subject:"RE\: \[Vo\]\:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now\!"

MIT Prof. Peter L. Hagelstein stated in an interview as follows:

So after a lot of years of work on it, about 10 years ago we found a model
that actually did something like that. It's remarkable! It turns out in the
physics literature, there's a model called the 'Spin-Boson Model' that's
basically a fundamental quantum mechanics model, so you have a harmonic
oscillator and you hook it up to what's called a two level system — that's
just an idealisation, it's a little bit of physics having to do with two of
the energy levels in a more complicated system. But it makes the math
really simple, so the resulting model is one you can analyze to death.
People have studied that model now for between 40-60 years, depending on
how you count them. This model predicts the 30 or 50 fold, or the ability
to break up a two level system quantum into, for example, into nearly 30
individual quanta.

Axil says:
Let us now address another quantum optics model describing polaritons:

The Jaynes–Cummings model.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaynes%E2%80%93Cummings_model

Starting at the very bottom, the most basic underlying model that teaches
us how waves/particles can resonate is the Jaynes–Cummings model (JCM). It
describes the system of a two-level atom interacting with a quantized mode
of an optical cavity, with or without the presence of light (in the form of
a bath of electromagnetic radiation that can cause spontaneous emission and
absorption).

MIT Prof. Peter L. Hagelstein continues in the interview as follows:

What we found is the way that the model does it, it can do it, but it's
hindered. There's a destructive interference effect that goes on, that
makes the effect relatively weak. What we found, is that if you added a
weird kind of loss to the model— a loss that you would expect in the cold
fusion scenario. The new model, with loss, is much more relevant to the
physical situation called fusion than otherwise. But this weird kind of
loss, it breaks the destructive interference, and it makes this energy
exchange go orders of magnitude faster. And instead of being a relatively
weak effect, it's now a very strong, it's a dominant effect. This model is
exactly what you need! It's a microscopic engine to take big quanta and
chop it up into little tiny quanta. So that's what we've found.

Axil says:

This is Fano interference active in an optical cavity to localize EMF
radiation to the near field by eliminated far field emissions.


On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 1:40 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 *

 MIT Prof. Peter L. Hagelstein stated in an interview as follows:
 *

 So there are no significant amount of neutrons, there's no fast electrons,
 there's no gamma rays. There's nothing you might expect if it were a more
 normal nuclear reaction process. The basic statement here is that — if it's
 real and if it's nuclear... the argument for it being nuclear is that
 there's 4He (helium-4) observed in experiments, roughly one 4He for every
 24 MeV of energy that's created. So what you need in the way of a
 theoretical model, basically a new kind of mechanism that doesn't work like
 the old Rutherford reaction picture that nuclear physics is based on. So
 that's the basic problem that I've been working on for a great many years.

 The big problem is one that has to do with the quantum mechanics issue.
 The nuclear energy comes in a big energy quantum, and if it didn't get
 broken up, then the big energy quantum would get expressed as energetic
 particles, as normally happens in nuclear reactions. So the approach we've
 taken is that we've said the only conceivable route for making sense of
 these observations at all, is that the big energy quanta have to get sliced
 and diced up into a very very large number if much smaller energy quanta.
 The much larger number is on the order of several hundred million. In NMR
 physics and optical physics, people are familiar with breaking up a large
 quantum into perhaps 30 smaller pieces, you could argue that there are some
 experiments where you could argue that maybe that numbers as high as 100 or
 so. It's unprecedented that you could take an MeV quantum and chop it up
 into bite sized pieces that are 10s of meV.


 On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 12:15 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.comwrote:


 If a bunch of low energy photons  is equivalent to the energy of 1 high
 energy gamma photon, why can't a particular nuclear reaction sometimes
 produce a mountain of infrared photons instead one gamma photon? According
 to conservation of energy this is possible, so why is it considered
 impossible?

 harry


 On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 1:06 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote:

 ** **

 Dave stated:

 “… and that the energy from the reactions is shared among the atoms
 surrounding it.  I have been looking for evidence that fusion can take
 place in the compact environment of a cold fusion NAE in a manner that is
 very different from that occurring within a plasma.”

 ** **

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

2013-04-04 Thread Kevin O'Malley

In the end, it should be crystal clear to anyone who understands nuclear
engineering - that there is no possible way to adequately explain the lack
of gammas in LENR - other than that they never happened at all.

Jones
***This is an elegant aspect of the theory, it obeys Occham's Razor.

RE: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

There seems to be two different overlapping threads going on here, since
Mark's original suggestion relating to subatomic quark resonance was
hijacked (by moi) in favor of another related subject: lack of gammas in
LENR. Apologies for that. 

However, in regard to the latter, the take-away message should be that MeV
quanta (gamma radiation) once emitted, can only be downshifted in steps -
going down to 100s of keV, 10s of keV, hundreds of eV (EUV), 10s of eV (UV
light), visible light and then to IR light, etc. All of this must be
accomplished in dozens or hundreds of distinct steps involving millions of
target atoms. Lewis Larsen wants to tell the world of physics that no, it is
possible to do it all in one step, in one particle.

The reason this claim of W-L theory is ludicrous can be seen every day by
looking up. Our sun makes gamma radiation as its prime energy product -  yet
x-rays, ultraviolet, visible, infrared, microwave, and radio waves are all
emitted - and the proportion of IR is well-understood. Of course this is not
LENR, but it is the model for gamma downshifting, and if you want to assert
two distinct miracles - then it is wise to show some other evidence than the
very phenomenon you wish to explain - with your outrageous claim.

In the sun, gammas cannot escape without colliding with protons and
electrons and losing a small portion of their energy on every collision -
over and over and over. The same should be true on earth IF gammas are
actually emitted. Moreover, a gamma ray typically spends 30,000 years
colliding with atomic particles and re-emitting energy at a slightly lower
energy level on the sun, until it finally escapes. That is a lot of
downshifting, and to assert that it can all be avoided, because we need to
make gammas do that, in order to make our theory work is essentially what
the rest of science is being asked to believe. 

Don't ask me to explain the calculations that provided this million-day
solar gamma lag time - but it is part of the standard model. Hagelstein - at
least, suggests another pathway (phonon collective vibrations) that spreads
the MeV radiation out over trillions of atoms in the metal lattice, unlike
W-L which suggest a single particle downshifting. Almost no one in physics
believes Hagelstein is correct on this, but he is far closer to making a
case for lack of gammas than W-L.

It seems a bit more logical to suggest that the lack of gammas can be better
explained by the lack of the kind of nuclear reaction that produces gammas.
The most prevalent nuclear reaction in the Universe, reversible proton
fusion, produces no gammas. Shouldn't we be taking a closer look at RPF?


From: Axil 
MIT Prof. Peter L. Hagelstein stated in an interview as
follows: 
So there are no significant amount of neutrons, there's no
fast electrons, there's no gamma rays. There's nothing you might expect if
it were a more normal nuclear reaction process. The basic statement here is
that - if it's real and if it's nuclear... the argument for it being nuclear
is that there's 4He (helium-4) observed in experiments, roughly one 4He for
every 24 MeV of energy that's created. So what you need in the way of a
theoretical model, basically a new kind of mechanism that doesn't work like
the old Rutherford reaction picture that nuclear physics is based on. So
that's the basic problem that I've been working on for a great many years.
The big problem is one that has to do with the quantum
mechanics issue. The nuclear energy comes in a big energy quantum, and if it
didn't get broken up, then the big energy quantum would get expressed as
energetic particles, as normally happens in nuclear reactions. So the
approach we've taken is that we've said the only conceivable route for
making sense of these observations at all, is that the big energy quanta
have to get sliced and diced up into a very very large number if much
smaller energy quanta. The much larger number is on the order of several
hundred million. In NMR physics and optical physics, people are familiar
with breaking up a large quantum into perhaps 30 smaller pieces, you could
argue that there are some experiments where you could argue that maybe that
numbers as high as 100 or so. It's unprecedented that you could take an MeV
quantum and chop it up into bite sized pieces that are 10s of meV.
Harry Veeder wrote:
 
If a bunch of low energy photons  is equivalent to the
energy of 1 high energy gamma photon, why can't a particular nuclear
reaction sometimes produce a mountain of infrared photons instead one gamma
photon? According to conservation of energy this is possible, so why is it
considered impossible?
 
harry

MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: 
Dave stated:
... and that the energy from the reactions is shared among
the atoms surrounding it.

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

2013-04-04 Thread Jed Rothwell

Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:


 . . . there is no possible way to adequately explain the lack
 of gammas in LENR - other than that they never happened at all.


I know little of theory, but that has long been my gut feeling. Some cold
fusion cells to produce gamma rays but I think this is a secondary effect,
or something completely unrelated such as fracto fusion.

I have heard many theory presentations in which the author speculates that
some complex mechanism manages to catch nearly all -- but not quite all! --
of the gammas before they come out of the lattice. This seems extremely
unlikely to me. How could the mechanism be so exquisitely tuned to make it
work 99.99% of the time but not the last faction of times?

Here is something that often happens in science and technology. People
discover X, and then later on they discover Y. Because they happen to find
X first, they assume that Y is a variant or subset of X. They assume that X
sets the general rule and Y must be something along similar lines which
follows the same rules and where there is a variation that variation must
be explained separately as a special case.

It often turns out that Y is the general case, and X was a variation. Or it
turns out that the two of them are unrelated.

We naturally assume that cold fusion is some sort of variation of plasma
fusion, because we discovered plasma fusion first. For all anyone can say,
it might turn out that plasma fusion is an unusual high-temperature variety
of cold fusion.

In the case of technology, we develop a method of doing something and then
when new and better machines are developed we bring along the old method
out of force of habit. We assume that this is how you should do things so
let's continue doing it that way, even though the circumstances have
changed. This is why newly invented machines look quaint were oddly out of
kilter a few years later. The early automobiles looked like horseless
carriages because they were, in the literal sense. A carriage for a horse
can be built high off the road. Making automobiles that way is a bad idea
because they travel much faster and they are blown around.  Model T Fords
driven in windy conditions or high speed blew all over the road. It took 20
or 30 years before people began to make automobiles streamlined and low to
the road.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

Jones, I forgive you for hijacking the original thread since I was an 
accomplice.  I would like to understand the RPF reaction better if possible and 
to determine why it does not emit a gamma as you point out.  If the collisions 
between the protons are elastic, then the energy could be conserved by recoil 
behavior.  A great deal depends upon how long the two protons are under the 
influence of the strong force once the collision occurs.


It might be difficult to make a determination of the amount of time during 
which the protons are in close proximity.  I would expect the pair to be highly 
excited in this situation with plenty of energy available to emit.  But, the 
energy available is also the amount required to break apart the reacting 
protons as well and that seems to be what ultimately occurs.  I guess one must 
attempt to understand why the energy is not emitted as a gamma leaving the 
protons connected which is the question at hand.


Is there proof that the gamma emission does not occur?  In the center of the 
sun one might encounter an enormous flux of gammas of this binding energy and 
more due to excess kinetic energy among the reacting protons.  Perhaps the bath 
of high energy gammas continue to encounter the proton pairs and supply enough 
energy to break them apart as it becomes absorbed.


We do know that occasionally a proton pair becomes a deuterium nucleus and the 
process continues to supply heat to the solar system.  I believe that the 
energy required to break apart the deuterium nuclei is not available in large 
enough quantities so many of them remain intact.


Is it well understood why the pair of excited protons does not emit a gamma to 
lower their energy?  Is there proof that this does not occur only to be 
restored by the vast flood of gammas from other similar processes?  I ask these 
questions because I do not know the answers and would like to understand why 
certain behavior is observed.


Dave  



-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Apr 4, 2013 9:39 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!


There seems to be two different overlapping threads going on here, since
Mark's original suggestion relating to subatomic quark resonance was
hijacked (by moi) in favor of another related subject: lack of gammas in
LENR. Apologies for that. 

However, in regard to the latter, the take-away message should be that MeV
quanta (gamma radiation) once emitted, can only be downshifted in steps -
going down to 100s of keV, 10s of keV, hundreds of eV (EUV), 10s of eV (UV
light), visible light and then to IR light, etc. All of this must be
accomplished in dozens or hundreds of distinct steps involving millions of
target atoms. Lewis Larsen wants to tell the world of physics that no, it is
possible to do it all in one step, in one particle.

The reason this claim of W-L theory is ludicrous can be seen every day by
looking up. Our sun makes gamma radiation as its prime energy product -  yet
x-rays, ultraviolet, visible, infrared, microwave, and radio waves are all
emitted - and the proportion of IR is well-understood. Of course this is not
LENR, but it is the model for gamma downshifting, and if you want to assert
two distinct miracles - then it is wise to show some other evidence than the
very phenomenon you wish to explain - with your outrageous claim.

In the sun, gammas cannot escape without colliding with protons and
electrons and losing a small portion of their energy on every collision -
over and over and over. The same should be true on earth IF gammas are
actually emitted. Moreover, a gamma ray typically spends 30,000 years
colliding with atomic particles and re-emitting energy at a slightly lower
energy level on the sun, until it finally escapes. That is a lot of
downshifting, and to assert that it can all be avoided, because we need to
make gammas do that, in order to make our theory work is essentially what
the rest of science is being asked to believe. 

Don't ask me to explain the calculations that provided this million-day
solar gamma lag time - but it is part of the standard model. Hagelstein - at
least, suggests another pathway (phonon collective vibrations) that spreads
the MeV radiation out over trillions of atoms in the metal lattice, unlike
W-L which suggest a single particle downshifting. Almost no one in physics
believes Hagelstein is correct on this, but he is far closer to making a
case for lack of gammas than W-L.

It seems a bit more logical to suggest that the lack of gammas can be better
explained by the lack of the kind of nuclear reaction that produces gammas.
The most prevalent nuclear reaction in the Universe, reversible proton
fusion, produces no gammas. Shouldn't we be taking a closer look at RPF?


From: Axil 
MIT Prof. Peter L. Hagelstein stated in an interview as
follows: 
So there are no significant amount

RE: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

2013-04-04 Thread MarkI-ZeroPoint

So, out of all the erudite Vorts, no one can answer the following simple
questions:

Why are the UP-spin quarks on OPPOSITE sides of the proton from the
DOWN-spin quarks???

Why do...
 All spin directions collapse on one or the OPPOSITE direction depending on
the measured photon polarization. ??? 

Why, in some nuclear interactions, do two gammas go shooting off in OPPOSITE
directions???

Where is the physical model that explains the REASON for these basic
observations???

Why is the magnetic field PERPENDICULAR to the E-field???  
It's all related...

-Mark (the reluctant hijackee) Iverson

_
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 6:39 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!


There seems to be two different overlapping threads going on here, since
Mark's original suggestion relating to subatomic quark resonance was
hijacked (by moi) in favor of another related subject: lack of gammas in
LENR. Apologies for that. 

deleted hijacker's msg since it's not answering my question :-)

attachment: winmail.dat

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

It might be possible to develop realistic models which explain these
things if CoE is demoted from a law to a convention
or should a law always take precedence over intelligibility and experience?

Harry


On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 1:33 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote:

 So, out of all the erudite Vorts, no one can answer the following simple
 questions:

 Why are the UP-spin quarks on OPPOSITE sides of the proton from the
 DOWN-spin quarks???

 Why do...
  All spin directions collapse on one or the OPPOSITE direction depending
 on
 the measured photon polarization. ???

 Why, in some nuclear interactions, do two gammas go shooting off in
 OPPOSITE
 directions???

 Where is the physical model that explains the REASON for these basic
 observations???

 Why is the magnetic field PERPENDICULAR to the E-field???
 It's all related...

 -Mark (the reluctant hijackee) Iverson

 _
 From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
 Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 6:39 AM
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Subject: RE: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!


 There seems to be two different overlapping threads going on here, since
 Mark's original suggestion relating to subatomic quark resonance was
 hijacked (by moi) in favor of another related subject: lack of gammas in
 LENR. Apologies for that.

 deleted hijacker's msg since it's not answering my question :-)

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

*The reason this claim of W-L theory is ludicrous --- Of course this is not
LENR, but it is the model for gamma downshifting, and if you want to assert
two distinct miracles - then it is wise to show some other evidence than
the very phenomenon you wish to explain - with your outrageous claim.
*

Gamma suppression does not cause LENR; it is accidental to the LENR
reaction.

However, it is still very important. It is the principle demarcation line
between LENR and LENR+.

The LENR reaction emits gammas and this energy release destroys the nuclear
active sites. The LENR reactions will soon stop as the NAE are blown apart
and cratered.

On the other hand, LENR+ thermalizes the energy that is produced in the NAE
as a secondary mechanism, but this thermalization of the reaction allows
the LENR+ reaction to occur over and over again from the same NAE for
months on end.

When all this is considered, gamma thermalization is far more puzzling than
we think; it is connected to the LENR reaction but not required by it.

This type of mechanism is not supported by the WL theory. Electrons
produce both the reaction and the gamma thermalization.

Electrons cannot do both jobs simultaneously. There must be a second
optional mechanism that these elections undergo to cause suppress the
gammas. I believe that that mechanism is Bose-Einstein condensation; a
ubiquitous condition in the lattice that is readily and continuously
restored and refreshed as the LENR+ reaction occurs.



On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 There seems to be two different overlapping threads going on here, since
 Mark's original suggestion relating to subatomic quark resonance was
 hijacked (by moi) in favor of another related subject: lack of gammas in
 LENR. Apologies for that.

 However, in regard to the latter, the take-away message should be that MeV
 quanta (gamma radiation) once emitted, can only be downshifted in steps -
 going down to 100s of keV, 10s of keV, hundreds of eV (EUV), 10s of eV (UV
 light), visible light and then to IR light, etc. All of this must be
 accomplished in dozens or hundreds of distinct steps involving millions of
 target atoms. Lewis Larsen wants to tell the world of physics that no, it
 is
 possible to do it all in one step, in one particle.

 The reason this claim of W-L theory is ludicrous can be seen every day by
 looking up. Our sun makes gamma radiation as its prime energy product -
  yet
 x-rays, ultraviolet, visible, infrared, microwave, and radio waves are all
 emitted - and the proportion of IR is well-understood. Of course this is
 not
 LENR, but it is the model for gamma downshifting, and if you want to assert
 two distinct miracles - then it is wise to show some other evidence than
 the
 very phenomenon you wish to explain - with your outrageous claim.

 In the sun, gammas cannot escape without colliding with protons and
 electrons and losing a small portion of their energy on every collision -
 over and over and over. The same should be true on earth IF gammas are
 actually emitted. Moreover, a gamma ray typically spends 30,000 years
 colliding with atomic particles and re-emitting energy at a slightly lower
 energy level on the sun, until it finally escapes. That is a lot of
 downshifting, and to assert that it can all be avoided, because we need to
 make gammas do that, in order to make our theory work is essentially what
 the rest of science is being asked to believe.

 Don't ask me to explain the calculations that provided this million-day
 solar gamma lag time - but it is part of the standard model. Hagelstein -
 at
 least, suggests another pathway (phonon collective vibrations) that spreads
 the MeV radiation out over trillions of atoms in the metal lattice, unlike
 W-L which suggest a single particle downshifting. Almost no one in physics
 believes Hagelstein is correct on this, but he is far closer to making a
 case for lack of gammas than W-L.

 It seems a bit more logical to suggest that the lack of gammas can be
 better
 explained by the lack of the kind of nuclear reaction that produces gammas.
 The most prevalent nuclear reaction in the Universe, reversible proton
 fusion, produces no gammas. Shouldn't we be taking a closer look at RPF?


 From: Axil
 MIT Prof. Peter L. Hagelstein stated in an interview as
 follows:
 So there are no significant amount of neutrons, there's no
 fast electrons, there's no gamma rays. There's nothing you might expect if
 it were a more normal nuclear reaction process. The basic statement here is
 that - if it's real and if it's nuclear... the argument for it being
 nuclear
 is that there's 4He (helium-4) observed in experiments, roughly one 4He for
 every 24 MeV of energy that's created. So what you need in the way of a
 theoretical model, basically a new kind of mechanism that doesn't work like
 the old Rutherford reaction picture that nuclear physics is based on. So
 that's

RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

2013-04-04 Thread Roarty, Francis X

Harry,
I am ok with COE remaining a law but the convention that HUP 
can never be tapped needs to be stricken. My point is that the random forces 
normally cancelled in the macro world become organized by casimir geometry and 
can provide an exploitable bias from zero point energy.
Fran

From: Harry Veeder [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 2:48 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

It might be possible to develop realistic models which explain these things 
if CoE is demoted from a law to a convention
or should a law always take precedence over intelligibility and experience?

Harry

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 1:33 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint 
zeropo...@charter.netmailto:zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
So, out of all the erudite Vorts, no one can answer the following simple
questions:

Why are the UP-spin quarks on OPPOSITE sides of the proton from the
DOWN-spin quarks???

Why do...
 All spin directions collapse on one or the OPPOSITE direction depending on
the measured photon polarization. ???

Why, in some nuclear interactions, do two gammas go shooting off in OPPOSITE
directions???

Where is the physical model that explains the REASON for these basic
observations???

Why is the magnetic field PERPENDICULAR to the E-field???
It's all related...

-Mark (the reluctant hijackee) Iverson

_
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.netmailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 6:39 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.commailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

There seems to be two different overlapping threads going on here, since
Mark's original suggestion relating to subatomic quark resonance was
hijacked (by moi) in favor of another related subject: lack of gammas in
LENR. Apologies for that.

deleted hijacker's msg since it's not answering my question :-)

RE: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

 

 

From: Axil Axil 

 

The reason this claim of W-L theory is ludicrous --- Of course this is not
LENR, but it is the model for gamma downshifting, and if you want to assert
two distinct miracles - then it is wise to show some other evidence than the
very phenomenon you wish to explain - with your outrageous claim.

 

Gamma suppression does not cause LENR; it is accidental to the LENR
reaction.

 

However, it is still very important. It is the principle demarcation line
between LENR and LENR+.

 

Nonsense. There is no such thing as gamma suppression . It is a complete
fabrication of W-L without a shred of evidence AFAIK. if you have the
evidence, please show it

 

The LENR reaction emits gammas and this energy release destroys the nuclear
active sites. The LENR reactions will soon stop as the NAE are blown apart
and cratered.

 

More disinformation. There is no possibility of nano-sized sites stopping
gamma radiation. This requires thick lead shielding.

 

On the other hand, LENR+ thermalizes the energy that is produced in the NAE
as a secondary mechanism, but this thermalization of the reaction allows the
LENR+ reaction to occur over and over again from the same NAE for months on
end.

 

There is no evidence for this.

RE: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

_
From: MarkI-ZeroPoint 


So, out of all the erudite Vorts, no one can answer the
following simple questions:

Why are the UP-spin quarks on OPPOSITE sides of the proton
from the DOWN-spin quarks???

Short answer: erudition eroded... alternatively: not simple.

Long answer. A proton is composed of two up quarks and one down quark, so
they logically cannot be arranged as opposites. A handy visualization is
Borromean rings and a more technical version is the Efimov state.

Why, in some nuclear interactions, do two gammas go shooting
off in OPPOSITE directions???

That one appears to be conservation of momentum, but the connection to quark
spin, if there is one, is not clear. 

Wiki sez: In classical mechanics, linear momentum or translational momentum
is the product of the mass and velocity of an object Linear momentum is
a conserved quantity and the gamma has equivalent mass, even if the rest
mass is zero.

Why is the magnetic field PERPENDICULAR to the E-field???  

This is also related to momentum in a way (if one is trying to find a
connection) - since the EM wave moves forward by transferring energy back
and forth between the two fields, and that momentum is conserved. As one
field collapses the other field builds, so the waves must be at right angles
to each other, since at any other angle there would be inequality in the
transfer.

Jones




attachment: winmail.dat

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

Evidence of electromagnetic radiation from Ni-H Systems
*
http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=sfrm=1source=webcd=2cad=rjasqi=2ved=0CDsQFjABurl=http%3A%2F%2Fnewenergytimes.com%2Fv2%2Flibrary%2F2004%2F2004Focardi-EvidenceOfElectromagneticRadiation.pdfei=-NpdUemSBITB4AP364CYBAusg=AFQjCNHu3w5dimV_JIaouNutOQePoXu2Pgsig2=ZCZ6WnU2Vjiyx3rrr9DHFQ

I have posted this about a half dozen times so far, but you seem to have a
block to it.

This experiment shows the reaction with and without gamma radiation

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

** **

*From:* Axil Axil

** **

*The reason this claim of W-L theory is ludicrous --- Of course this is
not LENR, but it is the model for gamma downshifting, and if you want to
assert two distinct miracles - then it is wise to show some other evidence
than the very phenomenon you wish to explain - with your outrageous claim.
*

Gamma suppression does not cause LENR; it is accidental to the LENR
reaction.

However, it is still very important. It is the principle demarcation line
between LENR and LENR+.

** **

Nonsense. There is no such thing as “gamma suppression” … It is a complete
fabrication of W-L without a shred of evidence AFAIK… if you have the
evidence, please show it

The LENR reaction emits gammas and this energy release destroys the
nuclear active sites. The LENR reactions will soon stop as the NAE are
blown apart and cratered.

** **

More disinformation. There is no possibility of nano-sized sites stopping
gamma radiation. This requires thick lead shielding.

On the other hand, LENR+ thermalizes the energy that is produced in the
NAE as a secondary mechanism, but this thermalization of the reaction
allows the LENR+ reaction to occur over and over again from the same NAE
for months on end.

** **

There is no evidence for this.

** **

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Wed, 3 Apr 2013 20:20:58 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
An example of a new branch would be:

d + d ? 4He + M,

where M is a nearby nucleus that shares the energy of the reaction as a
spectator (all of this should be familiar as Ron Maimon's idea).  This
conserves momentum somehow.

The spectator nucleus goes in one direction, the 4He goes in the opposite
direction. In the center of mass frame (which is also the frame of all the
nuclei at the moment of fusion), the momentum of each product is equal in
magnitude and opposite in sign, hence net zero.
This means that the energy of the reaction is divided up such that the lighter
nucleus gets the lion's share of the energy (because m * V = M * -v), and the
energy of each particle = (momentum^2)/(2*mass) ).

E.g. 

D + D + 106Pd = 106Pd + 0.865 MeV + 4He + 22.935 MeV

(Total energy is 23.8 MeV)

To put it in simple terms, the presence of the spectator nucleus provides the
4He, something to push off against, like a swimmer pushing off against the end
of the pool. The spectator nucleus also gets some of the kinetic energy, IOW it
moves away a little when pushed.

In hot fusion, the newly formed excited 4He nucleus has nothing to push off
against, and hence has no option other than to fission again, into either 
He3 + n or T + p. Very occasionally in hot fusion you get 4He + gamma.
Once again, with each of the two particles having equal and opposite momentum.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

RE: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

You can't be serious. 

 

These are extraordinarily low radiation counts over long periods. 

 

35 megajoules of excess heat over 22 days and what? . a few hundred counts.
LOL

 

This is strong evidence against a direct correlation of radiation to heat -
not evidence for a correlation.

 

Yes, there is evidence of QM reaction, but no one doubts that excess heat
will come with QM side effects.

 

 

From: Axil Axil 

 

Evidence of electromagnetic radiation from Ni-H Systems

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t
http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=sfrm=1source=webcd=2cad=rj
asqi=2ved=0CDsQFjABurl=http%3A%2F%2Fnewenergytimes.com%2Fv2%2Flibrary%2F2
004%2F2004Focardi-EvidenceOfElectromagneticRadiation.pdfei=-NpdUemSBITB4AP3
64CYBAusg=AFQjCNHu3w5dimV_JIaouNutOQePoXu2Pgsig2=ZCZ6WnU2Vjiyx3rrr9DHFQ
rct=jq=esrc=sfrm=1source=webcd=2cad=rjasqi=2ved=0CDsQFjABurl=http%
3A%2F%2Fnewenergytimes.com%2Fv2%2Flibrary%2F2004%2F2004Focardi-EvidenceOfEle
ctromagneticRadiation.pdfei=-NpdUemSBITB4AP364CYBAusg=AFQjCNHu3w5dimV_JIao
uNutOQePoXu2Pgsig2=ZCZ6WnU2Vjiyx3rrr9DHFQ

 

 

I have posted this about a half dozen times so far, but you seem to have a
block to it.

This experiment shows the reaction with and without gamma radiation 

 

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 

 

From: Axil Axil 

 

The reason this claim of W-L theory is ludicrous --- Of course this is not
LENR, but it is the model for gamma downshifting, and if you want to assert
two distinct miracles - then it is wise to show some other evidence than the
very phenomenon you wish to explain - with your outrageous claim.

 

Gamma suppression does not cause LENR; it is accidental to the LENR
reaction.

 

However, it is still very important. It is the principle demarcation line
between LENR and LENR+.

 

Nonsense. There is no such thing as gamma suppression . It is a complete
fabrication of W-L without a shred of evidence AFAIK. if you have the
evidence, please show it

 

The LENR reaction emits gammas and this energy release destroys the nuclear
active sites. The LENR reactions will soon stop as the NAE are blown apart
and cratered.

 

More disinformation. There is no possibility of nano-sized sites stopping
gamma radiation. This requires thick lead shielding.

 

On the other hand, LENR+ thermalizes the energy that is produced in the NAE
as a secondary mechanism, but this thermalization of the reaction allows the
LENR+ reaction to occur over and over again from the same NAE for months on
end.

 

There is no evidence for this.

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Wed, 3 Apr 2013 20:20:58 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
[1] http://phys.org/news/2013-04-quarks-dictate-proton.html

BTW, compare this to:-

http://checkerboard.dnsalias.net/
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Wed, 3 Apr 2013 23:38:46 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
The higher the energy, the smaller the body, going down from outer electron
shells to individual nucleons and, presumably, quarks.  But as the size
decreases, the probability of an interaction will no doubt go down in
corresponding measure, because the size of the targets decreases as well.
 So by the time you get to gammas, they will largely pass through a region
of interest.  For photons of high enough energy, the mean free path
generally goes up, meaning they travel farther and farther through the
material.  Once we're at gammas, I believe a typical metal will be largely
transparent to them.



This is a false assumption. Nanoplasmoics show strong coupling between
light and electrons at 10 to the minus 8 power of the wavelength of light.

This same ability to couple gammas to electrons external to the nucleus is
probable.

The ability of gammas to penetrate various elements can be calculated using a
similar approach to that which I recently suggested in regard to neutrons. The
appropriate constants are tabularized here:-

http://www.nist.gov/pml/data/xraycoef/index.cfm
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Thu, 4 Apr 2013 16:02:17 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
*

Evidence of electromagnetic radiation from Ni-H Systems
*
http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=sfrm=1source=webcd=2cad=rjasqi=2ved=0CDsQFjABurl=http%3A%2F%2Fnewenergytimes.com%2Fv2%2Flibrary%2F2004%2F2004Focardi-EvidenceOfElectromagneticRadiation.pdfei=-NpdUemSBITB4AP364CYBAusg=AFQjCNHu3w5dimV_JIaouNutOQePoXu2Pgsig2=ZCZ6WnU2Vjiyx3rrr9DHFQ


I have posted this about a half dozen times so far, but you seem to have a
block to it.

This experiment shows the reaction with and without gamma radiation

BTW there is obviously an error in the legend of Fig. 3. Apparently it should be
the same as the legend in Fig. 4, which is correct.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Thu, 4 Apr 2013 12:29:42 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
More disinformation. There is no possibility of nano-sized sites stopping
gamma radiation. This requires thick lead shielding.

..I have often wondered if an electron that is within the wavelength of a gamma
(i.e. a near field energy transfer) might absorb the energy as kinetic energy.
For a 23.8 MeV gamma the wavelength is 52 fm. For a Mills' Hydrino this is too
small for even the smallest Hydrino, however if my version is correct, then it
should be possible for f/H with a p  32.

(This probably won't stand up to much scrutiny, so don't look too hard. ;)

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

In reply to  Roarty, Francis X's message of Thu, 4 Apr 2013 18:58:33 +:
Hi,
[snip]
Harry,
I am ok with COE remaining a law but the convention that HUP 
 can never be tapped needs to be stricken. My point is that the random forces 
 normally cancelled in the macro world become organized by casimir geometry 
 and can provide an exploitable bias from zero point energy.
Fran

...organized forces seems to imply a net force acting on the object. You may
just have invented Cavorite. ;)

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

Has anyone looked to see that momentum is conserved in these processes?

Dave

-Original Message-
From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Apr 4, 2013 5:45 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Thu, 4 Apr 2013 12:29:42 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
More disinformation. There is no possibility of nano-sized sites stopping
gamma radiation. This requires thick lead shielding.

..I have often wondered if an electron that is within the wavelength of a gamma
(i.e. a near field energy transfer) might absorb the energy as kinetic energy.
For a 23.8 MeV gamma the wavelength is 52 fm. For a Mills' Hydrino this is too
small for even the smallest Hydrino, however if my version is correct, then it
should be possible for f/H with a p  32.

(This probably won't stand up to much scrutiny, so don't look too hard. ;)

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

Your inexactitude in thinking is hard to overcome. Let us try another piece
of info as follows:

When Rossi first stated his demonstrations and the public comments about
them, his first few shows were marred by a troublesome condition during
startup and shutdown where significant gamma radiation was produced.
If you remember, Celani said about the January 14 demo as follows:

After various vicissitudes, because the reactor was having major problems,
some inner resistors had broken down; Mr. Rossi came out of the room
delighted: The reactor has started. Before he came out, a few minutes
before, I had independently measured that both the gamma detector and the
mini Geiger had hit the top of the scale, whereas the two detectors of
electromagnetic interference were not showing anything.

This meant that a short but intense emission of gamma radiation had taken
place.

But while the reactor was in operation, at the demonstration on January 14,
no measurable nuclear radiation was detected. Villa wrote:

The energy power input and output and gamma radiations were measured
before, during and after the active phase of the system, as well as the
hydrogen consumption. While a net energy output was observed, no γ excess
(with energy above 200 keV has been measured above the natural background
level (180 Hz rate in single mode, compared to an expected rate largely in
excess of 1 MHz).

Rossi eventually fixed this problem by getting his reactor up to operating
temperature before startup by using a secondary heater.
It was also suspected that Rossi's early reactors would cease to function
after 48 hours. This failure was suspected to have caused the DGT-Rossi
breakup.

This peculiar reactor behavior suggests a separation between the mechanism
that causes the LENR reaction and the mechanism that down-shifts the gamma
radiation to heat. This behavior leads to the conclusion that there exist
two separate and distinct LENR reaction mechanisms that are simultaneously
active within the nuclear active zone.

Recapitulating, one mechanism drives the LENR reaction and another
mitigates the resultant gamma radiation.

These two mechanisms may be symbiotic and reinforcing but the gamma
mitigation mechanism is not required to startup or maintain the reaction.

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

You can't be serious.

** **

These are extraordinarily low radiation counts over long periods.

** **

35 megajoules of excess heat over 22 days and what? ... a few hundred
counts. LOL

** **

This is strong evidence against a direct correlation of radiation to heat
- not evidence for a correlation.

** **

Yes, there is evidence of QM reaction, but no one doubts that excess heat
will come with QM side effects.

** **

*From:* Axil Axil

** **

*Evidence of electromagnetic radiation from Ni-H Systems*

http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=sfrm=1source=webcd=2cad=rjasqi=2ved=0CDsQFjABurl=http%3A%2F%2Fnewenergytimes.com%2Fv2%2Flibrary%2F2004%2F2004Focardi-EvidenceOfElectromagneticRadiation.pdfei=-NpdUemSBITB4AP364CYBAusg=AFQjCNHu3w5dimV_JIaouNutOQePoXu2Pgsig2=ZCZ6WnU2Vjiyx3rrr9DHFQ

I have posted this about a half dozen times so far, but you seem to have a
block to it.

This experiment shows the reaction with and without gamma radiation

** **

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:**
**

*From:* Axil Axil

Gamma suppression does not cause LENR; it is accidental to the LENR
reaction.

However, it is still very important. It is the principle demarcation line
between LENR and LENR+.

Nonsense. There is no such thing as gamma suppression ... It is a complete
fabrication of W-L without a shred of evidence AFAIK... if you have the
evidence, please show it

The LENR reaction emits gammas and this energy release destroys the
nuclear active sites. The LENR reactions will soon stop as the NAE are
blown apart and cratered.

More disinformation. There is no possibility of nano-sized sites stopping
gamma radiation. This requires thick lead shielding.

There is no evidence for this.

** **

RE: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

 

 

From: Axil 

 

Your inexactitude in thinking is hard to overcome. Let us try another piece
of info as follows:

 

When Rossi first stated his demonstrations and the public comments about
them, his first few shows were marred by a troublesome condition during
startup and shutdown where significant gamma radiation was produced. If you
remember, Celani said about the January 14 demo.  

 

The simplest explanation is that Rossi used a radioactive trigger for
startup - and then put it back in its cask. 

 

No one was allowed to witness Rossi's startup, and the employment of an
easily identified radioactive starter like radium - could explain why. 

 

At no other time AFAIK - in the later tests, was any radioactivity
witnessed. Tests run in Sweden reported no radioactivity in the ash. 

 

I would say that it is your gullibility that is hard to overcome. 

 

It is incredulous that such a reaction could be a nuclear transmutation of
nickel to copper - and yet not leave radioactive ash.

RE: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

The problem with such a high energy gamma hitting an electron is that the
total mass-energy of the target is only 2-3% of the mass-energy of the
driver. This slight impediment does not even slow the gamma down very much.
There could possibly be pair-production but to imagine that the re-emission
was all infrared would probably mean that momentum could not be conserved.
How could it?

 

 

From: David Roberson 

 

Has anyone looked to see that momentum is conserved in these processes? 

 

Dave



-Original Message-
From: mixent 

More disinformation. There is no possibility of nano-sized sites stopping
gamma radiation. This requires thick lead shielding.
 
..I have often wondered if an electron that is within the wavelength of a
gamma
(i.e. a near field energy transfer) might absorb the energy as kinetic
energy.
For a 23.8 MeV gamma the wavelength is 52 fm. For a Mills' Hydrino this is
too
small for even the smallest Hydrino, however if my version is correct, then
it
should be possible for f/H with a p  32.

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

That is my fear Jones.  A photon has a large energy to momentum ratio as 
compared to an electron.  I would expect to see Compton reflection of the high 
energy gamma as it collides with electrons.  It is very presumptuous to assume 
that the gammas will be absorbed quickly.  Does anyone see how both energy and 
momentum can be conserved during a collision between a high energy gamma and 
any number of electrons?


I suppose that one can look back at the point of origin of the gamma and 
mentally reverse the process.  In that case the nucleus recoiled with much less 
energy than the gamma while it by definition had to conserve momentum.  Perhaps 
a large cloud of coupled electrons that scattered in every direction carrying 
off portions of the energy might be able to absorb the total energy.  The 
random directions of the dispersion cloud of electrons could balance the 
momentum portion of the equation if a miracle occurred.  Now I know I am a 
heretic with an overactive imagination!



Dave



-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Apr 4, 2013 7:04 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!



The problem with such ahigh energy gamma hitting an electron is that the total 
mass-energy of thetarget is only 2-3% of the mass-energy of the driver. This 
slight impediment doesnot even slow the gamma down very much. There could 
possibly be pair-productionbut to imagine that the re-emission was all infrared 
would probably mean thatmomentum could not be conserved. How could it?
 
 

From:David Roberson 

 
Has anyone looked to see that momentum is conserved in theseprocesses? 

 

Dave



-OriginalMessage-
From: mixent 

More disinformation. There is no possibility of nano-sized sites stopping
gamma radiation. This requires thick lead shielding.
 
..I have often wondered if an electron that is within the wavelength of a gamma
(i.e. a near field energy transfer) might absorb the energy as kinetic energy.
For a 23.8 MeV gamma the wavelength is 52 fm. For a Mills' Hydrino this is too
small for even the smallest Hydrino, however if my version is correct, then it
should be possible for f/H with a p  32.

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

The recent inventions of Rossi do not have enough shielding to stop gammas at 
511 keV.  I also have not seen him mention that this is a problem anymore and I 
hope that they are not emitted in large numbers since that would make home use 
of his device problematic.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Apr 4, 2013 7:16 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!



Rossi has consistently refused to provide details of what is going on inside 
the E-Cat reactor, but he has mentioned that gamma rays have been detected. In 
a video interview when asked about whether the E-Cat was a ‘cold fusion’ 
technology he said, “we have found traces of fusion because we have found 511 
kev gamma rays at the output, which is the emission of a positron and an 
electron, and a positron is the product of a proton turning into a neutron, so 
we have some kind of fusion  inside, but I do not think this is the main energy 
source.” Exactly how these gamma rays are shielded is not clear, but Rossi has 
mentioned in the past that lead is used.
 
I think you should dream up another source for occasional gamma emissions to 
support your illusion other than radium.




On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 6:59 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:


 
 

From:Axil 

 


Your inexactitudein thinking is hard to overcome. Let us try another piece of 
info as follows:

 


When Rossi first stated his demonstrations and thepublic comments about them, 
his first few shows were marred by a troublesomecondition during startup and 
shutdown where significant gamma radiation wasproduced… Ifyou remember, Celani 
said about the January 14 demo…  
 
The simplest explanationis that Rossi used a radioactive trigger for startup - 
and then put it back inits cask. 
 
No one was allowed towitness Rossi’s startup, and the employment of an easily 
identified radioactivestarter like radium - could explain why. 
 
At no other time AFAIK -in the later tests, was any radioactivity witnessed. 
Tests run in Swedenreported no radioactivity in the ash. 
 
I would say that it isyour gullibility that is hard to overcome. 
 
It is incredulous that sucha reaction could be a nuclear transmutation of 
nickel to copper - and yet not leaveradioactive ash.

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

2013-04-04 Thread Kevin O'Malley

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 10:33 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote:

Why, in some nuclear interactions, do two gammas go shooting off in OPPOSITE
directions???

Where is the physical model that explains the REASON for these basic
observations???

***Here's the physical model I proposed here on Vortex

when you look at a balloon popping in slow motion, it does not
initially emit its energy in all directions at the first microsecond.  Its
release of energy goes in the direction that the penetration came from
initially.  If the balloon pop were due to 2 balloons banging together
forcefully, the initial release would be right where the 2 balloons
collided.  Similarly, when 2 atoms collide and fuse, I think their energy
release is not 360 degrees, but is perpendicular to the direction of the
plane where the 2 atoms meet.  It is initially in only 1 direction, not all
directions.   That release of energy will have a high degree of probability
due to its geometry of initial direction, to be directly in the path of
atoms on the lattice.  But in hot fusion, those 50,000 balloons all slam
into each other at varying different angles, leaving the impression that
the initial energy release is initially 360 degrees rather than in one
direction.
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg76597.html

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

In the case where a positron and electron annihilate each other the 
conservation of momentum requires that the two photons be emitted in exact 
opposition and with exactly the same energy.  Perhaps it is possible to assume 
that if the two opposing photons are observed then a process of this type 
occurs.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Apr 4, 2013 8:07 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!



On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 10:33 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
 
Why, in some nuclear interactions, do two gammas go shooting off in OPPOSITE
directions???

Where is the physical model that explains the REASON for these basic
observations???

***Here's the physical model I proposed here on Vortex
 
when you look at a balloon popping in slow motion, it does not
initially emit its energy in all directions at the first microsecond.  Its
release of energy goes in the direction that the penetration came from
initially.  If the balloon pop were due to 2 balloons banging together
forcefully, the initial release would be right where the 2 balloons
collided.  Similarly, when 2 atoms collide and fuse, I think their energy
release is not 360 degrees, but is perpendicular to the direction of the
plane where the 2 atoms meet.  It is initially in only 1 direction, not all
directions.   That release of energy will have a high degree of probability
due to its geometry of initial direction, to be directly in the path of
atoms on the lattice.  But in hot fusion, those 50,000 balloons all slam
into each other at varying different angles, leaving the impression that
the initial energy release is initially 360 degrees rather than in one
direction.

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg76597.html

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 7:54 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 The recent inventions of Rossi do not have enough shielding to stop gammas
 at 511 keV.  I also have not seen him mention that this is a problem
 anymore and I hope that they are not emitted in large numbers since that
 would make home use of his device problematic.

  Dave



Lately Rossi has been saying a home version of the Ecat is years away
although he doesn't really say why.

Harry

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

Fran,
I think this would require a violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

Harry

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com
 wrote:

  Harry,

 I am ok with COE remaining a law but the “convention” that
 HUP can never be tapped needs to be stricken. My point is that the random
 forces normally cancelled in the macro world become organized by casimir
 geometry and can provide an exploitable bias from zero point energy.

 Fran  

 ** **

 *From:* Harry Veeder [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com]
 *Sent:* Thursday, April 04, 2013 2:48 PM
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!
 

 ** **

 It might be possible to develop realistic models which explain these
 things if CoE is demoted from a law to a convention

 or should a law always take precedence over intelligibility
 and experience? 

  

 Harry   

 ** **

 On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 1:33 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net
 wrote:

 So, out of all the erudite Vorts, no one can answer the following simple
 questions:

 Why are the UP-spin quarks on OPPOSITE sides of the proton from the
 DOWN-spin quarks???

 Why do...
  All spin directions collapse on one or the OPPOSITE direction depending
 on
 the measured photon polarization. ???

 Why, in some nuclear interactions, do two gammas go shooting off in
 OPPOSITE
 directions???

 Where is the physical model that explains the REASON for these basic
 observations???

 Why is the magnetic field PERPENDICULAR to the E-field???
 It's all related...

 -Mark (the reluctant hijackee) Iverson

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

2013-04-04 Thread Eric Walker

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 1:54 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

To put it in simple terms, the presence of the spectator nucleus provides
 the
 4He, something to push off against, like a swimmer pushing off against
 the end
 of the pool. The spectator nucleus also gets some of the kinetic energy,
 IOW it
 moves away a little when pushed.


It reminds me of the action of a bullet against the rear part of the
chamber of a gun.  One implication appears to be that you would see 4He
traveling twice as fast in a given direction near where a reaction has
taken place than you would in normal d+d plasma fusion.

It is easy to get an intuitive sense of how the fusion would play out and
how there would be no gamma.  I wonder why this lead is not pursued further.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

2013-04-04 Thread Eric Walker

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

  You can’t be serious.


Yes, I think that's the point.  I had a friend in high school who would say
the most absurd things just to get a reaction out of people.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

2013-04-04 Thread Eric Walker

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:


 One implication appears to be that you would see 4He traveling twice as
 fast in a given direction near where a reaction has taken place than you
 would in normal d+d plasma fusion.


Let me emend that -- in d+d plasma fusion, you have the three branches:

1. d+d → 4He + ɣ (rare)
2. d+d → 3He + n (50 percent)
3. d+d → t + p (50 percent)

In (1), there is a 4He, and it is not traveling very quickly.  So the 4He
in the proposed branch with the spectator, (4), say:

4. d+d + M → 4He + M,

where M is on both sides of the reaction (and doesn't undergo a change),
this 4He would be travelling much faster than the one in (1).  It would be
traveling on the order of twice as fast as the heavier particles in (2) or
(3), in an approximate sense.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:00 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 1:54 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

 To put it in simple terms, the presence of the spectator nucleus provides
 the
 4He, something to push off against, like a swimmer pushing off against
 the end
 of the pool. The spectator nucleus also gets some of the kinetic energy,
 IOW it
 moves away a little when pushed.


 It reminds me of the action of a bullet against the rear part of the
 chamber of a gun.  One implication appears to be that you would see 4He
 traveling twice as fast in a given direction near where a reaction has
 taken place than you would in normal d+d plasma fusion.

 It is easy to get an intuitive sense of how the fusion would play out and
 how there would be no gamma.  I wonder why this lead is not pursued further.





http://physics.aps.org/story/v24/st12

Published September 25, 2009 | Phys. Rev. Focus 24, 12 (2009) | DOI:
10.1103/PhysRevFocus.24.12

Researchers detected the recoil motion of a bead when fluorescent molecules
on its surface began emitting photons.
Radiation pressure-the force light exerts on matter-is so slight that it's
usually evident only in the atomic world or in the vacuum of space. Now a
pair of studies published in the 27 February Physical Review Letters and
the October Physical Review E suggests that a common laser-and-microscope
technique is sensitive enough to measure the recoil felt by a micron-sized
silica bead emitting light from its surface. Researchers used lasers to
trap a bead and measure the forces acting on it, while simultaneously
recording the light generated by molecules coating the bead's surface. They
report that the forces acting on the bead were correlated with the
intensity of emitted light, as would be expected if emitted photons were
nudging a bead back and forth like the exhaust from tiny thrusters.

The experiments used a type of photonic force microscopy (PFM), which is
used to measure forces acting on microscopic beads suspended in liquid. PFM
specialists first isolate a bead in the focus of a laser beam, creating an
optical trap. The bead then acts like a tethered buoy. Liquid molecules
randomly nudge it, but the trapping laser exerts a spring-like force that
draws the bead back to its starting point. By tracking the position of the
bead using a separate laser, researchers can measure the size of the bead's
jostling motions in the trap, which tells them the strength of the
fluctuating forces acting on it. Some researchers have observed signs of
radiation from the laser alone pressing on trapped beads, but those beads
were absorbing light rather than emitting it.

A team led by Dmitri Petrov of the Institute of Photonic Sciences in
Barcelona, Spain, wanted to see if PFM was sensitive enough to pick up the
recoil of beads trapped in a solution of photon-emitting molecules that
adhere to a bead's surface. To maximize the rate of photon emission, the
team dotted its beads with clusters of silver atoms, mimicking metal
nano-spheres that have been found to enhance the glow of nearby dye
molecules.

For their first experiment, published in February, the researchers trapped
two-micron-wide beads in a solution of the dye crystal violet. The dye
molecules convert a small amount of incoming light energy into atomic
vibrations and then emit light of slightly longer wavelength (Raman
scattering). The correlation was clear: when the team switched on the
pump laser to activate the dye, the bead's displacement, averaged over
many fluctuations, increased, corresponding to forces of up to 240
femtonewtons (1 femtonewton = 10 -15  newtons). The researchers calculated
the power of light emitted from the bead at 1 microwatt, which is quite
amazing, says Satish Rao, a post-doctoral fellow in the Barcelona lab. No
one else has been able to say how much light really comes off this
material.

In the follow-up experiment, Petrov and his colleagues tracked the
bleaching, or gradual fading, of the fluorescent molecule rhodamine, which
glows yellow under green light. In photobleacing, fluorescent molecules
fade strongly after a few tens of seconds. Accordingly, when the team
focused a green laser on the bead, it experienced a sudden force of about
300 femtonewtons, which quickly plummeted along with the fluorescent light
intensity. On the face of it, it's pretty fantastic, says optical trapper
David Grier of New York University. The recoil force of photons is the
basis for laser cooling of atoms and molecules. Seeing it for a
macroscopic object strikes me as something of a tour de force, he says.

Rao says this type of PFM could offer a more precise way of measuring the
efficiency and intensity of other light-emitting molecules, including the
bleaching of fluorescent dyes. Lukas Novotny, a nano-optics researcher at
Rochester University in New York state, doesn't see any immediate
applications. For me the beauty is really the possibility of measuring
light through a

RE: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

 

From: Eric Walker 

 

One implication appears to be that you would see 4He traveling twice as fast in 
a given direction near where a reaction has taken place than you would in 
normal d+d plasma fusion.

 

Let me emend that -- in d+d plasma fusion, you have the three branches:

 

1. d+d → 4He + ɣ (rare)

2. d+d → 3He + n (50 percent)

3. d+d → t + p (50 percent)

 

In (1), there is a 4He, and it is not traveling very quickly.  

 

 

 

One of the better hypotheses for deuterium reactions where helium-4 only is 
seen as ash is Takahashi’s tetrahedral condensate

 

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/Theories/TakahashiTheory.shtml

 

Since you have two alphas carrying away the energy - and no gammas, this theory 
is cleaner than many of the others. As a condensate, he avoids the 4-particle 
reaction … kind of…

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

Axil
I didn't know that was the focus of Peter Hagelstein's work. However, he
says he adds a weird kind of loss to his model. Any idea what he means?

BTW, It occured to me that a failed model, i.e. a classically unstable
model, could also produce a similar result, where a given amount of
energy is emitted continuously  over a certain range of frequencies instead
of being emitted all at once as a gamma photon at one frequency.
Harry
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 2:01 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 MIT Prof. Peter L. Hagelstein stated in an interview as follows:

 So after a lot of years of work on it, about 10 years ago we found a model
 that actually did something like that. It's remarkable! It turns out in the
 physics literature, there's a model called the 'Spin-Boson Model' that's
 basically a fundamental quantum mechanics model, so you have a harmonic
 oscillator and you hook it up to what's called a two level system — that's
 just an idealisation, it's a little bit of physics having to do with two of
 the energy levels in a more complicated system. But it makes the math
 really simple, so the resulting model is one you can analyze to death.
 People have studied that model now for between 40-60 years, depending on
 how you count them. This model predicts the 30 or 50 fold, or the ability
 to break up a two level system quantum into, for example, into nearly 30
 individual quanta.

 Axil says:
 Let us now address another quantum optics model describing polaritons:

 The Jaynes–Cummings model.



 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaynes%E2%80%93Cummings_model

 Starting at the very bottom, the most basic underlying model that teaches
 us how waves/particles can resonate is the Jaynes–Cummings model (JCM). It
 describes the system of a two-level atom interacting with a quantized mode
 of an optical cavity, with or without the presence of light (in the form of
 a bath of electromagnetic radiation that can cause spontaneous emission and
 absorption).

 MIT Prof. Peter L. Hagelstein continues in the interview as follows:

 What we found is the way that the model does it, it can do it, but it's
 hindered. There's a destructive interference effect that goes on, that
 makes the effect relatively weak. What we found, is that if you added a
 weird kind of loss to the model— a loss that you would expect in the cold
 fusion scenario. The new model, with loss, is much more relevant to the
 physical situation called fusion than otherwise. But this weird kind of
 loss, it breaks the destructive interference, and it makes this energy
 exchange go orders of magnitude faster. And instead of being a relatively
 weak effect, it's now a very strong, it's a dominant effect. This model is
 exactly what you need! It's a microscopic engine to take big quanta and
 chop it up into little tiny quanta. So that's what we've found.

 Axil says:

 This is Fano interference active in an optical cavity to localize EMF
 radiation to the near field by eliminated far field emissions.


 On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 1:40 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 *

 MIT Prof. Peter L. Hagelstein stated in an interview as follows:
 *

 So there are no significant amount of neutrons, there's no fast
 electrons, there's no gamma rays. There's nothing you might expect if it
 were a more normal nuclear reaction process. The basic statement here is
 that — if it's real and if it's nuclear... the argument for it being
 nuclear is that there's 4He (helium-4) observed in experiments, roughly one
 4He for every 24 MeV of energy that's created. So what you need in the way
 of a theoretical model, basically a new kind of mechanism that doesn't work
 like the old Rutherford reaction picture that nuclear physics is based on.
 So that's the basic problem that I've been working on for a great many
 years.

 The big problem is one that has to do with the quantum mechanics issue.
 The nuclear energy comes in a big energy quantum, and if it didn't get
 broken up, then the big energy quantum would get expressed as energetic
 particles, as normally happens in nuclear reactions. So the approach we've
 taken is that we've said the only conceivable route for making sense of
 these observations at all, is that the big energy quanta have to get sliced
 and diced up into a very very large number if much smaller energy quanta.
 The much larger number is on the order of several hundred million. In NMR
 physics and optical physics, people are familiar with breaking up a large
 quantum into perhaps 30 smaller pieces, you could argue that there are some
 experiments where you could argue that maybe that numbers as high as 100 or
 so. It's unprecedented that you could take an MeV quantum and chop it up
 into bite sized pieces that are 10s of meV.


 On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 12:15 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.comwrote:


 If a bunch of low energy photons  is equivalent to the energy of 1 high
 energy gamma photon, why can't a particular nuclear reaction sometimes
 produce a

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 It seems a bit more logical to suggest that the lack of gammas can be
 better
 explained by the lack of the kind of nuclear reaction that produces gammas.
 The most prevalent nuclear reaction in the Universe, reversible proton
 fusion, produces no gammas. Shouldn't we be taking a closer look at RPF?



Wikipedia says proton-proton fusion produces a neutrino and a positron.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton%E2%80%93proton_chain_reaction

Won't this result in an electron-positron anihilation and two gamma rays?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron%E2%80%93positron_annihilation

Harry

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

A Fano interference is an Interference between a background and a resonant
scattering process that produces the asymmetric line-shape.

In a lattice,  the background frequency is infrared heat, the resonant
scattering process is dipole hole/electron oscillation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fano_resonance

Fano interference blocks EMF radiation out of the cavity, and redirects it
inward to focus on the inside of the cavity.

Fano resonance is a means to concentrate EMF into a sub-nanometer volume by
imposing a dark mode into the EMF.

The weird kind of loss is the loss of far field EMF radiation.

This process produces EMF that are near or at the atomic scale in a ultra
small volume Hot Spot  -  aka NAE.

For more info see “Spaser”
The BEC of the spaser is what thermalizes the gammas
see
*Jaynes-Cummings-Hubbard (JCH) model*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaynes%E2%80%93Cummings%E2%80%93Hubbard_model


On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:

 Axil
 I didn't know that was the focus of Peter Hagelstein's work. However, he
 says he adds a weird kind of loss to his model. Any idea what he means?

 BTW, It occured to me that a failed model, i.e. a classically unstable
 model, could also produce a similar result, where a given amount of
 energy is emitted continuously  over a certain range of frequencies instead
 of being emitted all at once as a gamma photon at one frequency.
  Harry
 On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 2:01 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 MIT Prof. Peter L. Hagelstein stated in an interview as follows:

 So after a lot of years of work on it, about 10 years ago we found a
 model that actually did something like that. It's remarkable! It turns out
 in the physics literature, there's a model called the 'Spin-Boson Model'
 that's basically a fundamental quantum mechanics model, so you have a
 harmonic oscillator and you hook it up to what's called a two level system
 — that's just an idealisation, it's a little bit of physics having to do
 with two of the energy levels in a more complicated system. But it makes
 the math really simple, so the resulting model is one you can analyze to
 death. People have studied that model now for between 40-60 years,
 depending on how you count them. This model predicts the 30 or 50 fold, or
 the ability to break up a two level system quantum into, for example, into
 nearly 30 individual quanta.

 Axil says:
 Let us now address another quantum optics model describing polaritons:

 The Jaynes–Cummings model.



 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaynes%E2%80%93Cummings_model

 Starting at the very bottom, the most basic underlying model that teaches
 us how waves/particles can resonate is the Jaynes–Cummings model (JCM). It
 describes the system of a two-level atom interacting with a quantized mode
 of an optical cavity, with or without the presence of light (in the form of
 a bath of electromagnetic radiation that can cause spontaneous emission and
 absorption).

 MIT Prof. Peter L. Hagelstein continues in the interview as follows:

 What we found is the way that the model does it, it can do it, but it's
 hindered. There's a destructive interference effect that goes on, that
 makes the effect relatively weak. What we found, is that if you added a
 weird kind of loss to the model— a loss that you would expect in the cold
 fusion scenario. The new model, with loss, is much more relevant to the
 physical situation called fusion than otherwise. But this weird kind of
 loss, it breaks the destructive interference, and it makes this energy
 exchange go orders of magnitude faster. And instead of being a relatively
 weak effect, it's now a very strong, it's a dominant effect. This model is
 exactly what you need! It's a microscopic engine to take big quanta and
 chop it up into little tiny quanta. So that's what we've found.

 Axil says:

 This is Fano interference active in an optical cavity to localize EMF
 radiation to the near field by eliminated far field emissions.


 On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 1:40 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 *

 MIT Prof. Peter L. Hagelstein stated in an interview as follows:
 *

 So there are no significant amount of neutrons, there's no fast
 electrons, there's no gamma rays. There's nothing you might expect if it
 were a more normal nuclear reaction process. The basic statement here is
 that — if it's real and if it's nuclear... the argument for it being
 nuclear is that there's 4He (helium-4) observed in experiments, roughly one
 4He for every 24 MeV of energy that's created. So what you need in the way
 of a theoretical model, basically a new kind of mechanism that doesn't work
 like the old Rutherford reaction picture that nuclear physics is based on.
 So that's the basic problem that I've been working on for a great many
 years.

 The big problem is one that has to do with the quantum mechanics issue.
 The nuclear energy comes in a big energy quantum, and if it didn't get
 broken up, then the big energy

RE: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

2013-04-03 Thread Jones Beene

Mark,

Some of us only see a duck as a downer (cough, cough)

Anyway, and from one fringe-of-the-fringe LENR perspective, this has strong
force interaction written all over it, whether it is obvious to W-L
proponents or not.

RPF(reversible proton fusion) would certainly interact with its surrounds
via spin (magnons) and would shuttle from one state (Helium-2) to another
(two protons) with only quark interactions to show for the experience. The
net energy deposited (or removed) is small per event, but happens at the
rate of blackbody phonon vibration (mid terahertz).

Thus even micro(eV) energy change per event can get amplified rapidly, if
and when asymmetry is engineered into the reaction.

... hmmm... I'm now thinking of calling quark color-change as seen in RPF
as the quark-quack reaction ... nothing there but spin, so to speak...
thus giving detractors the satisfaction of calling the theory as
quack-derived ... yet all the while, the other LENR theories are falling
like ducks ... simply due to the obvious: not being able to adequately
explain lack of gammas. 

In the end, it should be crystal clear to anyone who understands nuclear
engineering - that there is no possible way to adequately explain the lack
of gammas in LENR - other than that they never happened at all.

Jones

From: MarkI-ZeroPoint 

The evidence is piling up that subatomic 'particles' are
dipole-like structures, and likely a type of dipole oscillation...
Looks, sounds, feels and quacks just like one...
;-)
HTSITYS,
-Mark
[darn pics made msg too large so had to delete the piccys]
---

Researchers suggest one can affect an atom's spin by
adjusting the way it is measured
http://phys.org/news/2013-03-affect-atom-adjusting.html

[GO to website to see picture]

attachment: winmail.dat

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

2013-04-03 Thread David Roberson


In the end, it should be crystal clear to anyone who understands nuclear
engineering - that there is no possible way to adequately explain the lack
of gammas in LENR - other than that they never happened at all.
I agree with you Jones.  The only way to explain this process is to assume that 
the gammas are not emitted at any time and that the energy from the reactions 
is shared among the atoms surrounding it.  I have been looking for evidence 
that fusion can take place in the compact environment of a cold fusion NAE in a 
manner that is very different from that occurring within a plasma.  The system 
difference is evident and I have not seem papers describing known fusion events 
recorded within a metal matrix where gammas are emitted at the expected levels.


I proposed an experiment where a palladium cube loaded with deuterium is 
subjected to a flux of muons as a way to induce conditions that are known to 
result in fusion.  If this does not result in the release of a number of 
gammas, then evidence is obtained that fusion within a metal matrix is 
different than that occurring within a gas.  Of course, muon induced fusion 
might behave differently than normal LENR activity.  The more clues that we 
obtain about the behavior of LENR, the faster we can understand the mechanism.


Dave


-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Apr 3, 2013 10:33 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!


Mark,

Some of us only see a duck as a downer (cough, cough)

Anyway, and from one fringe-of-the-fringe LENR perspective, this has strong
force interaction written all over it, whether it is obvious to W-L
proponents or not.

RPF(reversible proton fusion) would certainly interact with its surrounds
via spin (magnons) and would shuttle from one state (Helium-2) to another
(two protons) with only quark interactions to show for the experience. The
net energy deposited (or removed) is small per event, but happens at the
rate of blackbody phonon vibration (mid terahertz).

Thus even micro(eV) energy change per event can get amplified rapidly, if
and when asymmetry is engineered into the reaction.

... hmmm... I'm now thinking of calling quark color-change as seen in RPF
as the quark-quack reaction ... nothing there but spin, so to speak...
thus giving detractors the satisfaction of calling the theory as
quack-derived ... yet all the while, the other LENR theories are falling
like ducks ... simply due to the obvious: not being able to adequately
explain lack of gammas. 

In the end, it should be crystal clear to anyone who understands nuclear
engineering - that there is no possible way to adequately explain the lack
of gammas in LENR - other than that they never happened at all.

Jones

From: MarkI-ZeroPoint 

The evidence is piling up that subatomic 'particles' are
dipole-like structures, and likely a type of dipole oscillation...
Looks, sounds, feels and quacks just like one...
;-)
HTSITYS,
-Mark
[darn pics made msg too large so had to delete the piccys]
---

Researchers suggest one can affect an atom's spin by
adjusting the way it is measured
http://phys.org/news/2013-03-affect-atom-adjusting.html

[GO to website to see picture]

RE: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

2013-04-03 Thread Jones Beene

 

From: David Roberson 

 

In the end, it should be crystal clear to anyone who understands nuclear
engineering - that there is no possible way to adequately explain the lack
of gammas in LENR - other than that they never happened at all.
 

I agree with you Jones.  The only way to explain this process is to assume
that the gammas are not emitted at any time and that the energy from the
reactions is shared among the atoms surrounding it

 

Then you will get a kick out of the story from Krivit. LOL - April 2nd. He
was a day late and a dollar short on this one, but Larsen's attempt to
answer questions about why deadly gamma radiation is not emitted in LENR is
juvenile at best. The proponents of this BS should be ashamed.

 



 

image001.png

RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

2013-04-03 Thread Roarty, Francis X

David,
Gammas that never happened  might be hidden by relativistic effects.. how 
much Gamma radiation would the near C paradox twin see? Or more appropriately 
how much radiation would a twin standing on an event horizon see? What does 
time dilation do the radiation? The large displacement of an equivalent 
acceleration gravity well or the near luminal speeds of a spacecraft are needed 
to compress spacetime in a Haisch- Rueda type theory [car accelerating into 
rainfall].. the suppression afforded by the Casimir geometry subtracts from 
said Haisch-Rueda rainfall analogy making a much quicker cheaper way to create 
a difference in what Puthoff calls vacuum pressure[rainfall], [ether] ..it is 
the same Pythagorean relationship between time and space without the energy 
requirements but in a negative direction. The Pythagorean elationship also 
brings into argument the radiation path since the the spatial -temporal axis 
perceived by the relativistic protons are out of phase with the spatial- 
temporal  axis we are experiencing here in the macro [unsupressed] world 
outside the NAE. Would the radiation propagate out away from a reaction forever 
trapped in that inertial frame shunted past us along what we perceive as the 
temporal axis or does the radiation experience a lorentzian translation as the 
compression mitigates with distance from the confinement?
Fran

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 11:07 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!


In the end, it should be crystal clear to anyone who understands nuclear

engineering - that there is no possible way to adequately explain the lack

of gammas in LENR - other than that they never happened at all.
I agree with you Jones.  The only way to explain this process is to assume that 
the gammas are not emitted at any time and that the energy from the reactions 
is shared among the atoms surrounding it.  I have been looking for evidence 
that fusion can take place in the compact environment of a cold fusion NAE in a 
manner that is very different from that occurring within a plasma.  The system 
difference is evident and I have not seem papers describing known fusion events 
recorded within a metal matrix where gammas are emitted at the expected levels.

I proposed an experiment where a palladium cube loaded with deuterium is 
subjected to a flux of muons as a way to induce conditions that are known to 
result in fusion.  If this does not result in the release of a number of 
gammas, then evidence is obtained that fusion within a metal matrix is 
different than that occurring within a gas.  Of course, muon induced fusion 
might behave differently than normal LENR activity.  The more clues that we 
obtain about the behavior of LENR, the faster we can understand the mechanism.

Dave
-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.netmailto:jone...@pacbell.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.commailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Apr 3, 2013 10:33 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

Mark,



Some of us only see a duck as a downer (cough, cough)



Anyway, and from one fringe-of-the-fringe LENR perspective, this has strong

force interaction written all over it, whether it is obvious to W-L

proponents or not.



RPF(reversible proton fusion) would certainly interact with its surrounds

via spin (magnons) and would shuttle from one state (Helium-2) to another

(two protons) with only quark interactions to show for the experience. The

net energy deposited (or removed) is small per event, but happens at the

rate of blackbody phonon vibration (mid terahertz).



Thus even micro(eV) energy change per event can get amplified rapidly, if

and when asymmetry is engineered into the reaction.



... hmmm... I'm now thinking of calling quark color-change as seen in RPF

as the quark-quack reaction ... nothing there but spin, so to speak...

thus giving detractors the satisfaction of calling the theory as

quack-derived ... yet all the while, the other LENR theories are falling

like ducks ... simply due to the obvious: not being able to adequately

explain lack of gammas.



In the end, it should be crystal clear to anyone who understands nuclear

engineering - that there is no possible way to adequately explain the lack

of gammas in LENR - other than that they never happened at all.



Jones



   From: MarkI-ZeroPoint



   The evidence is piling up that subatomic 'particles' are

dipole-like structures, and likely a type of dipole oscillation...

   Looks, sounds, feels and quacks just like one...

   ;-)

   HTSITYS,

   -Mark

   [darn pics made msg too large so had to delete the piccys]

   ---



   Researchers suggest one can affect an atom's spin by

adjusting the way it is

RE: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

2013-04-03 Thread Jones Beene

 

 

From: David Roberson . 

 

I proposed an experiment where a palladium cube loaded with deuterium is
subjected to a flux of muons as a way to induce conditions that are known to
result in fusion

 

Note the date on this:

 

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=vq=cache:mmABHsKpSakJ:www.fulviofrisone.c
om/attachments/article/358/Reactor%2520Prospects%2520of%2520Deuterium%2520an
d.pdf+hl=engl=uspid=blsrcid=ADGEEShgMKArI-c0HHn-qv3IHBYq1AK690ODqkoexzYt
gkucApI4uZPwV4BgKDkjb2rmPQgch-1bRguh6YdXDPjiQRWFvwKrMbDdDcXDA6SpGOwmGNXNG2Bw
Z24hck0ST43lkCF7FLBTsig=AHIEtbTU_zlQowEKT3l-Q9OPwWvA15Ve1Q
q=cache:mmABHsKpSakJ:www.fulviofrisone.com/attachments/article/358/Reactor%
2520Prospects%2520of%2520Deuterium%2520and.pdf+hl=engl=uspid=blsrcid=ADG
EEShgMKArI-c0HHn-qv3IHBYq1AK690ODqkoexzYtgkucApI4uZPwV4BgKDkjb2rmPQgch-1bRgu
h6YdXDPjiQRWFvwKrMbDdDcXDA6SpGOwmGNXNG2BwZ24hck0ST43lkCF7FLBTsig=AHIEtbTU_z
lQowEKT3l-Q9OPwWvA15Ve1Q

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

Jones said:

“In the end, it should be crystal clear to anyone who understands nuclear
engineering - that there is no possible way to adequately explain the lack
of gammas in LENR - other than that they never happened at all.”

It has been observed that Gamma radiation occurs sometimes in a LENR
reaction and under other conditions, it does not; gamma energy transfer is
conditional in a LENR reaction.

A condition in the LENR reaction affects the formation of gammas. Gamma
formation or lack of it is not central to the cause of the LENR reaction,
it is accidental to it.
When Gamma radiation appears, the NAE is destroyed and the LENR reaction
stops. When no Gammas are produced, the NAE is preserved as active.


Cheers:Axil


On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 Mark,

 Some of us only see a duck as a downer (cough, cough)

 Anyway, and from one fringe-of-the-fringe LENR perspective, this has
 strong
 force interaction written all over it, whether it is obvious to W-L
 proponents or not.

 RPF(reversible proton fusion) would certainly interact with its surrounds
 via spin (magnons) and would shuttle from one state (Helium-2) to another
 (two protons) with only quark interactions to show for the experience. The
 net energy deposited (or removed) is small per event, but happens at the
 rate of blackbody phonon vibration (mid terahertz).

 Thus even micro(eV) energy change per event can get amplified rapidly, if
 and when asymmetry is engineered into the reaction.

 ... hmmm... I'm now thinking of calling quark color-change as seen in RPF
 as the quark-quack reaction ... nothing there but spin, so to speak...
 thus giving detractors the satisfaction of calling the theory as
 quack-derived ... yet all the while, the other LENR theories are falling
 like ducks ... simply due to the obvious: not being able to adequately
 explain lack of gammas.

 In the end, it should be crystal clear to anyone who understands nuclear
 engineering - that there is no possible way to adequately explain the lack
 of gammas in LENR - other than that they never happened at all.

 Jones

 From: MarkI-ZeroPoint

 The evidence is piling up that subatomic 'particles' are
 dipole-like structures, and likely a type of dipole oscillation...
 Looks, sounds, feels and quacks just like one...
 ;-)
 HTSITYS,
 -Mark
 [darn pics made msg too large so had to delete the piccys]
 ---

 Researchers suggest one can affect an atom's spin by
 adjusting the way it is measured
 http://phys.org/news/2013-03-affect-atom-adjusting.html

 [GO to website to see picture]

RE: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

 

Dave stated:

. and that the energy from the reactions is shared among the atoms
surrounding it.  I have been looking for evidence that fusion can take place
in the compact environment of a cold fusion NAE in a manner that is very
different from that occurring within a plasma.

 

When one looks at subatomic particles as dipolar oscillations, and within
the NAE, all those oscillations being aligned and IN-PHASE, they will serve
as energy sinks for a specific wavelength of energy.  Thus, the amount of
energy that would have been emitted in a gamma is distributed as smaller
packets amongst the large number of IN-phase oscillators. 

 

This all reminds me of a PhysOrg article I mentioned a few years ago where
the scientists had isolated two atoms, side by side, and cooled to near 0K.
they could watch as one of the atoms remained completely still, while the
other would wiggle, because it had a quantum of heat energy and thus, [my
conclusion] the internal oscillators were out-of-balance, which causes the
entire atom to 'shake'. What was interesting is that they could do something
(don't remember what) that would cause that quantum of heat to xfer from the
shaking atom to the still one and, you guessed it, the one that was still
was now shaking and the former holder of the quantum of heat was now still.

 

Back to Dave's statement.

Does the gamma get emitted, but then immediately absorbed by the
'Collective' oscillations, or is it a direct xfer of quanta of energy as
explained above?  In either case, whatever the exact conditions that are
required, it would seem that those conditions result in BOTH new low-energy
nuclear processes AND an energy sink which (almost entirely) favors coupling
into lattice vibrations instead of emission of energetic particles.

 

-mark

 

 

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 8:07 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

 

In the end, it should be crystal clear to anyone who understands nuclear
engineering - that there is no possible way to adequately explain the lack
of gammas in LENR - other than that they never happened at all.

I agree with you Jones.  The only way to explain this process is to assume
that the gammas are not emitted at any time and that the energy from the
reactions is shared among the atoms surrounding it.  I have been looking for
evidence that fusion can take place in the compact environment of a cold
fusion NAE in a manner that is very different from that occurring within a
plasma.  The system difference is evident and I have not seem papers
describing known fusion events recorded within a metal matrix where gammas
are emitted at the expected levels. 

 

I proposed an experiment where a palladium cube loaded with deuterium is
subjected to a flux of muons as a way to induce conditions that are known to
result in fusion.  If this does not result in the release of a number of
gammas, then evidence is obtained that fusion within a metal matrix is
different than that occurring within a gas.  Of course, muon induced fusion
might behave differently than normal LENR activity.  The more clues that we
obtain about the behavior of LENR, the faster we can understand the
mechanism.

 

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Apr 3, 2013 10:33 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

Mark,
 
Some of us only see a duck as a downer (cough, cough)
 
Anyway, and from one fringe-of-the-fringe LENR perspective, this has strong
force interaction written all over it, whether it is obvious to W-L
proponents or not.
 
RPF(reversible proton fusion) would certainly interact with its surrounds
via spin (magnons) and would shuttle from one state (Helium-2) to another
(two protons) with only quark interactions to show for the experience. The
net energy deposited (or removed) is small per event, but happens at the
rate of blackbody phonon vibration (mid terahertz).
 
Thus even micro(eV) energy change per event can get amplified rapidly, if
and when asymmetry is engineered into the reaction.
 
... hmmm... I'm now thinking of calling quark color-change as seen in RPF
as the quark-quack reaction ... nothing there but spin, so to speak...
thus giving detractors the satisfaction of calling the theory as
quack-derived ... yet all the while, the other LENR theories are falling
like ducks ... simply due to the obvious: not being able to adequately
explain lack of gammas. 
 
In the end, it should be crystal clear to anyone who understands nuclear
engineering - that there is no possible way to adequately explain the lack
of gammas in LENR - other than that they never happened at all.
 
Jones
 
   From: MarkI-ZeroPoint 
   
   The evidence is piling up that subatomic 'particles' are
dipole-like structures, and likely a type of dipole oscillation...

RE: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

Jones:
I don't think you're seeing the significance of my posting... I guess I
didn't do a good job of expressing my point.

WHY OPPOSITE

Why are the UP-spin quarks on OPPOSITE sides of the nucleus from the
DOWN-spin quarks???
  [ I would propose that both are a dipole-like oscillation, just 180deg
out of phase]

Why do...
 All spin directions collapse on one or the OPPOSITE direction depending on
the measured photon polarization. ??? 
  [this is the quote under one of the pics from the article]

Why, in some nuclear interactions, do two gammas go shooting off in OPPOSITE
directions

Where is the physical model that explains the REASON why these observations
involve OPPOSITEs

Is antimatter everywhere (because it's simply the other HALF of the
oscillation), but our measurement apparatus only detects one half of the
oscillation and sees that as 'matter'?

Why is the magnetic field PERPENDICULAR to the E-field???  It's all
related...

-Mark 

_
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 7:33 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!


Mark,

Some of us only see a duck as a downer (cough, cough)

Anyway, and from one fringe-of-the-fringe LENR perspective, this has strong
force interaction written all over it, whether it is obvious to W-L
proponents or not.

RPF(reversible proton fusion) would certainly interact with its surrounds
via spin (magnons) and would shuttle from one state (Helium-2) to another
(two protons) with only quark interactions to show for the experience. The
net energy deposited (or removed) is small per event, but happens at the
rate of blackbody phonon vibration (mid terahertz).

Thus even micro(eV) energy change per event can get amplified rapidly, if
and when asymmetry is engineered into the reaction.

... hmmm... I'm now thinking of calling quark color-change as seen in RPF
as the quark-quack reaction ... nothing there but spin, so to speak...
thus giving detractors the satisfaction of calling the theory as
quack-derived ... yet all the while, the other LENR theories are falling
like ducks ... simply due to the obvious: not being able to adequately
explain lack of gammas. 

In the end, it should be crystal clear to anyone who understands nuclear
engineering - that there is no possible way to adequately explain the lack
of gammas in LENR - other than that they never happened at all.

Jones

From: MarkI-ZeroPoint 

The evidence is piling up that subatomic 'particles' are
dipole-like structures, and likely a type of dipole oscillation...
Looks, sounds, feels and quacks just like one...
;-)
HTSITYS,
-Mark
[darn pics made msg too large so had to delete the piccys]
---

Researchers suggest one can affect an atom's spin by
adjusting the way it is measured
http://phys.org/news/2013-03-affect-atom-adjusting.html

[GO to website to see picture]

attachment: winmail.dat

RE: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

correction:
Why are the UP-spin quarks on OPPOSITE sides of the nucleus from the
DOWN-spin quarks???

should be:
Why are the UP-spin quarks on OPPOSITE sides of the PROTON from the
DOWN-spin quarks???

-mark

_
From: MarkI-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 10:19 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!


Jones:
I don't think you're seeing the significance of my posting... I guess I
didn't do a good job of expressing my point.

WHY OPPOSITE

Why are the UP-spin quarks on OPPOSITE sides of the nucleus from the
DOWN-spin quarks???
  [ I would propose that both are a dipole-like oscillation, just 180deg
out of phase]

Why do...
 All spin directions collapse on one or the OPPOSITE direction depending on
the measured photon polarization. ??? 
  [this is the quote under one of the pics from the article]

Why, in some nuclear interactions, do two gammas go shooting off in OPPOSITE
directions

Where is the physical model that explains the REASON why these observations
involve OPPOSITEs

Is antimatter everywhere (because it's simply the other HALF of the
oscillation), but our measurement apparatus only detects one half of the
oscillation and sees that as 'matter'?

Why is the magnetic field PERPENDICULAR to the E-field???  It's all
related...

-Mark 

_
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 7:33 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!


Mark,

Some of us only see a duck as a downer (cough, cough)

Anyway, and from one fringe-of-the-fringe LENR perspective, this has strong
force interaction written all over it, whether it is obvious to W-L
proponents or not.

RPF(reversible proton fusion) would certainly interact with its surrounds
via spin (magnons) and would shuttle from one state (Helium-2) to another
(two protons) with only quark interactions to show for the experience. The
net energy deposited (or removed) is small per event, but happens at the
rate of blackbody phonon vibration (mid terahertz).

Thus even micro(eV) energy change per event can get amplified rapidly, if
and when asymmetry is engineered into the reaction.

... hmmm... I'm now thinking of calling quark color-change as seen in RPF
as the quark-quack reaction ... nothing there but spin, so to speak...
thus giving detractors the satisfaction of calling the theory as
quack-derived ... yet all the while, the other LENR theories are falling
like ducks ... simply due to the obvious: not being able to adequately
explain lack of gammas. 

In the end, it should be crystal clear to anyone who understands nuclear
engineering - that there is no possible way to adequately explain the lack
of gammas in LENR - other than that they never happened at all.

Jones

From: MarkI-ZeroPoint 

The evidence is piling up that subatomic 'particles' are
dipole-like structures, and likely a type of dipole oscillation...
Looks, sounds, feels and quacks just like one...
;-)
HTSITYS,
-Mark
[darn pics made msg too large so had to delete the piccys]
---

Researchers suggest one can affect an atom's spin by
adjusting the way it is measured
http://phys.org/news/2013-03-affect-atom-adjusting.html

[GO to website to see picture]

attachment: winmail.dat

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

2013-04-03 Thread David Roberson

Thanks.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Apr 3, 2013 12:06 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!



 
 

From:David Roberson . 

 

I proposed an experiment where a palladium cube loaded withdeuterium is 
subjected to a flux of muons as a way to induce conditions thatare known to 
result in fusion
 
Note thedate on this:
 
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=vq=cache:mmABHsKpSakJ:www.fulviofrisone.com/attachments/article/358/Reactor%2520Prospects%2520of%2520Deuterium%2520and.pdf+hl=engl=uspid=blsrcid=ADGEEShgMKArI-c0HHn-qv3IHBYq1AK690ODqkoexzYtgkucApI4uZPwV4BgKDkjb2rmPQgch-1bRguh6YdXDPjiQRWFvwKrMbDdDcXDA6SpGOwmGNXNG2BwZ24hck0ST43lkCF7FLBTsig=AHIEtbTU_zlQowEKT3l-Q9OPwWvA15Ve1Q

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

Have you heard about SPASERS yet?

In order to explain the on again and off again nature of gamma radiation in
LENR, the cause of the LENR reaction should include two states, one that
mitigates gamma radiation and another state that can cause LENR and still
produce gamma radiation.

The Spaser (short for surface plasmon amplification by stimulated emission
of radiation) may be such a dual mode mechanism. The Spaser is the
nanoplasmonic analogs of lasers: instead of photons, spasers generate
coherent surface plasmons (collective electron oscillations at the surface
of a metal) in a resonant nanoparticle. It is a DIPOLE driven mechanism.

Heralded as ideal sources of coherent optical fields at the nanoscale, in a
lattice of a nanostructure, spasers combined with electronic density waves
on the surface of the nanostructure(nanowire).

A spaser pumped by these electrical currents, rather than by the bulkier
lasers used thus far in Nanoplasmonics. But recent theoretical papers have
argued that electrically driven nanospasers would require unrealistically
high currents. Now, Dabing Li presents a theoretical proposal for a
nanospaser device that is pumped electrically via a nanowire.
This is what happens in LENR+ reactors where nanowires pump spasers to
produce the LENR+ reaction.

The spaser is an EMF reaction that has two modes. One mode produces intense
EMF screening currents but not coherent local fields because the current
pumping is either under or over saturated with significant current loss.

The other mode is when coherent widespread radiation is established and
gamma radiation is spread among many coherent and entangled spacers.

By the way, WL think that spacers are causal in LENR but they just don’t
know how. If they are looking into spasers, maybe so should you.



cheers:Axil


On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 1:18 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote:

 Jones:
 I don't think you're seeing the significance of my posting... I guess I
 didn't do a good job of expressing my point.

 WHY OPPOSITE

 Why are the UP-spin quarks on OPPOSITE sides of the nucleus from the
 DOWN-spin quarks???
   [ I would propose that both are a dipole-like oscillation, just
 180deg
 out of phase]

 Why do...
  All spin directions collapse on one or the OPPOSITE direction depending
 on
 the measured photon polarization. ???
   [this is the quote under one of the pics from the article]

 Why, in some nuclear interactions, do two gammas go shooting off in
 OPPOSITE
 directions

 Where is the physical model that explains the REASON why these observations
 involve OPPOSITEs

 Is antimatter everywhere (because it's simply the other HALF of the
 oscillation), but our measurement apparatus only detects one half of the
 oscillation and sees that as 'matter'?

 Why is the magnetic field PERPENDICULAR to the E-field???  It's all
 related...

 -Mark

 _
 From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
 Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 7:33 AM
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Subject: RE: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!


 Mark,

 Some of us only see a duck as a downer (cough, cough)

 Anyway, and from one fringe-of-the-fringe LENR perspective, this has
 strong
 force interaction written all over it, whether it is obvious to W-L
 proponents or not.

 RPF(reversible proton fusion) would certainly interact with its surrounds
 via spin (magnons) and would shuttle from one state (Helium-2) to another
 (two protons) with only quark interactions to show for the experience. The
 net energy deposited (or removed) is small per event, but happens at the
 rate of blackbody phonon vibration (mid terahertz).

 Thus even micro(eV) energy change per event can get amplified rapidly, if
 and when asymmetry is engineered into the reaction.

 ... hmmm... I'm now thinking of calling quark color-change as seen in RPF
 as the quark-quack reaction ... nothing there but spin, so to speak...
 thus giving detractors the satisfaction of calling the theory as
 quack-derived ... yet all the while, the other LENR theories are falling
 like ducks ... simply due to the obvious: not being able to adequately
 explain lack of gammas.

 In the end, it should be crystal clear to anyone who understands nuclear
 engineering - that there is no possible way to adequately explain the lack
 of gammas in LENR - other than that they never happened at all.

 Jones

 From: MarkI-ZeroPoint

 The evidence is piling up that subatomic 'particles' are
 dipole-like structures, and likely a type of dipole oscillation...
 Looks, sounds, feels and quacks just like one...
 ;-)
 HTSITYS,
 -Mark
 [darn pics made msg too large so had to delete the piccys]
 ---

 Researchers suggest one can affect an atom's spin by
 adjusting the way it is measured

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

2013-04-03 Thread David Roberson

Mark,


I like the idea of many individual oscillators being able to take the energy if 
that is possible.  Each of these would have to be at a frequency that is far 
lower than is normally emitted if a highly energetic gamma is to be replaced.  
Low frequency oscillators tend to operate a lower speeds by definition and I 
wonder how quickly the normal high frequency photon would be emitted.  Do you 
have any idea as to why the atom would be coaxed into the slower response than 
usual?


The only way I can understand an operation of this type is to assume that the 
nuclei are connected electro magnetically to a strong degree.  Maybe entangled 
would work, but the coupling would need to be strong.  And if entangled, a very 
large number of resonators would need this coupling to share the load 
adequately.


I need a better understanding of how a large amount of energy contained within 
an excited nucleus can find alternate paths of escape.  The gammas tend to 
dominate escape from plasmas.  A metal matrix is far different than a plasma 
cloud.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Apr 3, 2013 1:06 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!



 
Dave stated:
“… and that the energy from the reactions is shared among the atoms surrounding 
it.  I have been looking for evidence that fusion can take place in the compact 
environment of a cold fusion NAE in a manner that is very different from that 
occurring within a plasma.”
 
When one looks at subatomic particles as dipolar oscillations, and within the 
NAE, all those oscillations being aligned and IN-PHASE, they will serve as 
energy sinks for a specific wavelength of energy.  Thus, the amount of energy 
that would have been emitted in a gamma is distributed as smaller packets 
amongst the large number of IN-phase oscillators. 
 
This all reminds me of a PhysOrg article I mentioned a few years ago where the 
scientists had isolated two atoms, side by side, and cooled to near 0K… they 
could watch as one of the atoms remained completely still, while the other 
would wiggle, because it had a quantum of heat energy and thus, [my conclusion] 
the internal oscillators were out-of-balance, which causes the entire atom to 
‘shake’. What was interesting is that they could do something (don’t remember 
what) that would cause that quantum of heat to xfer from the shaking atom to 
the still one and, you guessed it, the one that was still was now shaking and 
the former holder of the quantum of heat was now still.
 
Back to Dave’s statement…
Does the gamma get emitted, but then immediately absorbed by the ‘Collective’ 
oscillations, or is it a direct xfer of quanta of energy as explained above?  
In either case, whatever the exact conditions that are required, it would seem 
that those conditions result in BOTH new low-energy nuclear processes AND an 
energy sink which (almost entirely) favors coupling into lattice vibrations 
instead of emission of energetic particles.
 
-mark
 
 

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 8:07 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

 
In the end, it should be crystal clear to anyone who understands nuclear
engineering - that there is no possible way to adequately explain the lack
of gammas in LENR - other than that they never happened at all.
I agree with you Jones.  The only way to explain this process is to assume that 
the gammas are not emitted at any time and that the energy from the reactions 
is shared among the atoms surrounding it.  I have been looking for evidence 
that fusion can take place in the compact environment of a cold fusion NAE in a 
manner that is very different from that occurring within a plasma.  The system 
difference is evident and I have not seem papers describing known fusion events 
recorded within a metal matrix where gammas are emitted at the expected levels. 

 

I proposed an experiment where a palladium cube loaded with deuterium is 
subjected to a flux of muons as a way to induce conditions that are known to 
result in fusion.  If this does not result in the release of a number of 
gammas, then evidence is obtained that fusion within a metal matrix is 
different than that occurring within a gas.  Of course, muon induced fusion 
might behave differently than normal LENR activity.  The more clues that we 
obtain about the behavior of LENR, the faster we can understand the mechanism.

 

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Apr 3, 2013 10:33 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

Mark,
 
Some of us only see a duck as a downer (cough, cough)
 
Anyway, and from one fringe-of-the-fringe LENR perspective, this has strong
force interaction written all over it, whether it is obvious to W-L
proponents or

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

The transfer of energy to and from the nucleus must be done totally through
EMF. Neutrons are not necessary to penetrate the nucleus, EMF will work
just fine. This EMF full duplex pipeline is how energy goes back and forth
between the nucleus and the lattice.

Unless a coherent EMF connection into the nucleus is established, the gamma
radiation will be emitted from the nucleus in a destructive and incoherent
way.

Jaynes-Cummings-Hubbard (JCH) model

Next we move on to the Jaynes-Cummings-Hubbard (JCH) model. Because there
are millions of these hot-spots where spasers develop covering the combined
surfaces of all the micro-particles, the JCH model is a combination of the
Jaynes–Cummings model and the coupled cavities. The one-dimensional JCH
model consists of a chain of N-coupled single-mode cavities and each cavity
contains two-level atoms.

The tunneling effect comes from the junction between cavities which are an
analogy of the Josephson Effect.

The eigenstates of the JCH Hamiltonian in the two-excitation subspace for
the N-cavity system are examined in current nano research. This research
focuses on the existence of bound states as well as their features. It is
interesting to note that two repulsive bosonic atoms can form a bound pair
in an optical lattice. By analogy, the same will be true for polaritons.


 The JCH Hamiltonian also supports two-polariton bound states when the
photon-atom interaction is sufficiently strong.



In the LENR case, the coupling between photons and dipoles are very
strong.  In particular, the two polaritons associated with the bound states
exhibit a strong correlation such that they stay close to each other in
position space. The results discussed have been published in Two-polariton
bound states in the Jaynes-Cummings-Hubbard model.


http://arxiv.org/pdf/1101.1366v1


If you’re up to it, the analytic solution of the eigenvalues and
eigenvectors in the strong coupling regime is also developed in this paper.
The time evolution of such a system is also considered for the cases of
different initial conditions.

Now that we have justified the development of a generalized condition of
Bose-Einstein condensation all over the surfaces of the micro-particles, we
can now roll in Kim’s BEC theory of LENR.


cheers: Axil


On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 2:18 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 Mark,

  I like the idea of many individual oscillators being able to take the
 energy if that is possible.  Each of these would have to be at a frequency
 that is far lower than is normally emitted if a highly energetic gamma is
 to be replaced.  Low frequency oscillators tend to operate a lower speeds
 by definition and I wonder how quickly the normal high frequency photon
 would be emitted.  Do you have any idea as to why the atom would be coaxed
 into the slower response than usual?

  The only way I can understand an operation of this type is to assume
 that the nuclei are connected electro magnetically to a strong degree.
  Maybe entangled would work, but the coupling would need to be strong.  And
 if entangled, a very large number of resonators would need this coupling to
 share the load adequately.

  I need a better understanding of how a large amount of energy contained
 within an excited nucleus can find alternate paths of escape.  The gammas
 tend to dominate escape from plasmas.  A metal matrix is far different than
 a plasma cloud.

  Dave


 -Original Message-
 From: MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Wed, Apr 3, 2013 1:06 pm
 Subject: RE: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!


 Dave stated:
 “… and that the energy from the reactions is shared among the atoms
 surrounding it.  I have been looking for evidence that fusion can take
 place in the compact environment of a cold fusion NAE in a manner that is
 very different from that occurring within a plasma.”

 When one looks at subatomic particles as dipolar oscillations, and within
 the NAE, all those oscillations being aligned and IN-PHASE, they will serve
 as energy sinks for a specific wavelength of energy.  Thus, the amount of
 energy that would have been emitted in a gamma is distributed as smaller
 packets amongst the large number of IN-phase oscillators.

 This all reminds me of a PhysOrg article I mentioned a few years ago where
 the scientists had isolated two atoms, side by side, and cooled to near 0K…
 they could watch as one of the atoms remained completely still, while the
 other would wiggle, because it had a quantum of heat energy and thus, [my
 conclusion] the internal oscillators were out-of-balance, which causes the
 entire atom to ‘shake’. What was interesting is that they could do
 something (don’t remember what) that would cause that quantum of heat to
 xfer from the shaking atom to the still one and, you guessed it, the one
 that was still was now shaking and the former holder of the quantum of heat
 was now still.

 Back to Dave’s

RE: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

Hi Dave,

Realize that I’m only trying to apply a physical, 3-dimentional/geometry, to 
atoms and subatomic particles in a QUALitative way to explain COMMON 
observations that don’t have an explanation in QM or Classical models… I have 
not tried to bring any QUANTitative elements in, which is probably above my 
pay-grade… but think that would be fun and fruitful.  If my model sparks some 
thoughts by those more mathematically talented, that would be great…

 

In a plasma, the kinetic E of the individual particles is so high that one has 
to look at it as totally UNcorrelated movement; nothing is IN-phase.  A 
veritable free-for-all with things flying around in all directions and random 
collisions …  if enough heat (kinetic E) is present, then collisions occur with 
enough force to result in fusion events.  This is the brute-force fusion 
process that we all are taught, and likely goes on in stars.

 

Now, if you applied an E-field (and perhaps perpendicular B-field) throughout 
the plasma, then you might be able to get the plasma constituents to align and 
oscillate in sync, AND, if you then fire a particle (neutron or proton) into 
that ‘swarm’ of aligned particles, and perpendicular to its oscillation, fusion 
might be a whole lot easier…

 

My guess is that it would take an extremely strong E/B field to overcome the 
kinetic energy that has been imparted to the ions/e- that make up the plasma.  
All atoms (or are we talking just electrons?) want to shed any heat quanta so 
they are in perfect balance, but they can’t simply shed it to the vacuum… this 
shedding process MUST  involve some kind of coupling to something else (another 
atom or photon).   The situation just prior to formation of the plasma is that, 
because you’ve added so much energy to each atom, that as soon as one atom 
sheds a quantum of heat, it immediately gets another quantum from a neighbor… 
and all the atoms are so ‘out-of-balance’ due to the multiple quantums of heat 
that each has, that they literally shake themselves apart… voila… plasma.

 

The articles I referenced in my original posting indicate that not only 
electrons, but quarks (which make up nuclear particles) as well could be 
dipolar oscillations, only the quarks are oscillating orders of magnitude 
smaller distance (thus, much smaller nuclear diameter compared to atomic 
diameter) 

but orders of magnitude higher frequency.  Have you ever played 
ping-pong/table-tennis?  Take a ping-pong ball and drop it on the table, and 
then take your paddle and quickly restrict the balls vertical movement closer 
and closer to the tabletop.  What happens?  The oscillations of the ball speed 
up.

 

My guess is that if you take the frequency of oscillation of say the H 1s 
electron, and the diameter of the H-atom (i.e., the physical extent of that 
oscillation), over a 1 second span of time, it would be a constant.  That 
constant will be somehow harmonically related to the same constant calculated 
for a quark… much smaller physical distance (diam of nucleus) but much higher 
frequency.   And the speed of light in a vacuum is somehow part of these 
constants.  Could this model be a physical explanation for E=hv???

 

-Mark

 

 

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 11:18 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

 

Mark, 

 

I like the idea of many individual oscillators being able to take the energy if 
that is possible.  Each of these would have to be at a frequency that is far 
lower than is normally emitted if a highly energetic gamma is to be replaced.  
Low frequency oscillators tend to operate a lower speeds by definition and I 
wonder how quickly the normal high frequency photon would be emitted.  Do you 
have any idea as to why the atom would be coaxed into the slower response than 
usual?

 

The only way I can understand an operation of this type is to assume that the 
nuclei are connected electro magnetically to a strong degree.  Maybe entangled 
would work, but the coupling would need to be strong.  And if entangled, a very 
large number of resonators would need this coupling to share the load 
adequately.

 

I need a better understanding of how a large amount of energy contained within 
an excited nucleus can find alternate paths of escape.  The gammas tend to 
dominate escape from plasmas.  A metal matrix is far different than a plasma 
cloud.

 

Dave



-Original Message-
From: MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Apr 3, 2013 1:06 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

 

Dave stated:

“… and that the energy from the reactions is shared among the atoms surrounding 
it.  I have been looking for evidence that fusion can take place in the compact 
environment of a cold fusion NAE in a manner that is very different from that 
occurring within a plasma.”

 

When one looks at subatomic

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

At the root of the Plasmon is the strong coupling between light and matter.
This matter includes electrons and ions in a dipole. The synchronized
vibrations of many dipoles in thermal equilibrium will provide a coherent
and entangled environment for this strong coupling.

It is reasonable to expect that this strong coherent and entangled coupling
can occur between photons, electrons and quarks.
If a resonance condition is properly established, then transformations
between these elements should be expected as happens between matter and
light.

Cheers:   Axil





On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 4:24 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote:

 Hi Dave,

 Realize that I’m only trying to apply a physical, 3-dimentional/geometry,
 to atoms and subatomic particles in a QUALitative way to explain COMMON
 observations that don’t have an explanation in QM or Classical models… I
 have not tried to bring any QUANTitative elements in, which is probably
 above my pay-grade… but think that would be fun and fruitful.  If my model
 sparks some thoughts by those more mathematically talented, that would be
 great…

 ** **

 In a plasma, the kinetic E of the individual particles is so high that one
 has to look at it as totally UNcorrelated movement; nothing is IN-phase.  A
 veritable free-for-all with things flying around in all directions and
 random collisions …  if enough heat (kinetic E) is present, then collisions
 occur with enough force to result in fusion events.  This is the
 brute-force fusion process that we all are taught, and likely goes on in
 stars.

 ** **

 Now, if you applied an E-field (and perhaps perpendicular B-field)
 throughout the plasma, then you might be able to get the plasma
 constituents to align and oscillate in sync, AND, if you then fire a
 particle (neutron or proton) into that ‘swarm’ of aligned particles, and
 perpendicular to its oscillation, fusion might be a whole lot easier…

 ** **

 My guess is that it would take an extremely strong E/B field to overcome
 the kinetic energy that has been imparted to the ions/e- that make up the
 plasma.  All atoms (or are we talking just electrons?) want to shed any
 heat quanta so they are in perfect balance, but they can’t simply shed it
 to the vacuum… this shedding process MUST  involve some kind of coupling to
 something else (another atom or photon).   The situation just prior to
 formation of the plasma is that, because you’ve added so much energy to
 each atom, that as soon as one atom sheds a quantum of heat, it immediately
 gets another quantum from a neighbor… and all the atoms are so
 ‘out-of-balance’ due to the multiple quantums of heat that each has, that
 they literally shake themselves apart… voila… plasma.

 ** **

 The articles I referenced in my original posting indicate that not only
 electrons, but quarks (which make up nuclear particles) as well could be
 dipolar oscillations, only the quarks are oscillating orders of magnitude
 smaller distance (thus, much smaller nuclear diameter compared to atomic
 diameter) 

 but orders of magnitude higher frequency.  Have you ever played
 ping-pong/table-tennis?  Take a ping-pong ball and drop it on the table,
 and then take your paddle and quickly restrict the balls vertical movement
 closer and closer to the tabletop.  What happens?  The oscillations of the
 ball speed up.

 ** **

 My guess is that if you take the frequency of oscillation of say the H 1s
 electron, and the diameter of the H-atom (i.e., the physical extent of that
 oscillation), over a 1 second span of time, it would be a constant.  That
 constant will be somehow harmonically related to the same constant
 calculated for a quark… much smaller physical distance (diam of nucleus)
 but much higher frequency.   And the speed of light in a vacuum is somehow
 part of these constants.  Could this model be a physical explanation for
 E=hv???

 ** **

 -Mark

 ** **

 ** **

 *From:* David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com]
 *Sent:* Wednesday, April 03, 2013 11:18 AM

 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

 ** **

 Mark, 

 ** **

 I like the idea of many individual oscillators being able to take the
 energy if that is possible.  Each of these would have to be at a frequency
 that is far lower than is normally emitted if a highly energetic gamma is
 to be replaced.  Low frequency oscillators tend to operate a lower speeds
 by definition and I wonder how quickly the normal high frequency photon
 would be emitted.  Do you have any idea as to why the atom would be coaxed
 into the slower response than usual?

 ** **

 The only way I can understand an operation of this type is to assume that
 the nuclei are connected electro magnetically to a strong degree.  Maybe
 entangled would work, but the coupling would need to be strong.  And if
 entangled, a very large number of resonators would need this coupling to
 share the load

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

2013-04-03 Thread Eric Walker

On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 11:18 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

The only way I can understand an operation of this type is to assume that
 the nuclei are connected electro magnetically to a strong degree.  Maybe
 entangled would work, but the coupling would need to be strong.  And if
 entangled, a very large number of resonators would need this coupling to
 share the load adequately.


Dave, while we're taking bets, let me add in mine -- about gammas, my bet
agrees largely with Jones's and yours.  The important detail is that gammas
only occur via secondary reactions.

Here is the rationale. Photons at different energies have corresponding
wavelengths, and the wavelengths determine what the photons are likely to
interact with.  Photons of long wavelength will interact with large bodies
and photons of short wavelength will interact with increasingly smaller
bodies.  A similar thing appears to apply to electrons -- there is an
exciting experiment where they think they're able to start putting together
a 3D map of the internals of the proton (the location of the quarks and
gluons) [1].  They do this with electrons in the GeV range.  I think this
means the de Broglie waves are very narrow, so the electrons can interact
with something as small as a quark in a proton.

For photons in the lattice of a metal, they will interact with different
bodies according to their wavelength (and energy) as well.  Photons in the
eV will interact with outer shell metal lattice electrons and electrons
orbiting hydrogen atoms, and photons in the keV will interact with metal
inner shell electrons.  A photon in the MeV or thereabouts (i.e., a gamma
photon) will interact with nuclei and nucleons.  At high enough energies
you get photodisentigration, where a nucleon is knocked out of a nucleus,
and so forth.

The higher the energy, the smaller the body, going down from outer electron
shells to individual nucleons and, presumably, quarks.  But as the size
decreases, the probability of an interaction will no doubt go down in
corresponding measure, because the size of the targets decreases as well.
 So by the time you get to gammas, they will largely pass through a region
of interest.  For photons of high enough energy, the mean free path
generally goes up, meaning they travel farther and farther through the
material.  Once we're at gammas, I believe a typical metal will be largely
transparent to them.

This is all basic stuff, and any physicists reading this will have
encountered these ideas in the first year of their education.  And I
suspect that is a big reason they don't take LENR seriously -- they expect
nuclear reactions to produce gammas, and common sense says that there can't
be any gammas being produced when you look at what actually happens in the
LENR experiments.  On this point, it makes a lot of sense to me that they
are correct.

If there are no gammas, then (1) there is no fusion, except perhaps a
trivial kind that doesn't really deserve to be called fusion, or (2) there
is real fusion, and there is a modification of the branching ratios or
perhaps entirely new branches.  An example of a new branch would be:

d + d → 4He + M,

where M is a nearby nucleus that shares the energy of the reaction as a
spectator (all of this should be familiar as Ron Maimon's idea).  This
conserves momentum somehow.  Robin has proposed similar scenarios involving
hydrinos, so I take the general idea seriously that branches involving
gammas can be systematically suppressed under the right conditions.  This
would definitely be different than normal fusion.

Eric


[1] http://phys.org/news/2013-04-quarks-dictate-proton.html

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

The higher the energy, the smaller the body, going down from outer electron
shells to individual nucleons and, presumably, quarks.  But as the size
decreases, the probability of an interaction will no doubt go down in
corresponding measure, because the size of the targets decreases as well.
 So by the time you get to gammas, they will largely pass through a region
of interest.  For photons of high enough energy, the mean free path
generally goes up, meaning they travel farther and farther through the
material.  Once we're at gammas, I believe a typical metal will be largely
transparent to them.



This is a false assumption. Nanoplasmoics show strong coupling between
light and electrons at 10 to the minus 8 power of the wavelength of light.

This same ability to couple gammas to electrons external to the nucleus is
probable.


On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 11:20 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 11:18 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote:

 The only way I can understand an operation of this type is to assume that
 the nuclei are connected electro magnetically to a strong degree.  Maybe
 entangled would work, but the coupling would need to be strong.  And if
 entangled, a very large number of resonators would need this coupling to
 share the load adequately.


 Dave, while we're taking bets, let me add in mine -- about gammas, my bet
 agrees largely with Jones's and yours.  The important detail is that gammas
 only occur via secondary reactions.

 Here is the rationale. Photons at different energies have corresponding
 wavelengths, and the wavelengths determine what the photons are likely to
 interact with.  Photons of long wavelength will interact with large bodies
 and photons of short wavelength will interact with increasingly smaller
 bodies.  A similar thing appears to apply to electrons -- there is an
 exciting experiment where they think they're able to start putting together
 a 3D map of the internals of the proton (the location of the quarks and
 gluons) [1].  They do this with electrons in the GeV range.  I think this
 means the de Broglie waves are very narrow, so the electrons can interact
 with something as small as a quark in a proton.

 For photons in the lattice of a metal, they will interact with different
 bodies according to their wavelength (and energy) as well.  Photons in the
 eV will interact with outer shell metal lattice electrons and electrons
 orbiting hydrogen atoms, and photons in the keV will interact with metal
 inner shell electrons.  A photon in the MeV or thereabouts (i.e., a gamma
 photon) will interact with nuclei and nucleons.  At high enough energies
 you get photodisentigration, where a nucleon is knocked out of a nucleus,
 and so forth.

 The higher the energy, the smaller the body, going down from outer
 electron shells to individual nucleons and, presumably, quarks.  But as the
 size decreases, the probability of an interaction will no doubt go down in
 corresponding measure, because the size of the targets decreases as well.
  So by the time you get to gammas, they will largely pass through a region
 of interest.  For photons of high enough energy, the mean free path
 generally goes up, meaning they travel farther and farther through the
 material.  Once we're at gammas, I believe a typical metal will be largely
 transparent to them.

 This is all basic stuff, and any physicists reading this will have
 encountered these ideas in the first year of their education.  And I
 suspect that is a big reason they don't take LENR seriously -- they expect
 nuclear reactions to produce gammas, and common sense says that there can't
 be any gammas being produced when you look at what actually happens in the
 LENR experiments.  On this point, it makes a lot of sense to me that they
 are correct.

 If there are no gammas, then (1) there is no fusion, except perhaps a
 trivial kind that doesn't really deserve to be called fusion, or (2) there
 is real fusion, and there is a modification of the branching ratios or
 perhaps entirely new branches.  An example of a new branch would be:

 d + d → 4He + M,

 where M is a nearby nucleus that shares the energy of the reaction as a
 spectator (all of this should be familiar as Ron Maimon's idea).  This
 conserves momentum somehow.  Robin has proposed similar scenarios involving
 hydrinos, so I take the general idea seriously that branches involving
 gammas can be systematically suppressed under the right conditions.  This
 would definitely be different than normal fusion.

 Eric


 [1] http://phys.org/news/2013-04-quarks-dictate-proton.html

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

2013-04-03 Thread Eric Walker

On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

This is a false assumption. Nanoplasmoics show strong coupling between
 light and electrons at 10 to the minus 8 power of the wavelength of light.


Yes -- to clarify my earlier point, photons of large wavelength can also
interact with small bodies, as when you have antenna picking up radio
waves.  But I haven't seen an example of the reverse -- photons of very
small wavelength having a high probability of interacting with large bodies
(or bodies with large wavelengths, I should say).

Eric

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

The size of the active region of the hot spot is between 500 picometers to
100 picometers. The wavelength of a gamma ray is 10 picometers. There is
not much mismatch between these sizes.

**
**


On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 11:42 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 This is a false assumption. Nanoplasmoics show strong coupling between
 light and electrons at 10 to the minus 8 power of the wavelength of light.


 Yes -- to clarify my earlier point, photons of large wavelength can also
 interact with small bodies, as when you have antenna picking up radio
 waves.  But I haven't seen an example of the reverse -- photons of very
 small wavelength having a high probability of interacting with large bodies
 (or bodies with large wavelengths, I should say).

 Eric

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

2013-04-03 Thread Harry Veeder

If a bunch of low energy photons  is equivalent to the energy of 1 high
energy gamma photon, why can't a particular nuclear reaction sometimes
produce a mountain of infrared photons instead one gamma photon? According
to conservation of energy this is possible, so why is it considered
impossible?

harry


On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 1:06 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote:

 ** **

 Dave stated:

 “… and that the energy from the reactions is shared among the atoms
 surrounding it.  I have been looking for evidence that fusion can take
 place in the compact environment of a cold fusion NAE in a manner that is
 very different from that occurring within a plasma.”

 ** **

 When one looks at subatomic particles as dipolar oscillations, and within
 the NAE, all those oscillations being aligned and IN-PHASE, they will serve
 as energy sinks for a specific wavelength of energy.  Thus, the amount of
 energy that would have been emitted in a gamma is distributed as smaller
 packets amongst the large number of IN-phase oscillators. 

 ** **

 This all reminds me of a PhysOrg article I mentioned a few years ago where
 the scientists had isolated two atoms, side by side, and cooled to near 0K…
 they could watch as one of the atoms remained completely still, while the
 other would wiggle, because it had a quantum of heat energy and thus, [my
 conclusion] the internal oscillators were out-of-balance, which causes the
 entire atom to ‘shake’. What was interesting is that they could do
 something (don’t remember what) that would cause that quantum of heat to
 xfer from the shaking atom to the still one and, you guessed it, the one
 that was still was now shaking and the former holder of the quantum of heat
 was now still.

 ** **

 Back to Dave’s statement…

 Does the gamma get emitted, but then immediately absorbed by the
 ‘Collective’ oscillations, or is it a direct xfer of quanta of energy as
 explained above?  In either case, whatever the exact conditions that are
 required, it would seem that those conditions result in BOTH new low-energy
 nuclear processes AND an energy sink which (almost entirely) favors
 coupling into lattice vibrations instead of emission of energetic particles.
 

 ** **

 -mark

 ** **

 ** **

 *From:* David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com]
 *Sent:* Wednesday, April 03, 2013 8:07 AM
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

 ** **

 In the end, it should be crystal clear to anyone who understands nuclear

 engineering - that there is no possible way to adequately explain the lack

 of gammas in LENR - other than that they never happened at all.

 I agree with you Jones.  The only way to explain this process is to assume
 that the gammas are not emitted at any time and that the energy from the
 reactions is shared among the atoms surrounding it.  I have been looking
 for evidence that fusion can take place in the compact environment of a
 cold fusion NAE in a manner that is very different from that occurring
 within a plasma.  The system difference is evident and I have not seem
 papers describing known fusion events recorded within a metal matrix where
 gammas are emitted at the expected levels. 

 ** **

 I proposed an experiment where a palladium cube loaded with deuterium is
 subjected to a flux of muons as a way to induce conditions that are known
 to result in fusion.  If this does not result in the release of a number of
 gammas, then evidence is obtained that fusion within a metal matrix is
 different than that occurring within a gas.  Of course, muon induced fusion
 might behave differently than normal LENR activity.  The more clues that we
 obtain about the behavior of LENR, the faster we can understand the
 mechanism.

 ** **

 Dave

 -Original Message-
 From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Wed, Apr 3, 2013 10:33 am
 Subject: RE: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

 Mark,

 ** **

 Some of us only see a duck as a downer (cough, cough)

 ** **

 Anyway, and from one fringe-of-the-fringe LENR perspective, this has 
 strong

 force interaction written all over it, whether it is obvious to W-L

 proponents or not.

 ** **

 RPF(reversible proton fusion) would certainly interact with its surrounds

 via spin (magnons) and would shuttle from one state (Helium-2) to another

 (two protons) with only quark interactions to show for the experience. The

 net energy deposited (or removed) is small per event, but happens at the

 rate of blackbody phonon vibration (mid terahertz).

 ** **

 Thus even micro(eV) energy change per event can get amplified rapidly, if

 and when asymmetry is engineered into the reaction.

 ** **

 ... hmmm... I'm now thinking of calling quark color-change as seen in 
 RPF

 as the quark-quack reaction ... nothing there but spin,

RE: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

Hi Eric:

 

The article you reference 

http://phys.org/news/2013-04-quarks-dictate-proton.html 

was also included in my original posting… perhaps you should read the entire 
thread?

 

I for one would be interested in hearing other more knowledgeable people’s 
opinions on the point of my posting, which is that what is lacking in 
modern/mainstream atomic/nuclear physics is a physical model… HOW does one 
explain WHY we see certain *specific* observations like I pointed out in the 
original posting…

 

LENR is searching for a theoretical model, and it is not going to be found 
‘inside the box’… 

 

-Mark Iverson

 

From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 8:21 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

 

On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 11:18 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 

The only way I can understand an operation of this type is to assume that the 
nuclei are connected electro magnetically to a strong degree.  Maybe entangled 
would work, but the coupling would need to be strong.  And if entangled, a very 
large number of resonators would need this coupling to share the load 
adequately.

 

Dave, while we're taking bets, let me add in mine -- about gammas, my bet 
agrees largely with Jones's and yours.  The important detail is that gammas 
only occur via secondary reactions.

 

deleted

 

Eric

 

[1] http://phys.org/news/2013-04-quarks-dictate-proton.html

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

2013-04-03 Thread Eric Walker

Ha!  Yes, it seems you linked to the article about the quarks far earlier
than I did.  My apologies for not reading your original post more closely.
 I think I saw it during lunch on my iPhone and didn't have time to give it
the attention it deserved.

Yes, chiming in from knowledgeable people would be good too.  :)  It is fun
as an amateur to speculate, but not worth a whole lot in the big scheme of
things.

Eric


On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 9:52 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote:

 Hi Eric:

 ** **

 The article you reference 

 http://phys.org/news/2013-04-quarks-dictate-proton.html 

 was also included in my original posting… perhaps you should read the
 entire thread?

 ** **

 I for one would be interested in hearing other more knowledgeable people’s
 opinions on the point of my posting, which is that what is lacking in
 modern/mainstream atomic/nuclear physics is a physical model… HOW does one
 explain WHY we see certain **specific** observations like I pointed out
 in the original posting…

 ** **

 LENR is searching for a theoretical model, and it is not going to be found
 ‘inside the box’… 

 ** **

 -Mark Iverson

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!