[Vo]:Two answers to the solar neutrino problem
Instead of hijacking the previous thread, one detail is now morphed into a new topic based on this exchange. From: John Berry DR wrote... I find that the CoE is an effective way to validate the interactions among them. JB Really? ...Do you know how the Neutrino was 'Discovered', or should I say Invented? ...There was an apparent breach of the CoE in nuclear fusion (IIRC) and it was assumed that because they must balance anyway that the missing energy forms into some hard to detect particle. This is a pretty good summary of what science must do to adjust the books on the rare occasions when things do not work out as expected - since the neutrino was indeed an invented species... but it was not invented from scratch, so to speak - since there were other properties which we needed to account for, besides some of the missing energy in the solar fusion cycle, leading to helium. We also have conservation of spin, angular momentum, charge, lepton number etc. and therefore the neutrino filled many roles before it was finally discovered in the fifties. But the prevalence of solar neutrinos still after half a century comes up short of the number that should be there, even with next invention which is called neutrino oscillation. LENR now provides the same opportunity to describe a new kind of exothermic reaction - both on Earth and in the Stars (having a solar model). Neutrinos are not massless, as we now know, but seemed to be when first detected during nuclear experiments on Earth. NOTE also that the value of neutrino mass itself is NOT DEDUCTED from the standard solar model calculations and that failure may imply that the problem is more extreme. IOW - if the neutrino mass were accounted for in the first instance, then the so-called solar neutrino problem would be more severe than it seems (even with oscillation another kludge). OK - I'm mentioning all of this neutrino business as background for the proposition that the best way to explain one important version of LENR - the one involved in the Rossi effect (and probably the Mills effect as well) is by way of that major physical detail which neutrino detection has made clear to us. Which is to say that we may not have been stating the problem correctly. There is another large energy source on the sun besides deuterium fusion ! Maybe more than one, since Mills has an explanation for a hydrino energy source in the corona, but there is another one which I'm proposing. First - let's be clear that the major detail which the standard cosmological model misses is that the net energy release on our Sun, as evidenced by neutrinos - is at least twice the level that it should be from fusion to helium - and possibly triple. The solar neutrino problem can be verbalized in two ways and the second way is NOT that there are missing neutrinos (ALL neutrinos are accounted for) but that there is another primary source of energy (perhaps more than one) besides the known nuclear fusion reaction of deuterium, which ends in helium. Mills finds one of those gainful reactions in the solar corona through excess UV emissions due to hydrogen redundancy. The other one in this hypothesis is being called RPF or reversible proton fusion. In short, the reaction of two protons which forms a diproton, which is the most prevalent nuclear reaction in the Universe by far, is not net neutral. This RPF reaction provides via QCD a fraction of the net energy of the sun without any neutrinos and thus balances the books more elegantly than any other model. Moreover, it is also the same energy pathway which turns up in nickel-hydrogen LENR on Earth. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Two answers to the solar neutrino problem
I totally agree with that thinking. My take is that those magnetic flux tubes in the corona are strings of dark matter/energy, they are pulling a vacuum and cooling the sunspots they go into. They break off during flares and are expelled into the solar wind. They undergo inflation as they reach Earth and encircle it and ionize and decay into our low pressure(vacuum) weather disturbances and also decay us and the Earth triggering seismic events. This is a form of quintessence. Our weather is not triggered by hot and cold, it is triggered by vacuum. These strings/branes really make up our quantum gravity field, warping and decaying space around them. Things are not nice and smooth like Albert thought. Makes for a lot of variety here on Earth but very short lives... Stewart darkmattersalot.com On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Instead of hijacking the previous thread, one detail is now morphed into a new topic based on this exchange. From: John Berry DR wrote... I find that the CoE is an effective way to validate the interactions among them. JB Really? ...Do you know how the Neutrino was 'Discovered', or should I say Invented? ...There was an apparent breach of the CoE in nuclear fusion (IIRC) and it was assumed that because they must balance anyway that the missing energy forms into some hard to detect particle. This is a pretty good summary of what science must do to adjust the books on the rare occasions when things do not work out as expected - since the neutrino was indeed an invented species... but it was not invented from scratch, so to speak - since there were other properties which we needed to account for, besides some of the missing energy in the solar fusion cycle, leading to helium. We also have conservation of spin, angular momentum, charge, lepton number etc. and therefore the neutrino filled many roles before it was finally discovered in the fifties. But the prevalence of solar neutrinos still after half a century comes up short of the number that should be there, even with next invention which is called neutrino oscillation. LENR now provides the same opportunity to describe a new kind of exothermic reaction - both on Earth and in the Stars (having a solar model). Neutrinos are not massless, as we now know, but seemed to be when first detected during nuclear experiments on Earth. NOTE also that the value of neutrino mass itself is NOT DEDUCTED from the standard solar model calculations and that failure may imply that the problem is more extreme. IOW - if the neutrino mass were accounted for in the first instance, then the so-called solar neutrino problem would be more severe than it seems (even with oscillation another kludge). OK - I'm mentioning all of this neutrino business as background for the proposition that the best way to explain one important version of LENR - the one involved in the Rossi effect (and probably the Mills effect as well) is by way of that major physical detail which neutrino detection has made clear to us. Which is to say that we may not have been stating the problem correctly. There is another large energy source on the sun besides deuterium fusion ! Maybe more than one, since Mills has an explanation for a hydrino energy source in the corona, but there is another one which I'm proposing. First - let's be clear that the major detail which the standard cosmological model misses is that the net energy release on our Sun, as evidenced by neutrinos - is at least twice the level that it should be from fusion to helium - and possibly triple. The solar neutrino problem can be verbalized in two ways and the second way is NOT that there are missing neutrinos (ALL neutrinos are accounted for) but that there is another primary source of energy (perhaps more than one) besides the known nuclear fusion reaction of deuterium, which ends in helium. Mills finds one of those gainful reactions in the solar corona through excess UV emissions due to hydrogen redundancy. The other one in this hypothesis is being called RPF or reversible proton fusion. In short, the reaction of two protons which forms a diproton, which is the most prevalent nuclear reaction in the Universe by far, is not net neutral. This RPF reaction provides via QCD a fraction of the net energy of the sun without any neutrinos and thus balances the books more elegantly than any other model. Moreover, it is also the same energy pathway which turns up in nickel-hydrogen LENR on Earth. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Two answers to the solar neutrino problem
Jones, Thanks for the assist. In your theory of RPF, in what form is the energy released? In the usual solar fusion process a neutrino escapes the active region to carry away excess energy. Since they are difficult to capture, most leave the sun along with the mass and energy from their creation. Are you expected something similar according to your idea? Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jan 23, 2014 11:04 am Subject: [Vo]:Two answers to the solar neutrino problem Instead of hijacking the previous thread, one detail is now morphed into a new topic based on this exchange. From: John Berry DR wrote... I find that the CoE is an effective way to validate the interactions among them. JB Really? ...Do you know how the Neutrino was 'Discovered', or should I say Invented? ...There was an apparent breach of the CoE in nuclear fusion (IIRC) and it was assumed that because they must balance anyway that the missing energy forms into some hard to detect particle. This is a pretty good summary of what science must do to adjust the books on the rare occasions when things do not work out as expected - since the neutrino was indeed an invented species... but it was not invented from scratch, so to speak - since there were other properties which we needed to account for, besides some of the missing energy in the solar fusion cycle, leading to helium. We also have conservation of spin, angular momentum, charge, lepton number etc. and therefore the neutrino filled many roles before it was finally discovered in the fifties. But the prevalence of solar neutrinos still after half a century comes up short of the number that should be there, even with next invention which is called neutrino oscillation. LENR now provides the same opportunity to describe a new kind of exothermic reaction - both on Earth and in the Stars (having a solar model). Neutrinos are not massless, as we now know, but seemed to be when first detected during nuclear experiments on Earth. NOTE also that the value of neutrino mass itself is NOT DEDUCTED from the standard solar model calculations and that failure may imply that the problem is more extreme. IOW - if the neutrino mass were accounted for in the first instance, then the so-called solar neutrino problem would be more severe than it seems (even with oscillation another kludge). OK - I'm mentioning all of this neutrino business as background for the proposition that the best way to explain one important version of LENR - the one involved in the Rossi effect (and probably the Mills effect as well) is by way of that major physical detail which neutrino detection has made clear to us. Which is to say that we may not have been stating the problem correctly. There is another large energy source on the sun besides deuterium fusion ! Maybe more than one, since Mills has an explanation for a hydrino energy source in the corona, but there is another one which I'm proposing. First - let's be clear that the major detail which the standard cosmological model misses is that the net energy release on our Sun, as evidenced by neutrinos - is at least twice the level that it should be from fusion to helium - and possibly triple. The solar neutrino problem can be verbalized in two ways and the second way is NOT that there are missing neutrinos (ALL neutrinos are accounted for) but that there is another primary source of energy (perhaps more than one) besides the known nuclear fusion reaction of deuterium, which ends in helium. Mills finds one of those gainful reactions in the solar corona through excess UV emissions due to hydrogen redundancy. The other one in this hypothesis is being called RPF or reversible proton fusion. In short, the reaction of two protons which forms a diproton, which is the most prevalent nuclear reaction in the Universe by far, is not net neutral. This RPF reaction provides via QCD a fraction of the net energy of the sun without any neutrinos and thus balances the books more elegantly than any other model. Moreover, it is also the same energy pathway which turns up in nickel-hydrogen LENR on Earth. Jones
RE: [Vo]:Two answers to the solar neutrino problem
From: David Roberson Thanks for the assist. In your theory of RPF, in what form is the energy released? In the usual solar fusion process a neutrino escapes the active region to carry away excess energy. Since they are difficult to capture, most leave the sun along with the mass and energy from their creation. Are you expected something similar according to your idea? Dave, The energy release appears to be UV but monochromatic, unlike Mills. The RPF hypothesis is moving towards a finding of importance for the Goldstone boson. QCD is difficult, and trying to learn it on the fly is my major problem. A magnon specifically can be the important medium for energy transfer within a nickel lattice - linking protons which undergo RPF to nickel atoms. Wiki has a pretty good entry on the Goldstone boson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldstone_boson There is a recurrent single energy quantum that keeps turning up at 55 eV. This allows plenty of confusion with Mills' Rydberg value of 54.4 eV. It seems that the higher value of 55 eV represents the single expected photon emission of RPF and not the several values which Mills claims for the hydrino, being multiples of 27.2 eV times an integer (for Mills). Thus, the two reactions may be similar but different - and to make things worse, there is a possibility that both could be active in the same environment or experiment. Jones BTW - in spectral line charts which I have seen for the solar UV emission of the corona - there is a line that looks to me to be right on 55 eV, and not the lower value of 54.4 eV. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Two answers to the solar neutrino problem
FYI, The link below shows a couple of videos that I believe are created by fairly massive strings of vacuum energy in our atmosphere. These are called sun dogs The halo is lensing of light between the source(sun) and observer. The radius is dictated by the mass of the string and distance between. The image pairs are lensed pairs of the sun. The second video has two lensed pairs The streaky long white clouds are from condensing along the strings' surface. This is the final phase of cosmic inflation The hexagonal ice crystals that show up at the same time in the atmosphere are created from condensing along the surface of the string. Many times these halos are elliptical, which you cannot explain with hexagons These strings pull a vacuum in our atmosphere along their surface creating the icy cold weather and low pressure as they decay. http://darkmattersalot.com/2014/01/20/about-all-my-budget-would-afford/ They also can show up before Earthquakes http://darkmattersalot.com/2013/12/10/when-the-halo-is-a-ring-that-is-caused-by-a-string/ That is the end of my cosmic weather forecast :) Stewart Darkmattersalot.com On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: David Roberson Thanks for the assist. In your theory of RPF, in what form is the energy released? In the usual solar fusion process a neutrino escapes the active region to carry away excess energy. Since they are difficult to capture, most leave the sun along with the mass and energy from their creation. Are you expected something similar according to your idea? Dave, The energy release appears to be UV but monochromatic, unlike Mills. The RPF hypothesis is moving towards a finding of importance for the Goldstone boson. QCD is difficult, and trying to learn it on the fly is my major problem. A magnon specifically can be the important medium for energy transfer within a nickel lattice - linking protons which undergo RPF to nickel atoms. Wiki has a pretty good entry on the Goldstone boson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldstone_boson There is a recurrent single energy quantum that keeps turning up at 55 eV. This allows plenty of confusion with Mills' Rydberg value of 54.4 eV. It seems that the higher value of 55 eV represents the single expected photon emission of RPF and not the several values which Mills claims for the hydrino, being multiples of 27.2 eV times an integer (for Mills). Thus, the two reactions may be similar but different - and to make things worse, there is a possibility that both could be active in the same environment or experiment. Jones BTW - in spectral line charts which I have seen for the solar UV emission of the corona - there is a line that looks to me to be right on 55 eV, and not the lower value of 54.4 eV.
