b) Additional measurements of the diffusion rates in metals. (c) Put metal nanoparticles in 4He and see what happens. I replied with an examination of Kim's paper. Now I'm looking at the above comment. Jeff gives three proposed experiments. He's not accurately stated what Kim has prooposed, not with all of these. a. Yes. And it is expected to be different from the distribution in an ideal gas, that's fairly obvious. How different is not known. b. Kim writes, Experiments are proposed to measure the diffusion rates of both deuterons and protons in a metal as a function of temperature. When the BEC of deuterons in a metal occurs, it is expected that the deuteron diffusion rate will increase substantially more than that of proton. We need to explore a number of other experimental methods for observing the superfluidity, such as the use of torsional oscillators. Kim is proposing more than a measurement of the diffusion rates, which are known, at least for relatively high temperatures; he's looking for variation with temperature, presumably at very low temperatures. The diffusion rate is related to the velocity distribution, by the way. c. He does not propose putting metal nanoparticles in 4He. Rather, he is proposing cooling nanoparticle PdD to liquid 4He *temperatures*. Kim's second experiment is quite unlikely to show much, but it's possible, and we should always remember that Pons and Fleischmann expected to find nothing in PdD, even very highly loaded. In fact, with hindsight, they *did* find nothing in highly loaded PdD itself, probably. But they accidentally created nuclear-active environment, probably on the surface. I say it is unlikely to show much because the reaction rate is quite slow, so almost all the deuterium is not in BEC form. But maybe something would show up! As to the third, I'd be surprised if it hasn't been tried, it's simple enough. Against this possibility is that the FPHE (PdD) is a reaction that increases in rate with temperature. Watch out! Don't just dump a pile of highly loaded PdD into liquid helium! (There is some reason to think that highly loaded PdD might also be susceptible to pressure ignition, using an explosive trigger. LANL apparently tried it without success, but maybe they got some parameter wrong. My don't try this at home variation would be making some very highly loaded PdD and then whacking it with a sledge hammer. Almost certainly, nothing would happen. But, just think: don't try an experiment if you are not prepared for it to work a lot better than you imagine! Pons and Fleischmann, in about 1984, lost a lab bench and some inches of concrete from the floor. But they might just as easily have lost the whole building, we don't know. They scaled down, then, for very good reasons, and then skeptics complained about the size of the effect)
Re: [Vo]:RSH in Electric Fields
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: My don't try this at home variation would be making some very highly loaded PdD and then whacking it with a sledge hammer. Someone, I think more than one researcher, has admitted to trying this. T
Re: [Vo]:RSH in Electric Fields
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: My don't try this at home variation would be making some very highly loaded PdD and then whacking it with a sledge hammer. Someone, I think more than one researcher, has admitted to trying this. Yup. I recall hearing that some Russians tried it with a gun. True or not, it makes a good story. Mike McKubre says that he first met Martin Fleischmann, there were several students in the hallway firing a bow and arrow for some sort of experiment. It looked foolhardy. Mike decided it was just the place for him. My daughter spent time in New Zealand. She says the national slogan there should be: Hey, let's try it! Why not? - Jed bang a gong http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uByU83F3-w8
Re: [Vo]:RSH in Electric Fields
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: My daughter spent time in New Zealand. She says the national slogan there should be: Hey, let's try it! Why not? Kind of like the infamous redneck last words, Hey, Bubba, watch this! T
Re: [Vo]:RSH in Electric Fields
Or Hey, what's this button do?... On Monday, September 3, 2012, Terry Blanton wrote: On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comjavascript:; wrote: My daughter spent time in New Zealand. She says the national slogan there should be: Hey, let's try it! Why not? Kind of like the infamous redneck last words, Hey, Bubba, watch this! T
Re: [Vo]:RSH in Electric Fields
Mike confirmed that story. It wasn't my imagination that he said that. He said they were making micro-electrodes by stretching a (molten) hollow glass fiber as fast as they could before it cooled. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:RSH in Electric Fields
Le Sep 3, 2012 à 2:43 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com a écrit : Mike McKubre says that he first met Martin Fleischmann, there were several students in the hallway firing a bow and arrow for some sort of experiment. It looked foolhardy. Mike decided it was just the place for him. I recall a bow-and-arrow story that involved creating a very narrow capillary tube by affixing one end of a glass tube to an arrow and then, after heating the tube to near melting, shooting the arrow down the hallway. I don't recall who was involved other than Fleischmann. Eric
[Vo]:RSH in Electric Fields
Just a couple noteworthy items from my research for those few of you that cannot get enough of my black hole/collapsed matter theory of CF. A 2008 study considered the internal mass of a black hole to be very similar to a dense Bose Einstein Condensate, not necessarily a singularity. http://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.0315.pdf Evaporation of collapsed matter/MBHs should produce X-Rays: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.0265v1.pdf In the process of quantum evaporation, mini black holes produce X-rays while losing mass, until they eventually disappear. Although there has been many attempts to observe these X-ray signatures, they have never been detected, suggesting that mini black holes were not created in large numbers as expected, or that they do not evaporate. ( or maybe they are looking in the wrong place!) If they do not evaporate completely , they might just bind to matter, like maybe on a coil, equipment or maybe your skin... On the other hand, if quantum evaporation does not exist, mini black holes would have a peculiar behavior. Stellar (and supermassive) black holes are so dense that any object crossing their event horizon cannot escape their gravity, not even light. In the absence of quantum evaporation, mini black holes would gravitationally bind matter, without absorbing it: matter orbits the black hole at a certain distance. The researchers name it the Gravitational Equivalent of an Atom (GEA). If these GEAs exist and can be detected, it would provide a way to test quantum evaporation. Stewart http://wp.me/p26aeb-4 On Monday, September 3, 2012, Eric Walker wrote: Le Sep 3, 2012 à 2:43 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com a écrit : Mike McKubre says that he first met Martin Fleischmann, there were several students in the hallway firing a bow and arrow for some sort of experiment. It looked foolhardy. Mike decided it was just the place for him. I recall a bow-and-arrow story that involved creating a very narrow capillary tube by affixing one end of a glass tube to an arrow and then, after heating the tube to near melting, shooting the arrow down the hallway. I don't recall who was involved other than Fleischmann. Eric
Re: [Vo]:RSH in Electric Fields
On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 9:49 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It is apparent that the oblong shape would result in a strong dipole behavior provided that that nucleus is not in the center. The references that have been suggested all show the nucleus of the atom as located at one foci. I must admit that I do not understand why the orbit must change from a spherical one to a oblong one at the high energy levels. I don't know exactly what's going on there. It is convenient, though. It would seem that a spherical obit would be capable of existing; even being more likely than a non spherical one. Is this a prediction of QM? I'm not sure what the status of the oblong orbital is -- e.g., to what species it applies, under what conditions exactly, and whether it is a characteristic predicted by quantum mechanics and whether is experimentally established. I get the sense that as a phenomenon it is well established and not controversial. Eric
Re: [Vo]:RSH in Electric Fields
On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 10:01 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It would be ideal if the pseudo neutron can be formed which would then penetrate the nucleus but I am afraid that the energy equations would not balance. If there are two different paths to the same ultimate result, they should release the same net energy. What would be the proposed reactions so that we can look at these? I just did a few calculations, and there are some promising reactions that would take place if we were able to shield the proton and significantly reduce the potential barrier to proton capture in nickel. Apart from the Coulomb repulsion to be overcome, I think the important thing here would be to have an exothermic mass balance at the end. I did a little bit of rooting around, and it seems there are such reactions, even with nickel, which is generally very stable. I consulted the paper by Hadjichristos et al. [1], and they mention seeing evidence of transmutations to the following elements in their nickel gas phase system: Cu, Zn, Co, Fe, K, Ca, Li, Be and B. The masses of some of these elements are in the vicinity of nickel, and it's possible to get to a stable isotope by way of a straightforward reaction. The masses of some of the elements are far smaller, and the pathway from nickel may either be by fission or unlikely. Here are some straightforward reactions: Cu 58Ni + p - 59Cu + 2.9 MeV (beta+ decay to 59Co) 60Ni + p - 61Cu + 4.3 MeV 62Ni + p - 63Cu + 5.6 MeV 64Ni + p - 65Cu + 6.9 MeV Zn 58Ni + alpha - 62Zn + 3.396 MeV 58Ni + 6Li - 62Zn + D + 1.895 MeV Co See beta+ decay, above. Fe 59Ni + p - 56Fe + 3.8 MeV (59Ni is has a half-life of 76,000 years and exists only in trace amounts) The Fe reaction above requires a trace isotope of nickel, and I was not able to find a path to a stable isotope of iron from a stable isotope of nickel. This further calls into question iron being a significant product of any purported reaction with nickel, although, obviously, the iron must be coming from somewhere; contamination is a possibility, of course. The elements Ca, Li and Be in the list above might result from fission, or alternatively, by being built up somehow. With regard to fission from nickel, I have little sense of whether this would be possible. EXFOR does provide reactions from nickel to these elements, but it does not mention the other end products, so I wasn't able to calculate a mass balance. In these instances I've just listed the reaction as it appears in EXFOR. Ca 28-NI-58(P,X)20-CA-42 Li 28-NI-64(P,X)3-LI-7 Be 28-NI-60(P,X)4-BE-7 28-NI-64(P,X)4-BE-7 EXFOR does not provide information on any kind of reaction from nickel to stable isotopes of boron or potassium, the last two elements in the list from the Hadjichristos paper. So perhaps these elements would need to come about via other pathways. Since the new isotopes that are seen in previous cold fusion experiments are generally stable, my method here has been to omit reactions that proceed from very short-lived isotopes of nickel or that result in short-lived isotopes, so a number of reactions have not been considered. In addition, there were many reactions in which neutrons are a product, but I have not considered these since neutrons are not detected. There is a table at the end of a note by Jacques Dufour [2] which leads me to think that in the case of nickel proton capture reactions there would be no radioisotopes lying around after the reaction to give off gammas; please vet this conclusion, though. The alpha decay reactions that I looked at for nickel proton capture were not energetically favorable. This could potentially explain why helium has not yet been detected in nickel gas phase systems. More generally, this exercise was very interesting to do; I suspect that people's expectations that Coulomb repulsion rules out any kind of proton capture in the systems we're looking at has left us with a lack of knowledge of what would happen under the influence of a large flux of (shielded) protons. A Monte Carlo simulation could be very fruitful here. Note that the lack of correlation between heat and transmutation products is a tentative finding of prior research on palladium systems, specifically. I don't think there's been enough study of the Ni-H systems to draw a similar conclusion. More generally, I wonder how solid the lack of correlation in the palladium case is in this instance; it may be fairly difficult to do this calculation in an experimental setting. I would not be surprised if the helium in palladium systems comes from alpha decay, for example. Eric [1] http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Hadjichristos-Technical-Characteristics-Paper.pdf [2] http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2010/2010Dufour-NuclearSignatures.pdf p.s. I'm not specifically /trying/ to quote sources from NET.
Re: [Vo]:RSH in Electric Fields
On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 10:01 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It would be ideal if the pseudo neutron can be formed which would then penetrate the nucleus but I am afraid that the energy equations would not balance. If there are two different paths to the same ultimate result, they should release the same net energy. This is a good question. I think you're saying that there are two ways to get to proton capture in a nickel atom, for example, A and B. Normally Coulomb repulsion makes this difficult, perhaps on the order of keV (path A). I've been saying there's a path B in which it might not be all that difficult because of shielding. Where does the energy go that was needed before and is not needed now -- I'm not sure. I don't really know how to balance the books in this instance. Maybe the Rydberg state needed to provide the kind of shielding implicit in the discussion up to now would go well beyond the ionization potential of hydrogen, in which case you'd no longer have a Rydberg atom. Eric
Re: [Vo]:RSH in Electric Fields
You have generated an excellent list Eric which includes many reactions that I have been analyzing. The latest demon run that I posted reduced my concerns a bit since it suggested that the barrier energy can be reclaimed after the fusion event has been initiated. This might help explain some interesting possibilities. First, the lowering of the barrier appears to be possible with screening by negative charges. The same energy must be applied to get into the nucleus as before, but now that energy is temporarily borrowed from the shielding charges. Once fusion has taken place, some of the released energy can repay the loan. After repayment the books tally because the same energy is required in net regardless of the mechanism. The lack of path balance was a problem, but now there is an explanation. My thought experiment also helps to explain why some of the reactions appear endothermic if insufficient energy is released to totally cover the coulomb barrier cost. I am still struggling with this issue and might modify my thinking again in the near future! Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Sep 3, 2012 10:56 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:RSH in Electric Fields On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 10:01 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It would be ideal if the pseudo neutron can be formed which would then penetrate the nucleus but I am afraid that the energy equations would not balance. If there are two different paths to the same ultimate result, they should release the same net energy. What would be the proposed reactions so that we can look at these? I just did a few calculations, and there are some promising reactions that would take place if we were able to shield the proton and significantly reduce the potential barrier to proton capture in nickel. Apart from the Coulomb repulsion to be overcome, I think the important thing here would be to have an exothermic mass balance at the end. I did a little bit of rooting around, and it seems there are such reactions, even with nickel, which is generally very stable. I consulted the paper by Hadjichristos et al. [1], and they mention seeing evidence of transmutations to the following elements in their nickel gas phase system: Cu, Zn, Co, Fe, K, Ca, Li, Be and B. The masses of some of these elements are in the vicinity of nickel, and it's possible to get to a stable isotope by way of a straightforward reaction. The masses of some of the elements are far smaller, and the pathway from nickel may either be by fission or unlikely. Here are some straightforward reactions: Cu 58Ni + p - 59Cu + 2.9 MeV (beta+ decay to 59Co) 60Ni + p - 61Cu + 4.3 MeV 62Ni + p - 63Cu + 5.6 MeV 64Ni + p - 65Cu + 6.9 MeV Zn 58Ni + alpha - 62Zn + 3.396 MeV 58Ni + 6Li - 62Zn + D + 1.895 MeV Co See beta+ decay, above. Fe 59Ni + p - 56Fe + 3.8 MeV (59Ni is has a half-life of 76,000 years and exists only in trace amounts) The Fe reaction above requires a trace isotope of nickel, and I was not able to find a path to a stable isotope of iron from a stable isotope of nickel. This further calls into question iron being a significant product of any purported reaction with nickel, although, obviously, the iron must be coming from somewhere; contamination is a possibility, of course. The elements Ca, Li and Be in the list above might result from fission, or alternatively, by being built up somehow. With regard to fission from nickel, I have little sense of whether this would be possible. EXFOR does provide reactions from nickel to these elements, but it does not mention the other end products, so I wasn't able to calculate a mass balance. In these instances I've just listed the reaction as it appears in EXFOR. Ca 28-NI-58(P,X)20-CA-42 Li 28-NI-64(P,X)3-LI-7 Be 28-NI-60(P,X)4-BE-7 28-NI-64(P,X)4-BE-7 EXFOR does not provide information on any kind of reaction from nickel to stable isotopes of boron or potassium, the last two elements in the list from the Hadjichristos paper. So perhaps these elements would need to come about via other pathways. Since the new isotopes that are seen in previous cold fusion experiments are generally stable, my method here has been to omit reactions that proceed from very short-lived isotopes of nickel or that result in short-lived isotopes, so a number of reactions have not been considered. In addition, there were many reactions in which neutrons are a product, but I have not considered these since neutrons are not detected. There is a table at the end of a note by Jacques Dufour [2] which leads me to think that in the case of nickel proton capture reactions there would be no radioisotopes lying around after the reaction to give off gammas; please vet this conclusion, though. The alpha decay reactions that I looked at for nickel proton capture were not energetically
Re: [Vo]:RSH in Electric Fields
Eric, my last response hints at a way to balance the energy books. My strange thought experiment suggests that the energy required to penetrate the coulomb barrier is the same with borrowed help coming from the shielding electrons. The shielding could effectively lower the barrier significantly but must be reclaimed. If you choose path A, then the full barrier must be breached by the energy that can be imparted upon the proton. If path B is used, then a large portion of the barrier energy can be supplied by the shielding charges. This energy needs to be repaid by the fusion release. Therefore, the net energy released into the system is the same independent of path. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Sep 4, 2012 12:16 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:RSH in Electric Fields On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 10:01 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It would be ideal if the pseudo neutron can be formed which would then penetrate the nucleus but I am afraid that the energy equations would not balance. If there are two different paths to the same ultimate result, they should release the same net energy. This is a good question. I think you're saying that there are two ways to get to proton capture in a nickel atom, for example, A and B. Normally Coulomb repulsion makes this difficult, perhaps on the order of keV (path A). I've been saying there's a path B in which it might not be all that difficult because of shielding. Where does the energy go that was needed before and is not needed now -- I'm not sure. I don't really know how to balance the books in this instance. Maybe the Rydberg state needed to provide the kind of shielding implicit in the discussion up to now would go well beyond the ionization potential of hydrogen, in which case you'd no longer have a Rydberg atom. Eric
[Vo]:RSH in Electric Fields
Would a static electric field result in a polarization of Rydberg hydrogen atoms? Also, since DGT implies that the Pm3m space group enhances the NAE would that static field enhance the reaction? T
[Vo]:RSH in Electric Fields
I'll defer to Axil, but i would say yes. Rydberg matter is also nice and dense allowing you to pack more matter into voids to get more fuel into the chambers. Stewart On Sunday, September 2, 2012, Terry Blanton wrote: Would a static electric field result in a polarization of Rydberg hydrogen atoms? Also, since DGT implies that the Pm3m space group enhances the NAE would that static field enhance the reaction? T
Re: [Vo]:RSH in Electric Fields
I assume you refer to inverse Rydberg (f/h) matter here. Normal Rydberg matter is less dense from what I have seen. Dave -Original Message- From: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Sep 2, 2012 2:07 pm Subject: [Vo]:RSH in Electric Fields I'll defer to Axil, but i would say yes. Rydberg matter is also nice and dense allowing you to pack more matter into voids to get more fuel into the chambers. Stewart On Sunday, September 2, 2012, Terry Blanton wrote: Would a static electric field result in a polarization of Rydberg hydrogen atoms? Also, since DGT implies that the Pm3m space group enhances the NAE would that static field enhance the reaction? T
Re: [Vo]:RSH in Electric Fields
On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 7:59 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I assume you refer to inverse Rydberg (f/h) matter here. Normal Rydberg matter is less dense from what I have seen. No, I refer to hydrogen with extra energy which forces the electron into a higher energy state near ionization. The electron is in a widely eccentric orbit who's perigee brings it close enough to the nucleus that it imitates a neutron and whose apogee is near ionization. T
Re: [Vo]:RSH in Electric Fields
Dave, I was looking at Rydberg matter densities and Inverted Rydberg densities from this paper from Miley and others. http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/STAFF/VISITING_FELLOWSPROFESSORS/pdf/MileyClusterRydbLPBsing.pdf On Sunday, September 2, 2012, Terry Blanton wrote: On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 7:59 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comjavascript:; wrote: I assume you refer to inverse Rydberg (f/h) matter here. Normal Rydberg matter is less dense from what I have seen. No, I refer to hydrogen with extra energy which forces the electron into a higher energy state near ionization. The electron is in a widely eccentric orbit who's perigee brings it close enough to the nucleus that it imitates a neutron and whose apogee is near ionization. T
Re: [Vo]:RSH in Electric Fields
I guess I was not aware of this situation Terry. Does this agree with quantum mechanics? I think that they assume that the electron is in every location all of the time unless measured. Of course, in every location it is location according to the the wave function. Are you convinced that quantum mechanics does not work in this case? I tend to find myself doubting the implications of QM on many occasions and maybe one day QM will be replaced with a theory that makes sense. Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Sep 2, 2012 8:52 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:RSH in Electric Fields On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 7:59 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I assume you refer to inverse Rydberg (f/h) matter here. Normal Rydberg matter is less dense from what I have seen. No, I refer to hydrogen with extra energy which forces the electron into a higher energy state near ionization. The electron is in a widely eccentric orbit who's perigee brings it close enough to the nucleus that it imitates a neutron and whose apogee is near ionization. T
Re: [Vo]:RSH in Electric Fields
On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 9:16 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I guess I was not aware of this situation Terry. Well, look at the Lady in Red: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sommerfeld_ellipses.svg from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model Granted that the Bohr model is simplistic; but, for a few hundreths of a nanosecond, the Rydberg atom of hydrogen is essentially a neutron. T
Re: [Vo]:RSH in Electric Fields
Sounds reasonable. I would think the ions may be more vulnerable/unstable in this state, especially if they are densely packed in a compressed void with the repulsion of the walls and with possible concentrated charge/fields within. On Sunday, September 2, 2012, ChemE Stewart wrote: Dave, I was looking at Rydberg matter densities and Inverted Rydberg densities from this paper from Miley and others. http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/STAFF/VISITING_FELLOWSPROFESSORS/pdf/MileyClusterRydbLPBsing.pdf On Sunday, September 2, 2012, Terry Blanton wrote: On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 7:59 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I assume you refer to inverse Rydberg (f/h) matter here. Normal Rydberg matter is less dense from what I have seen. No, I refer to hydrogen with extra energy which forces the electron into a higher energy state near ionization. The electron is in a widely eccentric orbit who's perigee brings it close enough to the nucleus that it imitates a neutron and whose apogee is near ionization. T
Re: [Vo]:RSH in Electric Fields
The lady in red certainly has the appearance of a neutron if the electron orbits in this time domain(classical) fashion. Can we assume that the ability of Rydberg hydrogen to fuse relatively easily is evidence that quantum mechanics is wrong? It is not clear to me that there would be much additional electric field shielding due to the shape of the football orbital unless the electron poititon can be located accurately in time. I beleive that this is contrary to the uncertaintly principle. Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Sep 2, 2012 9:24 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:RSH in Electric Fields On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 9:16 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I guess I was not aware of this situation Terry. Well, look at the Lady in Red: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sommerfeld_ellipses.svg from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model Granted that the Bohr model is simplistic; but, for a few hundreths of a nanosecond, the Rydberg atom of hydrogen is essentially a neutron. T
Re: [Vo]:RSH in Electric Fields
On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Granted that the Bohr model is simplistic; but, for a few hundreths of a nanosecond, the Rydberg atom of hydrogen is essentially a neutron. I think my time scale is off. We might be looking at hundreds of femtoseconds. In the words of my granddaughter, Whatever. (word) T
Re: [Vo]:RSH in Electric Fields
On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 9:43 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The lady in red certainly has the appearance of a neutron if the electron orbits in this time domain(classical) fashion. Can we assume that the ability of Rydberg hydrogen to fuse relatively easily is evidence that quantum mechanics is wrong? It is not clear to me that there would be much additional electric field shielding due to the shape of the football orbital unless the electron poititon can be located accurately in time. I beleive that this is contrary to the uncertaintly principle. If you are talking Pauli, that's a fermion issue only. T
Re: [Vo]:RSH in Electric Fields
Not a problem. If a classical orbit is true for any length of time, quantum mechanics has some explaining to do. Again, is this evidence for a hole in that theory? Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Sep 2, 2012 9:44 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:RSH in Electric Fields On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Granted that the Bohr model is simplistic; but, for a few hundreths of a nanosecond, the Rydberg atom of hydrogen is essentially a neutron. I think my time scale is off. We might be looking at hundreds of femtoseconds. In the words of my granddaughter, Whatever. (word) T
Re: [Vo]:RSH in Electric Fields
In chemistry, Schrödinger http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger,
Pauling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauling,
Mullikenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_S._Mulliken and
others noted that the consequence of Heisenberg's relation was that the
electron, as a wave packet, could not be considered to have an exact
location in its orbital. Max Born
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Born suggested
that the electron's position needed to be described by a probability
distribution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_distribution which
was connected with finding the electron at some point in the wave-function
which described its associated wave packet. The new quantum mechanics did
not give exact results, but only the probabilities for the occurrence of a
variety of possible such results. Heisenberg held that the path of a moving
particle has no meaning if we cannot observe it, as we cannot with
electrons in an atom.
Terry is just saying the probability that the electron will be closer to
the neucleus is higher. I do not see a conflict
On Sunday, September 2, 2012, David Roberson wrote:
Not a problem. If a classical orbit is true for any length of time,
quantum mechanics has some explaining to do. Again, is this evidence for a
hole in that theory?
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'hohlr...@gmail.com');
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'vortex-l@eskimo.com');
Sent: Sun, Sep 2, 2012 9:44 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:RSH in Electric Fields
On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com
javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'hohlr...@gmail.com'); wrote:
Granted that the Bohr model is simplistic; but, for a few hundreths of
a nanosecond, the Rydberg atom of hydrogen is essentially a neutron.
I think my time scale is off. We might be looking at hundreds of
femtoseconds.
In the words of my granddaughter, Whatever. (word)
T
Re: [Vo]:RSH in Electric Fields
On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 9:48 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Not a problem. If a classical orbit is true for any length of time, quantum mechanics has some explaining to do. Again, is this evidence for a hole in that theory? LOL! Yeah, we call it LENR. :-) I do not know; but, you put a bunch of these under the influence of a broken lattice . . . As Ruby Carat's stickers say, The Heat is On. I was trying to help DGT improve their process: http://defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=24p=7740#p7740 I found their response, er, curious. T
Re: [Vo]:RSH in Electric Fields
On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 9:53 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Terry is just saying the probability that the electron will be closer to the neucleus is higher. And in the presence of partially bound electrons in a broken lattice, the word becomes restricted. T
Re: [Vo]:RSH in Electric Fields
I was thinking of the other guy whose name is Heisenberg. The wave functions do not have a time domain feature from what I recall. And then, any attempt to locate the electron will shove it out of position. This discussion reminds me of the dead/alive ECAT story. I do not claim to be an expert in QM, perhaps someone who has that knowledge will help out here. Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Sep 2, 2012 9:46 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:RSH in Electric Fields On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 9:43 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The lady in red certainly has the appearance of a neutron if the electron orbits in this time domain(classical) fashion. Can we assume that the ability of Rydberg hydrogen to fuse relatively easily is evidence that quantum mechanics is wrong? It is not clear to me that there would be much additional electric field shielding due to the shape of the football orbital unless the electron poititon can be located accurately in time. I beleive that this is contrary to the uncertaintly principle. If you are talking Pauli, that's a fermion issue only. T
Re: [Vo]:RSH in Electric Fields
On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 9:58 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I was thinking of the other guy whose name is Heisenberg. The wave functions do not have a time domain feature from what I recall. And then, any attempt to locate the electron will shove it out of position. This discussion reminds me of the dead/alive ECAT story. I do not claim to be an expert in QM, perhaps someone who has that knowledge will help out here. Okay, but what I'm sayin' is that in the crevasse of a partial crystal lattice, those partial bound electrons restrict where the RSH fermion might reside by exclusion. Well, I can't go there. And I can't go there. Fritz! Let's just plunge into this these here bound quarks and make a neutron. Kinda reminds me of the sperm who fools the egg: Candygram Landshark (You gotta be old to know these SNL references. T
Re: [Vo]:RSH in Electric Fields
The only conflict is the mention of a period of time during which the electron is in the near position. If we assume that there is merely a probability that it is near the proton, then the shielding is not very good since that probability must be low compared to all the other possible locations. I think we need for the actual electron to be located in real time near the proton for the trick neutron to be effective. Only by actually being local to the proton will the coulomb barrier be significantly reduced. If Heisenberg maintains that we can not observe the electron in its orbital, but that it actually does follow some path in time then we are good. It has always been my understanding that one can not define the electron orbit in time with QM. Am I wrong here? Dave -Original Message- From: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Sep 2, 2012 9:54 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:RSH in Electric Fields In chemistry, Schrödinger, Pauling, Mulliken and others noted that the consequence of Heisenberg's relation was that the electron, as a wave packet, could not be considered to have an exact location in its orbital. Max Born suggested that the electron's position needed to be described by a probability distribution which was connected with finding the electron at some point in the wave-function which described its associated wave packet. The new quantum mechanics did not give exact results, but only the probabilities for the occurrence of a variety of possible such results. Heisenberg held that the path of a moving particle has no meaning if we cannot observe it, as we cannot with electrons in an atom. Terry is just saying the probability that the electron will be closer to the neucleus is higher. I do not see a conflict On Sunday, September 2, 2012, David Roberson wrote: Not a problem. If a classical orbit is true for any length of time, quantum mechanics has some explaining to do. Again, is this evidence for a hole in that theory? Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Sep 2, 2012 9:44 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:RSH in Electric Fields On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Granted that the Bohr model is simplistic; but, for a few hundreths of a nanosecond, the Rydberg atom of hydrogen is essentially a neutron. I think my time scale is off. We might be looking at hundreds of femtoseconds. In the words of my granddaughter, Whatever. (word) T
Re: [Vo]:RSH in Electric Fields
Well, slap me silly. I would love to throw out QM! I was afraid that I am the only one around these parts that feels that way. Maybe there are at least two (three with Mills) of us. Actually, it is a little premature to throw out a theory that has worked so well for so long Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Sep 2, 2012 9:54 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:RSH in Electric Fields On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 9:48 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Not a problem. If a classical orbit is true for any length of time, quantum mechanics has some explaining to do. Again, is this evidence for a hole in that theory? LOL! Yeah, we call it LENR. :-) I do not know; but, you put a bunch of these under the influence of a broken lattice . . . As Ruby Carat's stickers say, The Heat is On. I was trying to help DGT improve their process: http://defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=24p=7740#p7740 I found their response, er, curious. T
Re: [Vo]:RSH in Electric Fields
On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 10:16 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Actually, it is a little premature to throw out a theory that has worked so well for so long Or maybe the time is now. Or not. Happy Laborless day! T
Re: [Vo]:RSH in Electric Fields
Same to you fellow...happy Labor less day! If you think we have been under fire from the Physics community during the recent period, just keep up the talk of throwing out their favorite bath water baby. There will be few places to hide! We are just kidding...honest! Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Sep 2, 2012 10:18 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:RSH in Electric Fields On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 10:16 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Actually, it is a little premature to throw out a theory that has worked so well for so long Or maybe the time is now. Or not. Happy Laborless day! T
Re: [Vo]:RSH in Electric Fields
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Water-Babies,_A_Fairy_Tale_for_a_Land_Baby Landshark http://www.telly.com/GVSNS?fromtwitvid=1
Re: [Vo]:RSH in Electric Fields
Dave,
I see them as tools. If you don't like using a wrench, use pliars and many
times you can solve the problem.
On Sunday, September 2, 2012, David Roberson wrote:
Well, slap me silly. I would love to throw out QM! I was afraid that I
am the only one around these parts that feels that way. Maybe there are at
least two (three with Mills) of us.
Actually, it is a little premature to throw out a theory that has worked
so well for so long
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'hohlr...@gmail.com');
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'vortex-l@eskimo.com');
Sent: Sun, Sep 2, 2012 9:54 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:RSH in Electric Fields
On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 9:48 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'dlrober...@aol.com'); wrote:
Not a problem. If a classical orbit is true for any length of time, quantum
mechanics has some explaining to do. Again, is this evidence for a hole in
that theory?
LOL! Yeah, we call it LENR. :-)
I do not know; but, you put a bunch of these under the influence of a
broken lattice . . .
As Ruby Carat's stickers say, The Heat is On.
I was trying to help DGT improve their process:
http://defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=24p=7740#p7740
I found their response, er, curious.
T
Re: [Vo]:RSH in Electric Fields
Le Sep 2, 2012 à 4:59 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com a écrit : I assume you refer to inverse Rydberg (f/h) matter here. Normal Rydberg matter is less dense from what I have seen. It seems the oblong shape of Rydberg atoms causes them to become electrostatic dipoles, which allows them to be oriented and possibly to assume a lattice structure. See this phys.org article [1] and the associated arxiv paper [2]. The paper goes back to a reference in the the ICCF 17 paper by Hadjichristos et al. from Defkalion. Eric [1] http://phys.org/news/2012-03-ions-closer-physical-quantum-plasmas.html [2] http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.5556
Re: [Vo]:RSH in Electric Fields
Le Sep 2, 2012 à 7:07 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com a écrit : Okay, but what I'm sayin' is that in the crevasse of a partial crystal lattice, those partial bound electrons restrict where the RSH fermion might reside by exclusion. Well, I can't go there. And I can't go there. Fritz! Let's just plunge into this these here bound quarks and make a neutron. I was hoping the proton end of the mono-hydrogen Rydberg atom would behave like a pseudo neutron, avoiding the need for neutron production. Eric
Re: [Vo]:RSH in Electric Fields
It is apparent that the oblong shape would result in a strong dipole behavior provided that that nucleus is not in the center. The references that have been suggested all show the nucleus of the atom as located at one foci. I must admit that I do not understand why the orbit must change from a spherical one to a oblong one at the high energy levels. It would seem that a spherical obit would be capable of existing; even being more likely than a non spherical one. Is this a prediction of QM? When I think of the case in which a couple of protons are in proximity I have the gut feeling that any electrons that might have been associated with one of the single protons become tangled up with the system of two protons. I find it difficult to think of the second charged nucleus not getting into the act so to speak. What is the final result of having a hydrogen atom come into contact with a free proton in space? Does the electron begin to orbit both protons at that time? Does the combination result in a symmetrical spatial arrangement? Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Sep 2, 2012 11:50 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:RSH in Electric Fields Le Sep 2, 2012 à 4:59 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com a écrit : I assume you refer to inverse Rydberg (f/h) matter here. Normal Rydberg matter is less dense from what I have seen. It seems the oblong shape of Rydberg atoms causes them to become electrostatic dipoles, which allows them to be oriented and possibly to assume a lattice structure. See this phys.org article [1] and the associated arxiv paper [2]. The paper goes back to a reference in the the ICCF 17 paper by Hadjichristos et al. from Defkalion. Eric [1] http://phys.org/news/2012-03-ions-closer-physical-quantum-plasmas.html [2] http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.5556
Re: [Vo]:RSH in Electric Fields
It would be ideal if the pseudo neutron can be formed which would then penetrate the nucleus but I am afraid that the energy equations would not balance. If there are two different paths to the same ultimate result, they should release the same net energy. What would be the proposed reactions so that we can look at these? Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Sep 3, 2012 12:04 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:RSH in Electric Fields Le Sep 2, 2012 à 7:07 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com a écrit : Okay, but what I'm sayin' is that in the crevasse of a partial crystal lattice, those partial bound electrons restrict where the RSH fermion might reside by exclusion. Well, I can't go there. And I can't go there. Fritz! Let's just plunge into this these here bound quarks and make a neutron. I was hoping the proton end of the mono-hydrogen Rydberg atom would behave like a pseudo neutron, avoiding the need for neutron production. Eric
