Re: [Vo]:Observation on a BLP (patent?) document
Wiil do. On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 5:10 PM, wrote: > In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sat, 18 Jan 2014 16:39:10 -0500: > Hi, > [snip] > >For example, photons and electrons can come together to form a single > >complex waveform called polaritron(a quasiparticle). I strongly suspect > >that Mills would not accept that this type of waveform is real even though > >a complete branch of science is based on it. > > > You might want to take a look at his derivation of the photon equations, > based > upon excited states of the electron. I think the photon/electron > interaction is > basic to his theory. > > He talks about a "trapped photon" providing pseudo charge. Now "trapped > photon" > + electron sounds to me an awful lot like your definition of a polariton, > except > that it's a genuine one for one coupling, rather than a photon with an > ensemble > of electrons. > > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk > > http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html > >
Re: [Vo]:Observation on a BLP (patent?) document
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sat, 18 Jan 2014 16:39:10 -0500: Hi, [snip] >For example, photons and electrons can come together to form a single >complex waveform called polaritron(a quasiparticle). I strongly suspect >that Mills would not accept that this type of waveform is real even though >a complete branch of science is based on it. > You might want to take a look at his derivation of the photon equations, based upon excited states of the electron. I think the photon/electron interaction is basic to his theory. He talks about a "trapped photon" providing pseudo charge. Now "trapped photon" + electron sounds to me an awful lot like your definition of a polariton, except that it's a genuine one for one coupling, rather than a photon with an ensemble of electrons. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Observation on a BLP (patent?) document
Thinking in terms of particles give people a warm feeling, but the quasi particle concept comes out of the wave mature of matter. One concept that Mills does not accept is non locality of a particle's quantum properties. It is analogous to a person that accepts monotonic music that is produced by one instrument but does not believe in the music that is produced by an orchestra. A collection of electrons can form a complex song rich in wave function complexity. To make this complex song of the electron easer to understand, the quasiparticle concept was invented. For example, photons and electrons can come together to form a single complex waveform called polaritron(a quasiparticle). I strongly suspect that Mills would not accept that this type of waveform is real even though a complete branch of science is based on it. On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 4:24 PM, wrote: > In reply to Axil Axil's message of Thu, 16 Jan 2014 22:06:06 -0500: > Hi, > [snip] > >If the spin and charge leave the elctron, what happens to the orbit and > >energy of the electron. > > > >Remember that he quantum properties of the electron can be > >separated(delocalized) into separate quasiparticles: spin, charge, and > >orbit. > > To me, a "quasi particle" sounds like a mathematical manipulation, not > necessarily a real phenomenon. > [snip] > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk > > http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html > >
Re: [Vo]:Observation on a BLP (patent?) document
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Thu, 16 Jan 2014 22:06:06 -0500: Hi, [snip] >If the spin and charge leave the elctron, what happens to the orbit and >energy of the electron. > >Remember that he quantum properties of the electron can be >separated(delocalized) into separate quasiparticles: spin, charge, and >orbit. To me, a "quasi particle" sounds like a mathematical manipulation, not necessarily a real phenomenon. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Observation on a BLP (patent?) document
In reply to David Roberson's message of Thu, 16 Jan 2014 21:59:32 -0500 (EST): Hi, [snip] >I mentioned the energy lost to the catalyst when I actually meant to include >all of the various sinks. The main point I was intending to make is that >energy and thus the mass associated with that energy exits the hydrino. I >have one idea as to how that loss of mass may be distributed among the >electron and proton. If the volume taken up by the electric fields is reduced >by the closer orbital of the electron, then I would tend to think of it as >being extracted from the field pattern. That would appear to include both >components. This is speculation on my part. > >Dave It's precisely the same speculation I made. :) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Observation on a BLP (patent?) document
Photo-fusion is a new type of fusion that was demonstrated at the turn of this century using high powered lasers. It is not hot and it might well be cold. If photon energy can be concentrated to bring the threshold for Photo-fusion into the range of non-laser infrared photon power levels, cold fusion (aka low energy photo fusion) is the result. On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 3:26 PM, wrote: > Eric, Axil, Jones, > > I just want to make a couple of brief remarks. > > First, there appear to be ways to greatly concentrate energy in "cold" > environments, e.g., superfocusing of e-m waves by plasmons in nano- > structures, various focusing phenomena, superoscillations, ... > > On the "hot" vs. "cold" distinction - > I believe this is partly hard to define since "kinetic energy" is > itself ambiguous. For example, read - > "How Much of Magnetic Energy Is Kinetic Energy?" > http://puhep1.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/kinetic.pdf > Let's not forget, too, that a slow compressed quantum wave function > can possess more K.E. than a fast moving wide, smoothly varying one. > > On whether "heavy electrons" can split gammas - > If I understand correctly, an electron becomes "heavy" in strong fields > when it accrues a entourage (or "dressing") of a "swarm" of photons > of field energy/momentum. It's a really difficult QED problem to > determine cross-sections and scattering probabilities. > Try googling "semi-bare electrons" or "two photon bremsstrahlung" or > "multi-photon bremsstrahlung" - electrons are not femto-billiards. > > -- LP > > Eric Walker wrote; > > On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 7:37 AM, Jones Beene > wrote: > > > > To be brutally honest, this makes no sense. You cannot have it both ways. > >> The underlying reaction is either hot or it isn't. Plus, the larger > >> problem: Boltzmann's tail (of the Maxwellian distribution). > >> > > > > I think we agree more than may be apparent. I've probably used > > "thermalization" incorrectly, or at least in a confusing way. > > [...] > >
Re: [Vo]:Observation on a BLP (patent?) document
Eric, Axil, Jones, I just want to make a couple of brief remarks. First, there appear to be ways to greatly concentrate energy in "cold" environments, e.g., superfocusing of e-m waves by plasmons in nano- structures, various focusing phenomena, superoscillations, ... On the "hot" vs. "cold" distinction - I believe this is partly hard to define since "kinetic energy" is itself ambiguous. For example, read - "How Much of Magnetic Energy Is Kinetic Energy?" http://puhep1.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/kinetic.pdf Let's not forget, too, that a slow compressed quantum wave function can possess more K.E. than a fast moving wide, smoothly varying one. On whether "heavy electrons" can split gammas - If I understand correctly, an electron becomes "heavy" in strong fields when it accrues a entourage (or "dressing") of a "swarm" of photons of field energy/momentum. It's a really difficult QED problem to determine cross-sections and scattering probabilities. Try googling "semi-bare electrons" or "two photon bremsstrahlung" or "multi-photon bremsstrahlung" - electrons are not femto-billiards. -- LP Eric Walker wrote; > On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 7:37 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > > To be brutally honest, this makes no sense. You cannot have it both ways. >> The underlying reaction is either hot or it isn't. Plus, the larger >> problem: Boltzmann's tail (of the Maxwellian distribution). >> > > I think we agree more than may be apparent. I've probably used > "thermalization" incorrectly, or at least in a confusing way. > [...]
Re: [Vo]:Observation on a BLP (patent?) document
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 7:37 AM, Jones Beene wrote: To be brutally honest, this makes no sense. You cannot have it both ways. > The underlying reaction is either hot or it isn’t. Plus, the larger > problem: > Boltzmann’s tail (of the Maxwellian distribution). > I think we agree more than may be apparent. I've probably used "thermalization" incorrectly, or at least in a confusing way. The specific mechanism I personally have in mind is that the mass-energy of the fusion intermediate state is siphoned off via a near-instantaneous electromagnetic interaction with electrically charged particles in the environment, e.g., perhaps to the surrounding electrons, rather than being yielded via the slower processes that give rise to fast particles and to gamma photons (the longest of the processes, and hence the least likely). Think of the yielding of a gamma as the long process of filling up a capacitor bank until it can be discharged in one big blast, and instead there being something that is short-circuiting this and resulting in low-grade heat via photon emission from nearby electrons, which are momentarily given a good "shake" by the fusion. If something like that is happening, I would expect broadband emission and few high energy photons. With the mass-energy of the fusion intermediate state being sapped away, you would get neither the gamma (the discharge of the capacitor bank), nor the fast particles (which also take a bit longer to be yielded). This particular description may be implausible, or it may be plausible in some scenario but not applicable to the current one. In the present context it's intended primarily as an illustration of the more general idea of "thermalization" I had in mind. Just to clarify, I do not believe there are electrons intercepting gammas, as in W-L. But if a process of this kind were found to apply, it would seem, then, to be the main way that the underlying mechanism of cold fusion is different from hot fusion; which is to say that they wouldn't seem to be all that different, just carried out in different contexts. Of course, if such a process were not occuring, all bets are off, and cold fusion and hot fusion may be entirely different creatures. Eric
RE: [Vo]:Observation on a BLP (patent?) document
From: Eric Walker To those who would write this area off as "hot fusion," I would respond that this is a huge assumption that relies upon some speculative hypotheses about the differences between LENR and hot fusion. I'm inclined to think that they're not different at all, and that the primary difference is that in LENR there's something thermalizing the energy in a way that doesn't result in gammas, fast particles and typical fusion products. Eric, To be brutally honest, this makes no sense. You cannot have it both ways. The underlying reaction is either hot or it isn’t. Plus, the larger problem: Boltzmann’s tail (of the Maxwellian distribution). There is no model in reality for perfectly delayed mini-release of large bursts of energy and in fact – the suggestion is every bit as much a violation of conservation of energy as suggesting a non-nuclear source. The hypothesized “delayed release” in question must be a perfect delay or we would see the occasional evidence. All known types of thermalization are extremely “leaky” meaning that high energy always gets out, and is easily detectable. This is why W-L settled on a type of beta decay as the underlying modality … because there are examples (like tritium) of beta decay in which the average release is in the correct range for non-detectability (on paper). Unfortunately for them, when beta electrons are seen in the range of a few keV there is always a long tail in the energy distribution (Boltzmann’s tail) and despite all efforts W-L cannot wish away Boltzmann. This energy tail can exceed one MeV even when the average is 6 keV. Most beta electrons penetrate only about 5 mm of air and do not pass through human skin, yet detectors can spot a milligram of tritium carefully hidden inside a cargo container. This is due to the long “tail” of beta decay. There is proof of absolutely no measurable gammas at all (Bianchini’s study of Rossi) with 10 kW of heat, and any workable LENR theory is failing if it cannot explain this. Bottom line is that neither beta decay nor passive thermalization can be the operative modality of the Rossi effect and we must look for an underlying mass<=>energy reaction in which there is both a low energy release, no radioactive ash and no tail (no neutrino) – thus - the candidate reaction itself is one in which mass is converted into energy in packets which no larger than about 1-2 keV ab initio with no neutrino and minimal tail in the distribution. Jones <>
Re: [Vo]:Observation on a BLP (patent?) document
He discounts the idea that the experiments mentioned in the article could be translated into fusion research, "since there are likely to be some problems getting hydrogen or deuterium to grow in thin, long hairs", Why do you think that Rossi put hairs on his micro-particles...it was to get the hydrogen nano-particles to COAT the nickel hairs. Do you understand it now??? On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 1:58 AM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:02 PM, wrote: > > "Hairy metal laser show produces bright X-Rays" >> -- Setting metallic wires on fire creates a bright X-Ray glow >> >> http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/11/hairy-metal-laser-show-produces-bright-x-rays/ > > > Thank you, Lou, for the references. In the one above, the author comes to > this conclusion: > > That said, these laser systems are bit facility-like themselves. The laser >> that the researchers used could produce two Joules of energy in a 60fs (a >> femtosecond is 1 x 10-15 s) pulse. At the surface of their target, they >> reached intensities of 5 x 1018 W/cm2, which is pretty intense—though >> nowhere near as intense as they could have made it. And the "low" intensity >> is important. These lasers are big machines that require constant tender >> loving care. >> >> But it is possible to get the same intensity from a shorter pulse that is >> focused to a smaller area with much lower energy. My back-of-envelope >> calculation suggests that the same thing could be achieved with 20mJ >> pulses, which is something you can achieve with lasers that you can >> purchase today. > > > The implication seems to be that you could get 5E18 W/cm2 with 20mJ pulses > using a commodity laser (and possibly far higher). He discounts the idea > that the experiments mentioned in the article could be translated into > fusion research, "since there are likely to be some problems getting > hydrogen or deuterium to grow in thin, long hairs", but it seems to me that > a very promising line of fusion research is standing right in front of him. > A first thought is that you would not need to get hydrogen or deuterium to > grow in long hairs. > > I'm sure that any physicist worth his or her salt is aware that you might > be able to dramatically improve upon the conditions seen in man-made fusion > devices by scaling things down. It is a little bit of a mystery to me that > this avenue has not been further explored. > > To those who would write this area off as "hot fusion," I would respond > that this is a huge assumption that relies upon some speculative hypotheses > about the differences between LENR and hot fusion. I'm inclined to think > that they're not different at all, and that the primary difference is that > in LENR there's something thermalizing the energy in a way that doesn't > result in gammas, fast particles and typical fusion products. > > Eric > >
Re: [Vo]:Observation on a BLP (patent?) document
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:02 PM, wrote: "Hairy metal laser show produces bright X-Rays" > -- Setting metallic wires on fire creates a bright X-Ray glow > > http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/11/hairy-metal-laser-show-produces-bright-x-rays/ Thank you, Lou, for the references. In the one above, the author comes to this conclusion: That said, these laser systems are bit facility-like themselves. The laser > that the researchers used could produce two Joules of energy in a 60fs (a > femtosecond is 1 x 10-15 s) pulse. At the surface of their target, they > reached intensities of 5 x 1018 W/cm2, which is pretty intense—though > nowhere near as intense as they could have made it. And the "low" intensity > is important. These lasers are big machines that require constant tender > loving care. > > But it is possible to get the same intensity from a shorter pulse that is > focused to a smaller area with much lower energy. My back-of-envelope > calculation suggests that the same thing could be achieved with 20mJ > pulses, which is something you can achieve with lasers that you can > purchase today. The implication seems to be that you could get 5E18 W/cm2 with 20mJ pulses using a commodity laser (and possibly far higher). He discounts the idea that the experiments mentioned in the article could be translated into fusion research, "since there are likely to be some problems getting hydrogen or deuterium to grow in thin, long hairs", but it seems to me that a very promising line of fusion research is standing right in front of him. A first thought is that you would not need to get hydrogen or deuterium to grow in long hairs. I'm sure that any physicist worth his or her salt is aware that you might be able to dramatically improve upon the conditions seen in man-made fusion devices by scaling things down. It is a little bit of a mystery to me that this avenue has not been further explored. To those who would write this area off as "hot fusion," I would respond that this is a huge assumption that relies upon some speculative hypotheses about the differences between LENR and hot fusion. I'm inclined to think that they're not different at all, and that the primary difference is that in LENR there's something thermalizing the energy in a way that doesn't result in gammas, fast particles and typical fusion products. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Observation on a BLP (patent?) document
Eric Walker wrote: > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 8:55 AM, wrote: > >>Yes. Once established the large current densities generate huge magnetic >> fields circulating the current flow, or equivalently a magnetic vector >> potential field pointing in current flow direction. If the current >> suddenly stops, oppositely charged particles oppositely moving in the >> plasma flow collide in energetic "compressions." ... > > Something along these lines is the horse I'm currently betting on. I > would not be surprised if at the nano level you could get electric and > magnetic fields that far surpass what we currently produce in the > strongest accelerators, electromagnets and magnetic confinement fusion > reactors. The absolute magnitudes may be minuscule, but the electric > and magnetic fluxes could be off charts. For a little wisp of a thing > like a proton, the forces could be sufficient to do whatever you want > them to do. Eric, you might find it interesting that temperatures approaching those in stellar centers can be created with low laser energies impinging on nanowire arrays - in a small desktop experiment. See - "Relativistic plasma nanophotonics for ultrahigh energy density physics" http://www.nature.com/nphoton/journal/v7/n10/full/nphoton.2013.217.html -- which ends with the statement: "We obtained extraordinarily high degrees of ionization (for example, 52 times ionized Au) and gigabar pressures only exceeded in the central hot spot of highly compressed thermonuclear fusion plasmas. Scaling to higher laser intensities promises to create plasmas with temperatures and pressures approaching those in the centre of the Sun." This experiment generates immense electric field gradients. Also see - "Hairy metal laser show produces bright X-Rays" -- Setting metallic wires on fire creates a bright X-Ray glow http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/11/hairy-metal-laser-show-produces-bright-x-rays/ "Plasma from 'hairy' target releases high-energy x rays" http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/news/news-picks/plasma-from--hairy--target-releases-high-energy-x-rays-a-news-pick-post > My graphic is alluding to what you're getting at: > > http://i.imgur.com/PoRGR7G.png Yes. You might want to include the magnetic vector potential in your graphic which points in the same direction as the current density vector "I" - it is proportional to the field momentum each unit charge will acquire when the current is interrupted. Note that the momenta will be in opposite direction for positive vs. negative charges - forcing collisions, or "compressions" between them. > In this case, there's a momentary compression of protons within a lattice > defect as a spark crosses a gap between two electrically insulated grains > in the metal. The magnetic field confines them to the axis of travel of > the spark, and they migrate under the influence of a very strong potential > towards the far end of the lattice defect, where they clump up. If there > are deuterons in there, you could get 3He. But even if there are none, > the protons could be compressed into the lattice sites themselves, > provided the whole thing happens faster than a dislocation. > >> It would be interesting to quantify the momentum/energy impulses charged >> particles around the currents receive. > > I would love to see some back-of-the-envelope calculations for the forces > that could be generated. I want to do that for the nanoring example of the paper - "Optical generation of intense ultrashort magnetic pulses at the nanoscale" http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.6072v1.pdf The math for a nanoring is simpler than for a straight current arc since it is a complete circuit, and doesn't require too many approximations. -- LP
Re: [Vo]:Observation on a BLP (patent?) document
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 8:55 AM, wrote: Yes. Once established the large current densities generate huge magnetic > fields circulating the current flow, or equivalently a magnetic vector > potential field pointing in current flow direction. If the current > suddenly stops, oppositely charged particles oppositely moving in the > plasma flow collide in energetic "compressions." ... Something along these lines is the horse I'm currently betting on. I would not be surprised if at the nano level you could get electric and magnetic fields that far surpass what we currently produce in the strongest accelerators, electromagnets and magnetic confinement fusion reactors. The absolute magnitudes may be minuscule, but the electric and magnetic fluxes could be off charts. For a little wisp of a thing like a proton, the forces could be sufficient to do whatever you want them to do. My graphic is alluding to what you're getting at: http://i.imgur.com/PoRGR7G.png In this case, there's a momentary compression of protons within a lattice defect as a spark crosses a gap between two electrically insulated grains in the metal. The magnetic field confines them to the axis of travel of the spark, and they migrate under the influence of a very strong potential towards the far end of the lattice defect, where they clump up. If there are deuterons in there, you could get 3He. But even if there are none, the protons could be compressed into the lattice sites themselves, provided the whole thing happens faster than a dislocation. It would be interesting to quantify the momentum/energy impulses charged particles around the currents receive. > I would love to see some back-of-the-envelope calculations for the forces that could be generated. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Observation on a BLP (patent?) document
If the spin and charge leave the elctron, what happens to the orbit and energy of the electron. Remember that he quantum properties of the electron can be separated(delocalized) into separate quasiparticles: spin, charge, and orbit. Does that complicate understanding experimental findings that Mills has made? I think it might. On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 9:59 PM, David Roberson wrote: > I mentioned the energy lost to the catalyst when I actually meant to > include all of the various sinks. The main point I was intending to make > is that energy and thus the mass associated with that energy exits the > hydrino. I have one idea as to how that loss of mass may be distributed > among the electron and proton. If the volume taken up by the electric > fields is reduced by the closer orbital of the electron, then I would tend > to think of it as being extracted from the field pattern. That would > appear to include both components. This is speculation on my part. > > Dave > > > > -Original Message- > From: mixent > To: vortex-l > Sent: Thu, Jan 16, 2014 8:15 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Observation on a BLP (patent?) document > > In reply to David Roberson's message of Thu, 16 Jan 2014 12:38:01 -0500 > (EST): > Hi, > [snip] > >Actually, the mass of the hydrino should be reduced since it has less energy > than zero level hydrogen. That energy and hence mass has been lost to the > catalyst. > > Not all the energy is lost to the catalyst. The rest appears as either UV or > kinetic energy. > > According to my model mass is lost by both electron and proton. > > > > >Dave > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-Original Message- > >From: Terry Blanton > >To: vortex-l > >Sent: Thu, Jan 16, 2014 12:06 pm > >Subject: Re: [Vo]:Observation on a BLP (patent?) document > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does the relative mass of a hydrino increase with each reduced orbital > > radius > due to the increase angular momentum of the orbiting electron? > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk > http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html > >
Re: [Vo]:Observation on a BLP (patent?) document
I mentioned the energy lost to the catalyst when I actually meant to include all of the various sinks. The main point I was intending to make is that energy and thus the mass associated with that energy exits the hydrino. I have one idea as to how that loss of mass may be distributed among the electron and proton. If the volume taken up by the electric fields is reduced by the closer orbital of the electron, then I would tend to think of it as being extracted from the field pattern. That would appear to include both components. This is speculation on my part. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent To: vortex-l Sent: Thu, Jan 16, 2014 8:15 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Observation on a BLP (patent?) document In reply to David Roberson's message of Thu, 16 Jan 2014 12:38:01 -0500 (EST): Hi, [snip] >Actually, the mass of the hydrino should be reduced since it has less energy than zero level hydrogen. That energy and hence mass has been lost to the catalyst. Not all the energy is lost to the catalyst. The rest appears as either UV or kinetic energy. According to my model mass is lost by both electron and proton. > >Dave > > > > > > > >-Original Message- >From: Terry Blanton >To: vortex-l >Sent: Thu, Jan 16, 2014 12:06 pm >Subject: Re: [Vo]:Observation on a BLP (patent?) document > > > > > > > Does the relative mass of a hydrino increase with each reduced orbital radius due to the increase angular momentum of the orbiting electron? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Observation on a BLP (patent?) document
Fractional spin and charge is a result of delocalization of the electron in strongly correlated systems. The spin and charge seem to wander away from the electron in condensed matter systems. This fractional spin and charge delocalization causes problems in chemistry associated with the dissociation of molecular ions, polarizabilities, barrier heights, magnetic properties, fundamental band-gaps and strongly-correlated systems. Could what Mills have been seeing over these many years is simply a electron delocalization condition in a strongly correlated chemical system? This paper lays out the delocalization conditions for fractional spins, charge and orbitals as follows: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.5194v1.pdf On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:37 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe < stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote: > The interesting for me to note is that the non square integrable feature > of the Dirac > solution is perhaps a key feature, It can (I'm not an expert) mean that > you generally do not see single live hydrinos but clusters of hydrogen that > take advantage of x number of hydrino states to keep the cluster bounded by > demanding the hydrinos to have a non localized part. The main effect would > then be a BEQ like state that could be the main driving force to generate > energy. But a certainly a few hydrinos could escape and keep that state for > so long to do other nuclear reactions as the paper you showed suggested. I > would also not expect these clusters to live long because they would > trigger a nuclear reaction as Kim suggests and due to the energy release > break up. > > Does this make sense? > > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 5:14 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > >> A number of observers have observed this “deep Dirac” (DDL) layer to be >> the real source of Mills’ “hydrino” since it is similar in ways - but not >> the same - and its presence leads to a nuclear reaction. (which is a >> drastic departure from Mills). >> >> >> >> See Meulenberg, >> >> >> >> >> http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/papers/Meulenberg-Femto-Atoms-And-Transmutation-ICCF17-ps.pdf >> >> >> >> The other alternative which I have been promoting is the DDL as the >> predecessor state to RPF (reversible proton fusion). >> >> >> >> RPF (diproton reaction) would provide a smaller amount of energy (much >> smaller than fusion) via QCD color charge dynamics from excess proton mass, >> but with no fusion. >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Stefan Israelsson Tampe >> >> >> >> BLP being real or not, here is something that I find intriguing, >> >> >> >> http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0507193 >> >> QUOTE >> >> The Klein-Gordon equation of the hydrogen atom has a low-lying >> eigenstate, called hydrino state, with square integrable wavefunction. The >> corresponding spinor solution of Dirac's equation is not square integrable. >> For this reason the hydrino state has been rejected in the early days of >> quantum mechanics as being unphysical. Maybe it is time to change opinion. >> >> UNQUOTE >> >> >> >> Can we spin on this? Note >> >> 1. Not being square integrable means probably that the wave function has >> "thick tails" and that it basically describes a non-localized electron that >> happens to get close very very seldom. E.g. quite an unlikely state. >> >> >> >> 2. Solutions to Klein Gordon equations is most probably a combination of >> spinor states for which the thick tails cancels. This may mean that you can >> have a hydrino state, but it's basically impossible to reach it because it >> depends on a delicate balance. >> >> >> >> But what if we combine a cluster of N hydrogen atoms, what happens then?, >> well we could view this as a possibility to bend the space into a compact >> manifolds of various forms and for applying these states on that system, >> one could perhaps trigger the formation of these hydrino states, for that >> case one would expect the electron will be partly bound closely, more >> closely than ordinary hydrogen but also have a component of delocalisation >> e.g. an affinity for the system to behave as a strongly coupled system just >> as with a BEQ state. >> >> >> >> So assuming the active sites have an ability to catalyze clusters of >> hydrino clusters, the next step to take is to note that for these hydrino >> clusters that could very well be close in nature to BEQ clusters, but more >> combact due to the close proximity of the electrons to the nucleus, the >> mechanism Kim describes could very well trigger nuclear reactions. >> >> >> >> At least that's my 2c of what's happens. >> >> >> >> Have fun! >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Jones Beene wrote: >> >> In earlier BLP filings - on what constitutes a hydrino catalyst, it >> turned out to be possible to fit two thirds of the periodic table into >> their expansive definition. Talk about “over-reaching” … >> >> >> >> USPTO examiners detest these painfully long and over-reaching >> applications. Many ob
Re: [Vo]:Observation on a BLP (patent?) document
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Thu, 16 Jan 2014 09:45:35 -0800: Hi, [snip] >Short answer. No one other than Mills can see them :-) and he's not letting >anyone borrow his hydrinoscope. Actually there have been several (quasi) independent replications. > >Anyway, from the perspective of common sense, why would Mills not claim that >(since energy has been given up with reduced orbitals), there would be a >slight mass decrease in what can only be called "ash" ? > > > >From: Terry Blanton > > > > Does the relative mass of a hydrino increase with each reduced orbital >radius due to the increase angular momentum of the orbiting electron? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Observation on a BLP (patent?) document
In reply to David Roberson's message of Thu, 16 Jan 2014 12:38:01 -0500 (EST): Hi, [snip] >Actually, the mass of the hydrino should be reduced since it has less energy >than zero level hydrogen. That energy and hence mass has been lost to the >catalyst. Not all the energy is lost to the catalyst. The rest appears as either UV or kinetic energy. According to my model mass is lost by both electron and proton. > >Dave > > > > > > > >-Original Message- >From: Terry Blanton >To: vortex-l >Sent: Thu, Jan 16, 2014 12:06 pm >Subject: Re: [Vo]:Observation on a BLP (patent?) document > > > > > > > Does the relative mass of a hydrino increase with each reduced orbital radius > due to the increase angular momentum of the orbiting electron? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Observation on a BLP (patent?) document
In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Thu, 16 Jan 2014 12:06:10 -0500: Hi, [snip] > Does the relative mass of a hydrino increase with each reduced orbital >radius due to the increase angular momentum of the orbiting electron? According to Mills, the angular momentum and mass of the electron remain constant, the increase in velocity being exactly compensated for by the reduction in radius. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Observation on a BLP (patent?) document
In reply to Roarty, Francis X's message of Thu, 16 Jan 2014 17:31:31 +: Hi, [snip] >2. Solutions to Klein Gordon equations is most probably a combination of >spinor states for which the thick tails cancels. This may mean that you can >have a hydrino state, but it's basically impossible to reach it because it >depends on a delicate balance. There is however a loophole. The loophole is the Bohr orbit (Which Mills characterizes as a spherical orbitsphere). IMO an electron only enters a Bohr orbit rarely (usually "bouncing around" more or less randomly - requiring the statistical approach of QM), however when it does enter such an orbit, it is susceptible to Mills shrinkage. Once it enters a sub-orbital, it can't escape because it gave up a lot of energy entering that state. IOW it's stuck there. Even though the loophole is tiny, it happens frequently enough to be useful, because the speed of the electron is so high, and because the collision frequency of atoms at room temperature is so high. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Observation on a BLP (patent?) document
Comments to the article. Of cause, the singlarity is in origo (facepalms). The dirac spinors will be some kind of delta measures with structure so that the delta measures cancels for the hydrino solution. Don't know how stable and achiavable this is, probably someone with deeper knowledge need to discuss this, it's really not enough to say that the dirac spinors are non integrable. /Stefan On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 6:31 PM, Roarty, Francis X < francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote: > Stefan, > > I have been citing that paper in blogs since 2009.. and > intriguing is an understatement.. the idea that the hydrogen loaded into a > lattice of bulk powder can be relativistic while sitting still on a lab > bench surly must be unphysical?? There is no gravity well or spatial > displacement approaching C BUT there is now suppression of vacuum density > brought about by the Ni geometry and it grows by the inverse cube of > spacing between plate like geometries in parallel which the gas atoms pass > between. This means the atoms are shifting between different gravity hills > without respect for isotopy – which is broken and segregated by Casimir > geometry. Naudts has identified the hydrino as relativistic hydrogen, the > lower ground state is a matter of relative measure or Lorentzian > contraction without increasing the vacuum density in a well or by near C > velocity. In this case the isotropy in the lab becomes the bottom of the > well when compared to the suppressed density inside the Casimir geometry.. > makes me suspect we are going to find more and more anomalous half lives of > radioactive gas occurring when loaded into skeletal cats and/or nano > powders. > > Fran > > > > *From:* Stefan Israelsson Tampe [mailto:stefan.ita...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, January 16, 2014 11:01 AM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Observation on a BLP (patent?) document > > > > BLP being real or not, here is something that I find intriguing, > > > > http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0507193 > > QUOTE > > The Klein-Gordon equation of the hydrogen atom has a low-lying eigenstate, > called hydrino state, with square integrable wavefunction. The > corresponding spinor solution of Dirac's equation is not square integrable. > For this reason the hydrino state has been rejected in the early days of > quantum mechanics as being unphysical. Maybe it is time to change opinion. > > UNQUOTE > > > > Can we spin on this? Note > > 1. Not being square integrable means probably that the wave function has > "thick tails" and that it basically describes a non-localized electron that > happens to get close very very seldom. E.g. quite an unlikely state. > > > > 2. Solutions to Klein Gordon equations is most probably a combination of > spinor states for which the thick tails cancels. This may mean that you can > have a hydrino state, but it's basically impossible to reach it because it > depends on a delicate balance. > > > > But what if we combine a cluster of N hydrogen atoms, what happens then?, > well we could view this as a possibility to bend the space into a compact > manifolds of various forms and for applying these states on that system, > one could perhaps trigger the formation of these hydrino states, for that > case one would expect the electron will be partly bound closely, more > closely than ordinary hydrogen but also have a component of delocalisation > e.g. an affinity for the system to behave as a strongly coupled system just > as with a BEQ state. > > > > So assuming the active sites have an ability to catalyze clusters of > hydrino clusters, the next step to take is to note that for these hydrino > clusters that could very well be close in nature to BEQ clusters, but more > combact due to the close proximity of the electrons to the nucleus, the > mechanism Kim describes could very well trigger nuclear reactions. > > > > At least that's my 2c of what's happens. > > > > Have fun! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > > In earlier BLP filings - on what constitutes a hydrino catalyst, it turned > out to be possible to fit two thirds of the periodic table into their > expansive definition. Talk about “over-reaching” … > > > > USPTO examiners detest these painfully long and over-reaching > applications. Many observers have commented on how poorly worded BLP’s > efforts turn out - and how little value they actually have in defensible > IP, having paid top dollar for poor work. BLP will probably not fare well > if it ever comes to litigation. > > >
RE: [Vo]:Observation on a BLP (patent?) document
Jones, This sounds quite plausible. Experiments will decide. -- LP Jones Beene wrote: > -Original Message- > From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com > > BTW, an interesting paper illustrating how powerful these fields can get > in nanocircuits is - > > "Optical generation of intense ultrashort magnetic pulses at the > nanoscale" > http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.6072 > > The underlying suggestion, which we have heard before in a different > context, being the major part of the Letts/Cravens effect - is that > coherent > electric fields at the nanoscale can produce multi-Tesla level magnetic > fields at the focal point. This paper is using laser light, but there is a > more interesting possibility for LENR which came up several times in > discussions wrt the HotCat. > > The near-coherence (aka superradiance) which is to be expected in the IR > due > to very narrow range emission from silicon carbide could be one of the > secrets of the HotCat. Even though the photons of Terahertz IR carry far > less energy per photon than an optical laser, there are far more of them > with hot SiC, and they do not need to be focused. The energy per photon is > perhaps 100 times lower but the intensity of narrow spectrum radiation is > much larger. This gives Rossi the desirable magnetic field gradient in > surface plasmons without the need of laser coherency or focusing and it > gives a high level of control. > > > > >
RE: [Vo]:Observation on a BLP (patent?) document
-Original Message- From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com BTW, an interesting paper illustrating how powerful these fields can get in nanocircuits is - "Optical generation of intense ultrashort magnetic pulses at the nanoscale" http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.6072 The underlying suggestion, which we have heard before in a different context, being the major part of the Letts/Cravens effect - is that coherent electric fields at the nanoscale can produce multi-Tesla level magnetic fields at the focal point. This paper is using laser light, but there is a more interesting possibility for LENR which came up several times in discussions wrt the HotCat. The near-coherence (aka superradiance) which is to be expected in the IR due to very narrow range emission from silicon carbide could be one of the secrets of the HotCat. Even though the photons of Terahertz IR carry far less energy per photon than an optical laser, there are far more of them with hot SiC, and they do not need to be focused. The energy per photon is perhaps 100 times lower but the intensity of narrow spectrum radiation is much larger. This gives Rossi the desirable magnetic field gradient in surface plasmons without the need of laser coherency or focusing and it gives a high level of control.
Re: [Vo]:Observation on a BLP (patent?) document
David Roberson wrote: > Actually, the mass of the hydrino should be reduced since it has less > energy than zero level hydrogen. That energy and hence mass has been lost > to the catalyst. > > Dave Well, yes - that should happen, if Mills' theory is correct. I guess I should retract a previous statement I made. Given the very weird nature of LENR, though, either unconventional physics explanations are correct, or many LENR researchers are consistently making errors. Better not to criticize new theories until definitive experiments rule them out. - LP
Re: [Vo]:Observation on a BLP (patent?) document
Terry Blanton wrote: > Does the relative mass of a hydrino increase with each reduced orbital > radius due to the increase angular momentum of the orbiting electron? That seems to be the only conclusion possible. However, I do not know whether BLP's theory is correct or not, but I do not care. I hope their demo is a success. -- LP
RE: [Vo]:Observation on a BLP (patent?) document
Short answer. No one other than Mills can see them :-) and he's not letting anyone borrow his hydrinoscope. Anyway, from the perspective of common sense, why would Mills not claim that (since energy has been given up with reduced orbitals), there would be a slight mass decrease in what can only be called "ash" ? From: Terry Blanton Does the relative mass of a hydrino increase with each reduced orbital radius due to the increase angular momentum of the orbiting electron?
Re: [Vo]:Observation on a BLP (patent?) document
Actually, the mass of the hydrino should be reduced since it has less energy than zero level hydrogen. That energy and hence mass has been lost to the catalyst. Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton To: vortex-l Sent: Thu, Jan 16, 2014 12:06 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Observation on a BLP (patent?) document Does the relative mass of a hydrino increase with each reduced orbital radius due to the increase angular momentum of the orbiting electron?
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Observation on a BLP (patent?) document
Stefan, I have been citing that paper in blogs since 2009.. and intriguing is an understatement.. the idea that the hydrogen loaded into a lattice of bulk powder can be relativistic while sitting still on a lab bench surly must be unphysical?? There is no gravity well or spatial displacement approaching C BUT there is now suppression of vacuum density brought about by the Ni geometry and it grows by the inverse cube of spacing between plate like geometries in parallel which the gas atoms pass between. This means the atoms are shifting between different gravity hills without respect for isotopy - which is broken and segregated by Casimir geometry. Naudts has identified the hydrino as relativistic hydrogen, the lower ground state is a matter of relative measure or Lorentzian contraction without increasing the vacuum density in a well or by near C velocity. In this case the isotropy in the lab becomes the bottom of the well when compared to the suppressed density inside the Casimir geometry.. makes me suspect we are going to find more and more anomalous half lives of radioactive gas occurring when loaded into skeletal cats and/or nano powders. Fran From: Stefan Israelsson Tampe [mailto:stefan.ita...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 11:01 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Observation on a BLP (patent?) document BLP being real or not, here is something that I find intriguing, http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0507193 QUOTE The Klein-Gordon equation of the hydrogen atom has a low-lying eigenstate, called hydrino state, with square integrable wavefunction. The corresponding spinor solution of Dirac's equation is not square integrable. For this reason the hydrino state has been rejected in the early days of quantum mechanics as being unphysical. Maybe it is time to change opinion. UNQUOTE Can we spin on this? Note 1. Not being square integrable means probably that the wave function has "thick tails" and that it basically describes a non-localized electron that happens to get close very very seldom. E.g. quite an unlikely state. 2. Solutions to Klein Gordon equations is most probably a combination of spinor states for which the thick tails cancels. This may mean that you can have a hydrino state, but it's basically impossible to reach it because it depends on a delicate balance. But what if we combine a cluster of N hydrogen atoms, what happens then?, well we could view this as a possibility to bend the space into a compact manifolds of various forms and for applying these states on that system, one could perhaps trigger the formation of these hydrino states, for that case one would expect the electron will be partly bound closely, more closely than ordinary hydrogen but also have a component of delocalisation e.g. an affinity for the system to behave as a strongly coupled system just as with a BEQ state. So assuming the active sites have an ability to catalyze clusters of hydrino clusters, the next step to take is to note that for these hydrino clusters that could very well be close in nature to BEQ clusters, but more combact due to the close proximity of the electrons to the nucleus, the mechanism Kim describes could very well trigger nuclear reactions. At least that's my 2c of what's happens. Have fun! On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Jones Beene mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>> wrote: In earlier BLP filings - on what constitutes a hydrino catalyst, it turned out to be possible to fit two thirds of the periodic table into their expansive definition. Talk about "over-reaching" ... USPTO examiners detest these painfully long and over-reaching applications. Many observers have commented on how poorly worded BLP's efforts turn out - and how little value they actually have in defensible IP, having paid top dollar for poor work. BLP will probably not fare well if it ever comes to litigation. A few years ago it was noted here that the company had overlooked "gas phase" in all of their voluminous filings - that is, up until Rossi's patent application showed up in which his claim was for only gas phase... at which time BLP altered a previous filing, once which had only claimed liquid and plasma phase, to include gas phase. It was obvious that they were trying to cover up a glaring mistake in coverage. I suppose that they were hoping no one would take notice, but instead the effect was to announce to the world how badly they had screwed up. From: David Roberson It appears to me that they have most of the possible current levels covered. Why list ranges that include each other? Magnetic fields that are changing in magnitude or direction generate electric fields that can impart energy upon charged particles. A steady magnetic field is not able to supply energy to these charged objects, but can change their direction of motion. Dave -
Re: [Vo]:Observation on a BLP (patent?) document
the first Papp patent(1970s) was based on water vapor, it was the second patent (1980s) that was based on noble gases. On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:39 AM, wrote: > > Axil wrote: > > On bottom of page 165 and the top page 166, is that a description of a > > Papp > > engine that I see? I thought that the Papp engine was open source. > > > > I don't think so. No mention of noble gases. > > > > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:59 AM, wrote: > > > >> The BLP website is down as I write this, but yesterday the > >> "What’s New" tab on their homepage led to this entry dated 1/14/14 - > >>[...] > >
Re: [Vo]:Observation on a BLP (patent?) document
Does the relative mass of a hydrino increase with each reduced orbital radius due to the increase angular momentum of the orbiting electron?
Re: [Vo]:Observation on a BLP (patent?) document
David Roberson wrote: > It appears to me that they have most of the possible current levels > covered. Why list ranges that include each other? Agreed. Highly redundant. > > Magnetic fields that are changing in magnitude or direction generate > electric fields that can impart energy upon charged particles. A steady > magnetic field is not able to supply energy to these charged objects, but > can change their direction of motion. Yes. Once established the large current densities generate huge magnetic fields circulating the current flow, or equivalently a magnetic vector potential field pointing in current flow direction. If the current suddenly stops, oppositely charged particles oppositely moving in the plasma flow collide in energetic "compressions." BTW, an interesting paper illustrating how powerful these fields can get in nanocircuits is - "Optical generation of intense ultrashort magnetic pulses at the nanoscale" http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.6072 It would be interesting to quantify the momentum/energy impulses charged particles around the currents receive. -- LP > > Dave > [...]
Re: [Vo]:Observation on a BLP (patent?) document
Axil wrote: > On bottom of page 165 and the top page 166, is that a description of a > Papp > engine that I see? I thought that the Papp engine was open source. > I don't think so. No mention of noble gases. > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:59 AM, wrote: > >> The BLP website is down as I write this, but yesterday the >> "Whats New" tab on their homepage led to this entry dated 1/14/14 - >>[...]
Re: [Vo]:Observation on a BLP (patent?) document
The interesting for me to note is that the non square integrable feature of the Dirac solution is perhaps a key feature, It can (I'm not an expert) mean that you generally do not see single live hydrinos but clusters of hydrogen that take advantage of x number of hydrino states to keep the cluster bounded by demanding the hydrinos to have a non localized part. The main effect would then be a BEQ like state that could be the main driving force to generate energy. But a certainly a few hydrinos could escape and keep that state for so long to do other nuclear reactions as the paper you showed suggested. I would also not expect these clusters to live long because they would trigger a nuclear reaction as Kim suggests and due to the energy release break up. Does this make sense? On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 5:14 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > A number of observers have observed this “deep Dirac” (DDL) layer to be > the real source of Mills’ “hydrino” since it is similar in ways - but not > the same - and its presence leads to a nuclear reaction. (which is a > drastic departure from Mills). > > > > See Meulenberg, > > > > > http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/papers/Meulenberg-Femto-Atoms-And-Transmutation-ICCF17-ps.pdf > > > > The other alternative which I have been promoting is the DDL as the > predecessor state to RPF (reversible proton fusion). > > > > RPF (diproton reaction) would provide a smaller amount of energy (much > smaller than fusion) via QCD color charge dynamics from excess proton mass, > but with no fusion. > > > > > > *From:* Stefan Israelsson Tampe > > > > BLP being real or not, here is something that I find intriguing, > > > > http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0507193 > > QUOTE > > The Klein-Gordon equation of the hydrogen atom has a low-lying eigenstate, > called hydrino state, with square integrable wavefunction. The > corresponding spinor solution of Dirac's equation is not square integrable. > For this reason the hydrino state has been rejected in the early days of > quantum mechanics as being unphysical. Maybe it is time to change opinion. > > UNQUOTE > > > > Can we spin on this? Note > > 1. Not being square integrable means probably that the wave function has > "thick tails" and that it basically describes a non-localized electron that > happens to get close very very seldom. E.g. quite an unlikely state. > > > > 2. Solutions to Klein Gordon equations is most probably a combination of > spinor states for which the thick tails cancels. This may mean that you can > have a hydrino state, but it's basically impossible to reach it because it > depends on a delicate balance. > > > > But what if we combine a cluster of N hydrogen atoms, what happens then?, > well we could view this as a possibility to bend the space into a compact > manifolds of various forms and for applying these states on that system, > one could perhaps trigger the formation of these hydrino states, for that > case one would expect the electron will be partly bound closely, more > closely than ordinary hydrogen but also have a component of delocalisation > e.g. an affinity for the system to behave as a strongly coupled system just > as with a BEQ state. > > > > So assuming the active sites have an ability to catalyze clusters of > hydrino clusters, the next step to take is to note that for these hydrino > clusters that could very well be close in nature to BEQ clusters, but more > combact due to the close proximity of the electrons to the nucleus, the > mechanism Kim describes could very well trigger nuclear reactions. > > > > At least that's my 2c of what's happens. > > > > Have fun! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > > In earlier BLP filings - on what constitutes a hydrino catalyst, it turned > out to be possible to fit two thirds of the periodic table into their > expansive definition. Talk about “over-reaching” … > > > > USPTO examiners detest these painfully long and over-reaching > applications. Many observers have commented on how poorly worded BLP’s > efforts turn out - and how little value they actually have in defensible > IP, having paid top dollar for poor work. BLP will probably not fare well > if it ever comes to litigation. > > > > A few years ago it was noted here that the company had overlooked “gas > phase” in all of their voluminous filings – that is, up until Rossi’s > patent application showed up in which his claim was for only gas phase… at > which time BLP altered a previous filing, once which had only claimed > liquid and plasma phase, to include gas phase. It was obvious that they > were trying to cover up a glaring mistake in coverage. > > > > I suppose that they were hoping no one would take notice, but instead the > effect was to announce to the world how badly they had screwed up. > > > > *From:* David Roberson > > > > It appears to me that they have most of the possible current levels > covered. Why list ranges that include each other? >
RE: [Vo]:Observation on a BLP (patent?) document
A number of observers have observed this "deep Dirac" (DDL) layer to be the real source of Mills' "hydrino" since it is similar in ways - but not the same - and its presence leads to a nuclear reaction. (which is a drastic departure from Mills). See Meulenberg, http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/papers/Meulenberg-Femto -Atoms-And-Transmutation-ICCF17-ps.pdf The other alternative which I have been promoting is the DDL as the predecessor state to RPF (reversible proton fusion). RPF (diproton reaction) would provide a smaller amount of energy (much smaller than fusion) via QCD color charge dynamics from excess proton mass, but with no fusion. From: Stefan Israelsson Tampe BLP being real or not, here is something that I find intriguing, http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0507193 QUOTE The Klein-Gordon equation of the hydrogen atom has a low-lying eigenstate, called hydrino state, with square integrable wavefunction. The corresponding spinor solution of Dirac's equation is not square integrable. For this reason the hydrino state has been rejected in the early days of quantum mechanics as being unphysical. Maybe it is time to change opinion. UNQUOTE Can we spin on this? Note 1. Not being square integrable means probably that the wave function has "thick tails" and that it basically describes a non-localized electron that happens to get close very very seldom. E.g. quite an unlikely state. 2. Solutions to Klein Gordon equations is most probably a combination of spinor states for which the thick tails cancels. This may mean that you can have a hydrino state, but it's basically impossible to reach it because it depends on a delicate balance. But what if we combine a cluster of N hydrogen atoms, what happens then?, well we could view this as a possibility to bend the space into a compact manifolds of various forms and for applying these states on that system, one could perhaps trigger the formation of these hydrino states, for that case one would expect the electron will be partly bound closely, more closely than ordinary hydrogen but also have a component of delocalisation e.g. an affinity for the system to behave as a strongly coupled system just as with a BEQ state. So assuming the active sites have an ability to catalyze clusters of hydrino clusters, the next step to take is to note that for these hydrino clusters that could very well be close in nature to BEQ clusters, but more combact due to the close proximity of the electrons to the nucleus, the mechanism Kim describes could very well trigger nuclear reactions. At least that's my 2c of what's happens. Have fun! On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Jones Beene wrote: In earlier BLP filings - on what constitutes a hydrino catalyst, it turned out to be possible to fit two thirds of the periodic table into their expansive definition. Talk about "over-reaching" . USPTO examiners detest these painfully long and over-reaching applications. Many observers have commented on how poorly worded BLP's efforts turn out - and how little value they actually have in defensible IP, having paid top dollar for poor work. BLP will probably not fare well if it ever comes to litigation. A few years ago it was noted here that the company had overlooked "gas phase" in all of their voluminous filings - that is, up until Rossi's patent application showed up in which his claim was for only gas phase. at which time BLP altered a previous filing, once which had only claimed liquid and plasma phase, to include gas phase. It was obvious that they were trying to cover up a glaring mistake in coverage. I suppose that they were hoping no one would take notice, but instead the effect was to announce to the world how badly they had screwed up. From: David Roberson It appears to me that they have most of the possible current levels covered. Why list ranges that include each other? Magnetic fields that are changing in magnitude or direction generate electric fields that can impart energy upon charged particles. A steady magnetic field is not able to supply energy to these charged objects, but can change their direction of motion. Dave -Original Message- The BLP website is down as I write this, but yesterday the "What's New" tab on their homepage led to this entry dated 1/14/14 - Patent Application - Power Generation Systems and Methods Regarding Same. http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/presentations/Power%20Gene ration%20Systems%20and%20Methods%20Patent%20Application.pdf I am unsure whether this untitled 324 page document is an existing patent application, one just submitted, or is pending submission. What I found especially interesting is that it credits the anomalous energy generation, and hydrino formation to an extremely wide range of plasma currents, and current pulse widths. For example, on p.107, the following excerpt appears - "T
Re: [Vo]:Observation on a BLP (patent?) document
BLP being real or not, here is something that I find intriguing, http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0507193 QUOTE The Klein-Gordon equation of the hydrogen atom has a low-lying eigenstate, called hydrino state, with square integrable wavefunction. The corresponding spinor solution of Dirac's equation is not square integrable. For this reason the hydrino state has been rejected in the early days of quantum mechanics as being unphysical. Maybe it is time to change opinion. UNQUOTE Can we spin on this? Note 1. Not being square integrable means probably that the wave function has "thick tails" and that it basically describes a non-localized electron that happens to get close very very seldom. E.g. quite an unlikely state. 2. Solutions to Klein Gordon equations is most probably a combination of spinor states for which the thick tails cancels. This may mean that you can have a hydrino state, but it's basically impossible to reach it because it depends on a delicate balance. But what if we combine a cluster of N hydrogen atoms, what happens then?, well we could view this as a possibility to bend the space into a compact manifolds of various forms and for applying these states on that system, one could perhaps trigger the formation of these hydrino states, for that case one would expect the electron will be partly bound closely, more closely than ordinary hydrogen but also have a component of delocalisation e.g. an affinity for the system to behave as a strongly coupled system just as with a BEQ state. So assuming the active sites have an ability to catalyze clusters of hydrino clusters, the next step to take is to note that for these hydrino clusters that could very well be close in nature to BEQ clusters, but more combact due to the close proximity of the electrons to the nucleus, the mechanism Kim describes could very well trigger nuclear reactions. At least that's my 2c of what's happens. Have fun! On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > In earlier BLP filings - on what constitutes a hydrino catalyst, it > turned out to be possible to fit two thirds of the periodic table into > their expansive definition. Talk about “over-reaching” … > > > > USPTO examiners detest these painfully long and over-reaching > applications. Many observers have commented on how poorly worded BLP’s > efforts turn out - and how little value they actually have in defensible > IP, having paid top dollar for poor work. BLP will probably not fare well > if it ever comes to litigation. > > > > A few years ago it was noted here that the company had overlooked “gas > phase” in all of their voluminous filings – that is, up until Rossi’s > patent application showed up in which his claim was for only gas phase… at > which time BLP altered a previous filing, once which had only claimed > liquid and plasma phase, to include gas phase. It was obvious that they > were trying to cover up a glaring mistake in coverage. > > > > I suppose that they were hoping no one would take notice, but instead the > effect was to announce to the world how badly they had screwed up. > > > > *From:* David Roberson > > > > It appears to me that they have most of the possible current levels > covered. Why list ranges that include each other? > > Magnetic fields that are changing in magnitude or direction generate > electric fields that can impart energy upon charged particles. A steady > magnetic field is not able to supply energy to these charged objects, but > can change their direction of motion. > > Dave > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > The BLP website is down as I write this, but yesterday the > > "What’s New" tab on their homepage led to this entry dated 1/14/14 - > > > > Patent Application – Power Generation Systems and Methods Regarding Same. > > http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/presentations/Power%20Generation%20Systems%20and%20Methods%20Patent%20Application.pdf > > > > I am unsure whether this untitled 324 page document is an existing > > patent application, one just submitted, or is pending submission. > > > > What I found especially interesting is that it credits the anomalous > > energy generation, and hydrino formation to an extremely wide range of > > plasma currents, and current pulse widths. For example, on p.107, > > the following excerpt appears - > > > > "The current density may be in the range of at least one of > > 100A/cm^2 to 1,000,000 A/cm^2, 1000 A/cm^2 to 100,000 A/cm^2, > > [...] > > The pulse time may be in at least one range chosen from about > > 10^-6 s to 10s, 10^-5s to 1s, 10^-4s to 0.1s, and 10^-3s to 0.01s. > > [...] > > The magnetic flux may be in the range of about 10 G to 10 T, > > 100 G to 5 T, or 1 kG to 1 T." > > > > The huge current densities and sharp rise/fall times should create > > very large magnetic forces that, if focused, impart huge momenta > > and energies to charged particles that are in, or impacted, by the > > plasma current filaments. > > >
RE: [Vo]:Observation on a BLP (patent?) document
In earlier BLP filings - on what constitutes a hydrino catalyst, it turned out to be possible to fit two thirds of the periodic table into their expansive definition. Talk about “over-reaching” … USPTO examiners detest these painfully long and over-reaching applications. Many observers have commented on how poorly worded BLP’s efforts turn out - and how little value they actually have in defensible IP, having paid top dollar for poor work. BLP will probably not fare well if it ever comes to litigation. A few years ago it was noted here that the company had overlooked “gas phase” in all of their voluminous filings – that is, up until Rossi’s patent application showed up in which his claim was for only gas phase… at which time BLP altered a previous filing, once which had only claimed liquid and plasma phase, to include gas phase. It was obvious that they were trying to cover up a glaring mistake in coverage. I suppose that they were hoping no one would take notice, but instead the effect was to announce to the world how badly they had screwed up. From: David Roberson It appears to me that they have most of the possible current levels covered. Why list ranges that include each other? Magnetic fields that are changing in magnitude or direction generate electric fields that can impart energy upon charged particles. A steady magnetic field is not able to supply energy to these charged objects, but can change their direction of motion. Dave -Original Message- The BLP website is down as I write this, but yesterday the "What’s New" tab on their homepage led to this entry dated 1/14/14 - Patent Application – Power Generation Systems and Methods Regarding Same. http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/presentations/Power%20Generation%20Systems%20and%20Methods%20Patent%20Application.pdf I am unsure whether this untitled 324 page document is an existing patent application, one just submitted, or is pending submission. What I found especially interesting is that it credits the anomalous energy generation, and hydrino formation to an extremely wide range of plasma currents, and current pulse widths. For example, on p.107, the following excerpt appears - "The current density may be in the range of at least one of 100A/cm^2 to 1,000,000 A/cm^2, 1000 A/cm^2 to 100,000 A/cm^2, [...] The pulse time may be in at least one range chosen from about 10^-6 s to 10s, 10^-5s to 1s, 10^-4s to 0.1s, and 10^-3s to 0.01s. [...] The magnetic flux may be in the range of about 10 G to 10 T, 100 G to 5 T, or 1 kG to 1 T." The huge current densities and sharp rise/fall times should create very large magnetic forces that, if focused, impart huge momenta and energies to charged particles that are in, or impacted, by the plasma current filaments. Possibly, BLP's upcoming demo will be a more systemic version of the 1922 Wendt-Irion experiment that vindicates W-I's conclusions? -- Lou Pagnucco
Re: [Vo]:Observation on a BLP (patent?) document
It appears to me that they have most of the possible current levels covered. Why list ranges that include each other? Magnetic fields that are changing in magnitude or direction generate electric fields that can impart energy upon charged particles. A steady magnetic field is not able to supply energy to these charged objects, but can change their direction of motion. Dave -Original Message- From: pagnucco To: vortex-l Sent: Thu, Jan 16, 2014 12:59 am Subject: [Vo]:Observation on a BLP (patent?) document The BLP website is down as I write this, but yesterday the "Whats New" tab on their homepage led to this entry dated 1/14/14 - Patent Application Power Generation Systems and Methods Regarding Same. http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/presentations/Power%20Generation%20Systems%20and%20Methods%20Patent%20Application.pdf I am unsure whether this untitled 324 page document is an existing patent application, one just submitted, or is pending submission. What I found especially interesting is that it credits the anomalous energy generation, and hydrino formation to an extremely wide range of plasma currents, and current pulse widths. For example, on p.107, the following excerpt appears - "The current density may be in the range of at least one of 100A/cm^2 to 1,000,000 A/cm^2, 1000 A/cm^2 to 100,000 A/cm^2, [...] The pulse time may be in at least one range chosen from about 10^-6 s to 10s, 10^-5s to 1s, 10^-4s to 0.1s, and 10^-3s to 0.01s. [...] The magnetic flux may be in the range of about 10 G to 10 T, 100 G to 5 T, or 1 kG to 1 T." The huge current densities and sharp rise/fall times should create very large magnetic forces that, if focused, impart huge momenta and energies to charged particles that are in, or impacted, by the plasma current filaments. Possibly, BLP's upcoming demo will be a more systemic version of the 1922 Wendt-Irion experiment that vindicates W-I's conclusions? -- Lou Pagnucco
Re: [Vo]:Observation on a BLP (patent?) document
On bottom of page 165 and the top page 166, is that a description of a Papp engine that I see? I thought that the Papp engine was open source. On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:59 AM, wrote: > The BLP website is down as I write this, but yesterday the > "What’s New" tab on their homepage led to this entry dated 1/14/14 - > > Patent Application – Power Generation Systems and Methods Regarding Same. > > http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/presentations/Power%20Generation%20Systems%20and%20Methods%20Patent%20Application.pdf > > I am unsure whether this untitled 324 page document is an existing > patent application, one just submitted, or is pending submission. > > What I found especially interesting is that it credits the anomalous > energy generation, and hydrino formation to an extremely wide range of > plasma currents, and current pulse widths. For example, on p.107, > the following excerpt appears - > > "The current density may be in the range of at least one of > 100A/cm^2 to 1,000,000 A/cm^2, 1000 A/cm^2 to 100,000 A/cm^2, > [...] > The pulse time may be in at least one range chosen from about > 10^-6 s to 10s, 10^-5s to 1s, 10^-4s to 0.1s, and 10^-3s to 0.01s. > [...] > The magnetic flux may be in the range of about 10 G to 10 T, > 100 G to 5 T, or 1 kG to 1 T." > > The huge current densities and sharp rise/fall times should create > very large magnetic forces that, if focused, impart huge momenta > and energies to charged particles that are in, or impacted, by the > plasma current filaments. > > Possibly, BLP's upcoming demo will be a more systemic version of > the 1922 Wendt-Irion experiment that vindicates W-I's conclusions? > > -- Lou Pagnucco > > > >
