RE: [Vo]:Spin Coupling
It's so hard to combine science with humor in a way that no one is sure... even when it is acid humor BTW - the word “humor” comes from the Greek for "wet". Humor must have originally served to dilute the hard realities of the bronze age. These daze, science humor is often served without liquid - in that case it is called dry humor. -Original Message- From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson > Must be a fresh batch of windowpane circulating in Berkeley. Haven't heard that word in decades. Far out.
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Spin Coupling
Just rewatched Star Trek The Voyage Home where Kirk explained that Spock was odd because he did too much "LDS" while at Berkeley. Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone - Reply message - From: "Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson" To: Subject: [Vo]:Spin Coupling Date: Mon, Sep 8, 2014 8:21 AM > Must be a fresh batch of windowpane circulating in Berkeley. Haven't heard that word in decades. Far out. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Spin Coupling
> Must be a fresh batch of windowpane circulating in Berkeley. Haven't heard that word in decades. Far out. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Spin Coupling
Must be a fresh batch of windowpane circulating in Berkeley.
RE: [Vo]:Spin Coupling
Speaking of mysticism, Bob - here is a poser that only a greek-geek freemason vortician on the RAW tradition, will appreciate: Nickel has 28 written all through it. Is there a deeper, even Platonic, understanding for why 28 is magical in the nuclear context? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_number_%28physics%29 I've pondered this question before to no avail. Back when Grimer was here we discussed vesica piscis and the square root of 3, and all of that deep current (literally if you need to convert AC to DC)... anyway... ...just now in thinking about the number 42 in the context of 28, it occurs that in Euclidean geometry, there are five Platonic solids... and of these, the only regular polygon which will nest in another of the five types, having equal faces such that have both axial symmetry and rotational symmetry and are non-scaled compounds... let me catch my breath... wow... amazing...these are the octahedron within the icosahedron. Get it? See the last image here: https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/symmetry/polycpd.htm The octahedron of course represents 8 units and the icosahedron represents 20. When merged as a nucleus - this is the signature of nickel 28. All in all, this cross-connection to geometry should mean that remarkable stability will reside in the basic structure, apart from physics due only to symmetry - and guess what... the stability of the two polygons is no hat trick: http://www.renyi.hu/~carlos/radiusstab.pdf Did you catch the second vesica piscis connection? Wow... the Illuminati could annoint yours truly as a 33rd degree Grand Poobah Mason, on the spot - for that bit of profundity... -Original Message- From: Bob Cook The presence of a magnetic field is known to separate the energy states associated with spin energy. The variation of magnetic fields may allow the random connection with resonant frequencies and spin quantum states in a matrix of Ni ... It would seem that spin coupling is pushing us towards a better model of LENR. If we can agree that mass is being converted into energy and transferred by way of spin coupling as the active modality, then the next question is where, precisely, is the mass loss happening? Fusion has the advantage of pinpointing the loss in a known way, but fusion may not be a satisfactory answer. (I realize this is a minority view) If there is an alternative way to transfer mass-energy from heavy nuclei, directly to light nuclei, then to electrons, then to magnons - the deposited energy is nuclear, even if it is only spin energy. There are "coincidences" in physics, but to my thinking, the fact that nickel is the one element in nature which has the most neutron rich isotope, is not coincidental with its role in LENR. It probably gets back to the number 28... (sorry, not 42)...28 is magic. Jones <>
Re: [Vo]:Spin Coupling
On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 6:20 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > It would seem that spin coupling is pushing us towards a better model of > LENR. If we can agree that mass is being converted into energy and > transferred by way of spin coupling as the active modality, then the next > question is where, precisely, is the mass loss happening? As long as we are speculating, why not have spin coupling act like a hydrino catalyst and lower the orbit of the electron? Only intertial mass is converted.
RE: [Vo]:Spin Coupling
-Original Message- From: Bob Cook The presence of a magnetic field is known to separate the energy states associated with spin energy. The variation of magnetic fields may allow the random connection with resonant frequencies and spin quantum states in a matrix of Ni ... It would seem that spin coupling is pushing us towards a better model of LENR. If we can agree that mass is being converted into energy and transferred by way of spin coupling as the active modality, then the next question is where, precisely, is the mass loss happening? Fusion has the advantage of pinpointing the loss in a known way, but fusion may not be a satisfactory answer. (I realize this is a minority view) If there is an alternative way to transfer mass-energy from heavy nuclei, directly to light nuclei, then to electrons, then to magnons - the deposited energy is nuclear, even if it is only spin energy. There are "coincidences" in physics, but to my thinking, the fact that nickel is the one element in nature which has the most neutron rich isotope, is not coincidental with its role in LENR. It probably gets back to the number 28... (sorry, not 42)...28 is magic. Jones
RE: [Vo]:Spin Coupling
Robert Dicke to the rescue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brans%E2%80%93Dicke_theory This guy deserved two Nobel prizes... but who sez life is fair? -Original Message- From: Nigel Dyer Wikipedia may not have kind words for the proponents, but that does not seem to have stopped other people making serious (I assume) suggestions as to how they could be measured, and getting their ideas published in Science. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6122/928.abstract?sid=ec0e0993-aeb3-4f3d-9fbc-35c4c0cecb73 Nigel >
Re: [Vo]:Spin Coupling
Here is one of Shipov's definitive papers if anyone wishes to make up their own mind: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8mt4mJOTGvBM1FaZDBoUWVnNEE/edit?usp=sharing
Re: [Vo]:Spin Coupling
Wikipedia may not have kind words for the proponents, but that does not seem to have stopped other people making serious (I assume) suggestions as to how they could be measured, and getting their ideas published in Science. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6122/928.abstract?sid=ec0e0993-aeb3-4f3d-9fbc-35c4c0cecb73 Nigel On 07/09/2014 22:16, Terry Blanton wrote: On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Wiki doesn't have many kind words for many of the torsion field proponents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsion_field_%28pseudoscience%29 ...despite Jack Sarfatti (or maybe because of him) But there could be a kernel of truth which is related to spin coupling. Terry may know what Jack's response is... Well, attempts at verification of TF by experimental evidence have had poor results. Jack invited Gennady over for a storming session about a decade ago and the result was a falling out. This often happens when large egos collide...especially in phrynge physics. Jack pretty much labels it as so much BS here (and Jack knows BS): http://quantumfuture.net/quantum_future/torsion.pdf "All the words in quotation marks above are unnecessary or misleading, or make no sense at all. Their actual function is to discourage the experts from trying to figure it out what the author is talking about. It is part of what is called ”impressionistic style” in theoretical physics. There is nothing wrong with impressionistic style. Some painters are realist, some surrealist, some impressionist etc. But it is important to recognize the style. When I see an impressionistic painting, I usually squint my eyes so as to consciously not to pay attention to the details. I understand that it is up to me to give the meaning to the painting, not to the painter. And sometimes I am able to give this meaning, and sometimes not." I think the dialog between the two pretty much ended with: "Gennady Shipov Goldstone's fields and Higgs's mechanism in my theory are connected with primary torsion fields. Jack Show equations. Shipov It is object which appears pioneering from Absolute Vacuum. Jack Show equations"
Re: [Vo]:Spin Coupling
On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > Wiki doesn't have many kind words for many of the torsion field proponents > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsion_field_%28pseudoscience%29 > > ...despite Jack Sarfatti (or maybe because of him) > > But there could be a kernel of truth which is related to spin coupling. Terry > may know what Jack's response is... Well, attempts at verification of TF by experimental evidence have had poor results. Jack invited Gennady over for a storming session about a decade ago and the result was a falling out. This often happens when large egos collide...especially in phrynge physics. Jack pretty much labels it as so much BS here (and Jack knows BS): http://quantumfuture.net/quantum_future/torsion.pdf "All the words in quotation marks above are unnecessary or misleading, or make no sense at all. Their actual function is to discourage the experts from trying to figure it out what the author is talking about. It is part of what is called ”impressionistic style” in theoretical physics. There is nothing wrong with impressionistic style. Some painters are realist, some surrealist, some impressionist etc. But it is important to recognize the style. When I see an impressionistic painting, I usually squint my eyes so as to consciously not to pay attention to the details. I understand that it is up to me to give the meaning to the painting, not to the painter. And sometimes I am able to give this meaning, and sometimes not." I think the dialog between the two pretty much ended with: "Gennady Shipov Goldstone's fields and Higgs's mechanism in my theory are connected with primary torsion fields. Jack Show equations. Shipov It is object which appears pioneering from Absolute Vacuum. Jack Show equations"
RE: [Vo]:Spin Coupling
Wiki doesn't have many kind words for many of the torsion field proponents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsion_field_%28pseudoscience%29 ...despite Jack Sarfatti (or maybe because of him) But there could be a kernel of truth which is related to spin coupling. Terry may know what Jack's response is... -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton Nigel Dyer wrote: > I have recently come across Torsion Fields, the theoretical fifth force that > has yet to be experimentally demonstrated. Should this fifth force be the > 10th spin-spin interaction on the list? The web has much on the works of Dr Gennady Shipov and Torsion Fields. Here is a 2005 interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jyruZg8uko
Re: [Vo]:Spin Coupling
On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Nigel Dyer wrote: > I have recently come across Torsion Fields, the theoretical fifth force that > has yet to be experimentally demonstrated. > Should this fifth force be the 10th spin-spin interaction on the list? The web has much on the works of Dr Gennady Shipov and Torsion Fields. Here is a 2005 interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jyruZg8uko
Re: [Vo]:Spin Coupling
On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Bob Cook wrote: > I do not know about Heffner or Springer, but more power to them. Horace's web page is still up. I hope the same is true for him. http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Spin Coupling
I have recently come across Torsion Fields, the theoretical fifth force that has yet to be experimentally demonstrated. Should this fifth force be the 10th spin-spin interaction on the list? Nigel On 07/09/2014 20:17, Jones Beene wrote: "Spin coupling" is a superset phrase for several types of energy transfer mechanisms, including angular momentum coupling, magnetic coupling and much more. Unfortunately, there is no scholarly paper to elucidate all of the intricacy of this phenomenon, as it applies to LENR. Mention was made of spin coupling in gravimagnetics by Horace Heffner years ago, and it is too bad he is not here to bring those comments up to date in a broader context. It was part of Julian Schwinger's approach to LENR, far earlier. Spin coupling exists as a way to transfer energy across vast scales of geometry, all the way from galaxies down to quarks. Included in the term are 1) magnetic dipole coupling 2) LS coupling of hydrogen and possibly potassium, where the electron spins interact among themselves in groups to form a total spin angular momentum (similar to magnons); 3) J coupling, which is also called indirect dipole-dipole coupling which is mediated through hydrogen bonds connecting two spins. 4) JJ coupling happens between heavier atoms like nickel; 5) Spin-spin coupling 6) Magnon coupling 7) Mössbauer coupling 8) Nuclear coupling, which is stronger at short distances and is incorporated directly into the nuclear shell model. 9) Subatomic spin coupling of quarks and pions QCD etc. Certainly there are others under the umbrella of spin coupling. A focus on spin coupling phenomenon - as the main source of nuclear gain, without gamma radiation, is new to somewhat new to LENR and it is not clear who to attribute the idea to, possibly Schwinger in a simpler form - but it stands as an alternative way to transfer mass-energy from heavy nuclei, directly to light nuclei, then to electrons, then to magnons (in the sense of a coherent array). The energy is nuclear, but there is no fusion nor is it Mills, even if reduced orbitals are involved. The result is spatial thermal gain which is similar in some respects to the way a magnetic core of a transformer heats up. Yet in the end the gain is mass-to-energy - since nuclear mass converts to spin at a basic subatomic level, starting at the quark level and QCD. The main problem is that there could be much more going on in any LENR experiment than spin coupling. In fact, spin coupling can co-exist with nuclear fusion, beta decay, hydrinos or any other nuclear process. Plus, gain from spin coupling can make incidental fusion reactions seem more robust than they in actuality ... or vice-versa. By that, it is suggested that spin coupling, providing only milli-eV of energy per nucleon, but which is transferred at terahertz rates, is a mechanism which can provide many Watts of thermal gain, which can make a few incidental fusion reactions stand-out as being more important than they are... or vice versa. This is a complex and interesting angle - for looking at gain in nickel-hydrogen systems for several reasons. First, of course is that nickel is ferromagnetic and many experiments have shown changes around the Curie point of nickel. Second is the Letts/Cravens effect and the recent NI-Week demo of Dennis Cravens, and the magnetic work of Mitchell Swartz - all of which show a strong connection of magnetism to excess heat. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Spin Coupling
Jones-- You are mystical in your assessment of spin coupling. I am also a mystic. The presence of a magnetic field is known to separate the energy states associated with spin energy. The variation of magnetic fields may allow the random connection with resonant frequencies and spin quantum states in a matrix of Ni or any other solid state material. I do not know about Heffner or Springer, but more power to them. Why has Peter not taken up spin coupling except in passing noting that his new Hamiltonian is relativistic and considers a loosy spin-boson model with (I assume) energy coupling? My thoughts about spin coupling go all the way back to P&F in 1989. They were vague and reflected my ideas presented in my early correspondence with Vortex-l in February. The subsequent discussion with you and others on this blog have certainly enhanced my ideas. The two dimensional and one dimensional issues associated with nano particles and structures I believe is a key issue in understanding the reaction potential and spin coupling in a magnetic field. Your third item in the list below regarding hydrogen bonds is also noted and may be a key model to consider in the fractionation of spin energy from nuclei to a matrix or molecule with hydrogen bonding. The comment I made to Eric regarding his recent spread sheet follows hereinafter and addresses potential spin coupling between Ni-62 and Cu-63. The first reaction that produces Ni-59 will end up as Co-59 with no gammas since the Ni-59 decay involves an electron capture and a hot beta +, which will give thermal energy to the matrix ( about .0.52 Mev) with a subsequent beta+, beta- decay with its back-to-back .51 Mev gammas. The total energy from the Ni-59 decay--half live 7.6x10^4 years-- is 1.073 Mev. Ni-59 has a -3/2 spin and and Co-59 has a -7/2 spin. It seems that spin is changed since the beta+ particle would only carry +or- 1/2 spin. I do not understand how spin angular momentum is conserved in the Ni-59 decay reaction, unless there are several neutrinos involved which could carry away spin angular momentum. You have not considered neutron capture reactions with the various Ni isotopes. If the H reacts in the magnetic field in the Rossi device with an electron to form a neutron as an intermediate virtual particle, then Ni-58 would go to Ni-59 and hence to Co-59 as described above. Proton absorption reaction with Ni-60 would give Cu-61 with a 3.41 H half life. Cu-61 decays by electron capture and gives a beta+ with soft gammas (.28 and .65 Mev) and a stable Ni-61 isotope. (Focardi indicated that Cu was formed and in non-natural isotopic ratios in the Rossi device.) This conclusion seems to differ from your table regarding the desirability of the reaction. Proton absorption reaction with Ni-58 gives Cu-59 which decays with a half live if 82 s and produces a beta+ at 3.75 Mev and hot gammas at 1.3 Mev. Total energy of this decay is 4.8 Mev. This does not look like it would be a reaction that Rossi would like given the hot gamma. And there is a radioactive product, since the final item is Ni-59 with its long half life and its .51 Mev gammas from the beta+ annihilation. A proton reaction with Ni-62 would give Cu-63, which is stable. This reaction would involve a decrease in energy (mass) of about 6.22 Mev. How the energy would be released is a question. It may be distributed by spin coupling to the rest of the matrix electrons and hence as thermal energy. Rossi would not want Ni-58, but Ni-62 and Ni-62 would seem to be ok. Ni-61 would be undesirable also since it gives Cu-62 with the addition of a proton, and Cu-62 decays with a hot gamma of 1.17 Mev. It is my thought that there may be two reactions occurring at the same time with spin of the resulting Cu-63 isotopes having equal but opposite excited spin states such that spin angular momentum change is 0 and each of the two new Cu-63 nuclei decay from their excited states at the same time, coupling with electrons in the matrix, with each electron receiving a quanta or two in the process. It may be that a pair of protons, a Cooper pair, actually react with two Ni-62 nuclei in a solid state BEC configuration. The magnetic field that exists in the Ni matrix would cause the degenerative quantum states in the adjacent Ni nuclei to allow the necessary excited spin states to handle the excess mass energy released in the reactions. All this is without gammas. >>> How's that for a guess? Bob Cook - Original Message - From: "Jones Beene" To: Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 12:17 PM Subject: [Vo]:Spin Coupling "Spin coupling" is a superset phrase for several types of energy transfer mechanisms, including angular momentum coupling, magnetic coupling and much more. Unfortunately, there is no scholarly paper to elucidate all of the intricacy of this phenomenon, as it applies to LENR. Mention was made of spin coupling in gravimagnetics by Ho
Re: [Vo]:Spin coupling of DDL to 62Ni
On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Jones Beene wrote: http://iccf15.frascati.enea.it/ICCF15-PRESENTATIONS/S8_O2_Cook.pdf > > If you have nothing better to do this weekend, here is a 71 page paper > which Rossi says gives a correct explanation of gain with Ni-H. I do not > have the time, so the hope is to entice someone else to "chop wood" (Van > Morrison fans will appreciate this metaphor) > I am happy to take one for the team in this instance. These are interesting slides in which Norman D. Cook [1] gives an overview of the argument for his FCC nuclear structure model. He describes a nuclear structure in which the nucleons arrange in an FCC lattice, with layers of protons and neutrons sandwiched together, and, in larger nuclei, forming a diamond-like structure (see slide 46). Cook suggests his model does away with the need for long-range "effective" forces between nucleons and allows the nucleus to be understood entirely in terms of interactions between nearest neighbors. I do not know anything about Cook, but he appears to have published in some reputable journals. The slides were connected with ICCF 15, which looks like it took place in Rome in 2009. Cook contrasts his model with the independent particle model, the liquid drop model and the lattice model of the nucleus. There is almost no obvious connection to LENR. A slide at the very end suggests that his model explains why symmetrical daughters are produced in the fission of palladium at low energies, and at an earlier point he seems to be saying that there is a ~ 3 MeV magnetic attractive force between nearest neighbor nucleons. To be honest, I don't see an obvious connection to LENR, possibly apart from the magnetism bit. I'm not sure how Rossi feels himself to be in a position to assess the merit of Cook's theory or how it relates to LENR. Eric [1] http://www.res.kutc.kansai-u.ac.jp/~cook/
RE: [Vo]:Spin coupling of DDL to 62Ni
http://iccf15.frascati.enea.it/ICCF15-PRESENTATIONS/S8_O2_Cook.pdf If you have nothing better to do this weekend, here is a 71 page paper which Rossi says gives a correct explanation of gain with Ni-H. I do not have the time, so the hope is to entice someone else to "chop wood" (Van Morrison fans will appreciate this metaphor) I did a search for 62Ni but nothing turned up. A quick scan shows an unusual emphasis on helium, which has not apparent connection to Rossi. Quien sabe?
Re: [Vo]:Spin coupling of DDL to 62Ni
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > The way to convert electrons to energy is via positrons (anti-electrons). > However, that radiation signature shows up quite well with meters, and it is > probably why in 2011, Bianchini who was hired to look for a radiation > signature, used a meter designed specifically for positron/electron detection. > > Sorry but the result was negative. Ah, but suppose there is another way to convert by dispersing the spin of one electron among other particles? The electron charge is, after all, pure energy derived from the spin momentum.
Re: [Vo]:Spin coupling of DDL to 62Ni
I BELIEVE YOU. I think this place is crawling with it, especially over our heads, uncurling in the atmosphere, bending and lensing and attenuating light and Doppler microwave radiation and RF. Space is all puckered up. We are creatures of the quantum vacuum. Stewart darkmattersalot.com On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 7:06 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > The is about a half-dozen indicators that LENR is dark matter, and there is > a good chance that this dark matter is producing the dark energy that is > expanding the universe. > > I am dishartend that my posts on this dark issue are not convincing, but > recupitualtion is my game > > > On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: >> >> I don't mind the Mills hypothesis. I wouldn't be shocked if it was >> correct. You can even tell Storms has a begrudging respect for it. I like >> the Meulenberg-Sinha take on it as well. There was an article form last year >> I believe in JCMNS that explores the DDL in depth. Meulenberg seemed to >> think it was important. You might find it worthwhile considering your >> interest in the subject. I just think there are some serious problems with >> the model as well -- such as the instability issue. >> >> CF-LENR I think would be an even more amazing story if it ended up >> granting insight into dark matter and such. I just wouldn't proclaim that >> too loudly at this point -- it's not exactly a credibility-generating >> maneuver at this awkward time in CF-LENR's present development & image. >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Jones Beene wrote: >>> >>> If there is a real DDL species in LENR (hydrogen isomer with electron >>> orbital at less than 10 Fermi), even if it is a transitory species with a >>> lifetime of only nanoseconds, then there is a way for nickel to provide >>> the >>> thermal gain, by spin coupling with no fusion required. In fact, if there >>> is >>> such a DDL species, chances are that it could be a transitory oscillator, >>> such that the rate of oscillation is resonant with the phonon rate of >>> nickel. >>> >>> Rice and Kim show here that the DDL is not stable for extended periods. >>> They >>> do not show that the DDL is impossible... >>> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RiceRAcommentsona.pdf >>> but they also demonstrate that they do not understand Mills' CQM theory >>> >>> To overcome the objections to the DDL, and to nickel spin coupling, >>> please >>> consider all of these points as a package, and not individually. Back in >>> early 2011, we talked about the final revision of the Rossi patent >>> filing. >>> In his application Rossi's bets everything on Ni62 as THE important >>> reactant >>> - US 2011/0005506. His reasoning could be incorrect, but it is likely >>> that >>> Rossi tested pure isotopes and found that Ni-62 was indeed the active >>> isotope. >>> >>> Otherwise Rossi would not have bet the farm on one isotope, since ... if >>> he >>> is wrong on that single detail he has lost all protection against >>> infringement. QUOTE from application: "Accordingly, it is indispensable >>> to >>> use, for the above mentioned exothermal reactions, a nickel isotope >>> having a >>> mass number of 62". That pretty much says it all when we consider the >>> properties of this isotope (and if we ignore Rossi's reasoning in the >>> patent >>> for why this isotope works). He could be "right for the wrong reason". >>> >>> BTW - the patent was granted in Europe to his wife Maddalena Pascucci, >>> who >>> is an attorney, and presumably had good advice on patent law - but again >>> - >>> the US application is not granted. However, the USA is a signator to the >>> PCT >>> so Pascucci could get protection here for the nickel-62 part - and >>> perhaps >>> for little else. >>> >>> Why Ni-62 ... and why bet the farm? >>> >>> Nickel-62 is at the very pinnacle of stability - having the highest >>> binding >>> energy per nucleon in the entire Periodic Table (8.8 MeV). There is no >>> more >>> stable isotope known to science. This binding stability would actually >>> prohibit it from participating in proton nuclear fusion reactions, as >>> Rossi >>> suggested, but would allow spin energy (part of the binding energy) to be >>> coupled and depleted - simply because there is plenty to spare. Too bad >>> that >>> he did not realize this distinction. BTW - it is duly noted that other >>> nickel and iron isotopes have very high binding energy as well, but a lot >>> of >>> weight goes to Rossi's testing of isotopes against each other. >>> >>> That is what is meant by Rossi being "right for the wrong reason" >>> >>> This stability of Ni-62, combined with ferromagnetism is especially >>> relevant >>> for the combination of a strong magnet with a material which cannot be >>> saturated; and the DDL, with an effective field strength at the 10 Fermi >>> level in the range of giga-T (billions of Tesla) is that strong magnet. >>> Deraz - claims there is no saturation level for NiO, and even if doubts >>> are >>> warranted on that partic
Re: [Vo]:Spin coupling of DDL to 62Ni
The is about a half-dozen indicators that LENR is dark matter, and there is a good chance that this dark matter is producing the dark energy that is expanding the universe. I am dishartend that my posts on this dark issue are not convincing, but recupitualtion is my game On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: > I don't mind the Mills hypothesis. I wouldn't be shocked if it was > correct. You can even tell Storms has a begrudging respect for it. I like > the Meulenberg-Sinha take on it as well. There was an article form last > year I believe in JCMNS that explores the DDL in depth. Meulenberg seemed > to think it was important. You might find it worthwhile considering your > interest in the subject. I just think there are some serious problems > with the model as well -- such as the instability issue. > > CF-LENR I think would be an even more amazing story if it ended up > granting insight into dark matter and such. I just wouldn't proclaim that > too loudly at this point -- it's not exactly a credibility-generating > maneuver at this awkward time in CF-LENR's present development & image. > > > On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > >> If there is a real DDL species in LENR (hydrogen isomer with electron >> orbital at less than 10 Fermi), even if it is a transitory species with a >> lifetime of only nanoseconds, then there is a way for nickel to provide >> the >> thermal gain, by spin coupling with no fusion required. In fact, if there >> is >> such a DDL species, chances are that it could be a transitory oscillator, >> such that the rate of oscillation is resonant with the phonon rate of >> nickel. >> >> Rice and Kim show here that the DDL is not stable for extended periods. >> They >> do not show that the DDL is impossible... >> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RiceRAcommentsona.pdf >> but they also demonstrate that they do not understand Mills' CQM theory >> >> To overcome the objections to the DDL, and to nickel spin coupling, please >> consider all of these points as a package, and not individually. Back in >> early 2011, we talked about the final revision of the Rossi patent filing. >> In his application Rossi's bets everything on Ni62 as THE important >> reactant >> - US 2011/0005506. His reasoning could be incorrect, but it is likely that >> Rossi tested pure isotopes and found that Ni-62 was indeed the active >> isotope. >> >> Otherwise Rossi would not have bet the farm on one isotope, since ... if >> he >> is wrong on that single detail he has lost all protection against >> infringement. QUOTE from application: "Accordingly, it is indispensable to >> use, for the above mentioned exothermal reactions, a nickel isotope >> having a >> mass number of 62". That pretty much says it all when we consider the >> properties of this isotope (and if we ignore Rossi's reasoning in the >> patent >> for why this isotope works). He could be "right for the wrong reason". >> >> BTW - the patent was granted in Europe to his wife Maddalena Pascucci, who >> is an attorney, and presumably had good advice on patent law - but again - >> the US application is not granted. However, the USA is a signator to the >> PCT >> so Pascucci could get protection here for the nickel-62 part - and perhaps >> for little else. >> >> Why Ni-62 ... and why bet the farm? >> >> Nickel-62 is at the very pinnacle of stability - having the highest >> binding >> energy per nucleon in the entire Periodic Table (8.8 MeV). There is no >> more >> stable isotope known to science. This binding stability would actually >> prohibit it from participating in proton nuclear fusion reactions, as >> Rossi >> suggested, but would allow spin energy (part of the binding energy) to be >> coupled and depleted - simply because there is plenty to spare. Too bad >> that >> he did not realize this distinction. BTW - it is duly noted that other >> nickel and iron isotopes have very high binding energy as well, but a lot >> of >> weight goes to Rossi's testing of isotopes against each other. >> >> That is what is meant by Rossi being "right for the wrong reason" >> >> This stability of Ni-62, combined with ferromagnetism is especially >> relevant >> for the combination of a strong magnet with a material which cannot be >> saturated; and the DDL, with an effective field strength at the 10 Fermi >> level in the range of giga-T (billions of Tesla) is that strong magnet. >> Deraz - claims there is no saturation level for NiO, and even if doubts >> are >> warranted on that particular point, it could be important in the context >> of >> spin coupling to find an extreme level of saturation capability, with >> which >> to mate with giga-T fields. The result is spin coupling. >> www.electrochemsci.org/papers/vol7/7054608.pdf >> >> In short, as of now, with dozens of alternative theories floating around >> for >> the gain in Ni-H, the best emerging scenario - from my perspective seems >> to >> be one which is >> 1) No fusion occurs in Ni-H. It
RE: [Vo]:Spin coupling of DDL to 62Ni
-Original Message- From: Terry Blanton > Well, I'm working on my own pet theory but can't find the information to > support it. I think the Rossi effect works by conversion of electrons > directly into energy. Crazy, huh? Not really crazy - Rossi/Focardi's old comments relates to positrons as one of the possibilities - along with Ni->Cu. The way to convert electrons to energy is via positrons (anti-electrons). However, that radiation signature shows up quite well with meters, and it is probably why in 2011, Bianchini who was hired to look for a radiation signature, used a meter designed specifically for positron/electron detection. Sorry but the result was negative.
Re: [Vo]:Spin coupling of DDL to 62Ni
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > 8) It is not clear if the Ni-62 gives up some of its own mass, or is > a > gateway to the Dirac "sea" ... Either way, this is LENR but it is also > "non-fusion LENR" Well, I'm working on my own pet theory but can't find the information to support it. I think the Rossi effect works by conversion of electrons directly into energy. Crazy, huh? Does a free electron have spin? Does a free electron have mass? Does a free electron exist?
Re: [Vo]:Spin coupling of DDL to 62Ni
LENR reactions with nickel is a very rare minority reaction. The primary reaction is in the extraction of nuclear energy from hydrogen crystals (Rydberg matter). A NiH reactor can operates for months and years without much deterioration of the nickel nano-structures through transmutation. The NiH reactor produces only light elements. The DGT ash assay shows little nickel consumed and little copper produced. The nuclear energy produced in the NiH LENR reaction is absorbed in the hydrogen envelope because the 3 grams of nickel powder does not have sufficient thermodynamic presents to transfer heat to the structure of the reactor without deterioration through sintering. Many other transition metals are capable of supporting the LENR reaction. Nickel is best because it is a perfect infrared reflector. Ni58, Ni60, Ni62 and Ni64 are all capable of supporting LENR because they are NMR inactive. Ni61 is NMR active and will waste energy by producing radio frequency radiation. On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > If there is a real DDL species in LENR (hydrogen isomer with electron > orbital at less than 10 Fermi), even if it is a transitory species with a > lifetime of only nanoseconds, then there is a way for nickel to provide the > thermal gain, by spin coupling with no fusion required. In fact, if there > is > such a DDL species, chances are that it could be a transitory oscillator, > such that the rate of oscillation is resonant with the phonon rate of > nickel. > > Rice and Kim show here that the DDL is not stable for extended periods. > They > do not show that the DDL is impossible... > http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RiceRAcommentsona.pdf > but they also demonstrate that they do not understand Mills' CQM theory > > To overcome the objections to the DDL, and to nickel spin coupling, please > consider all of these points as a package, and not individually. Back in > early 2011, we talked about the final revision of the Rossi patent filing. > In his application Rossi's bets everything on Ni62 as THE important > reactant > - US 2011/0005506. His reasoning could be incorrect, but it is likely that > Rossi tested pure isotopes and found that Ni-62 was indeed the active > isotope. > > Otherwise Rossi would not have bet the farm on one isotope, since ... if he > is wrong on that single detail he has lost all protection against > infringement. QUOTE from application: "Accordingly, it is indispensable to > use, for the above mentioned exothermal reactions, a nickel isotope having > a > mass number of 62". That pretty much says it all when we consider the > properties of this isotope (and if we ignore Rossi's reasoning in the > patent > for why this isotope works). He could be "right for the wrong reason". > > BTW - the patent was granted in Europe to his wife Maddalena Pascucci, who > is an attorney, and presumably had good advice on patent law - but again - > the US application is not granted. However, the USA is a signator to the > PCT > so Pascucci could get protection here for the nickel-62 part - and perhaps > for little else. > > Why Ni-62 ... and why bet the farm? > > Nickel-62 is at the very pinnacle of stability - having the highest binding > energy per nucleon in the entire Periodic Table (8.8 MeV). There is no more > stable isotope known to science. This binding stability would actually > prohibit it from participating in proton nuclear fusion reactions, as Rossi > suggested, but would allow spin energy (part of the binding energy) to be > coupled and depleted - simply because there is plenty to spare. Too bad > that > he did not realize this distinction. BTW - it is duly noted that other > nickel and iron isotopes have very high binding energy as well, but a lot > of > weight goes to Rossi's testing of isotopes against each other. > > That is what is meant by Rossi being "right for the wrong reason" > > This stability of Ni-62, combined with ferromagnetism is especially > relevant > for the combination of a strong magnet with a material which cannot be > saturated; and the DDL, with an effective field strength at the 10 Fermi > level in the range of giga-T (billions of Tesla) is that strong magnet. > Deraz - claims there is no saturation level for NiO, and even if doubts are > warranted on that particular point, it could be important in the context of > spin coupling to find an extreme level of saturation capability, with which > to mate with giga-T fields. The result is spin coupling. > www.electrochemsci.org/papers/vol7/7054608.pdf > > In short, as of now, with dozens of alternative theories floating around > for > the gain in Ni-H, the best emerging scenario - from my perspective seems to > be one which is > 1) No fusion occurs in Ni-H. It is a different beast that Pd-D. > 2) But the gain is Nuclear, in the sense of mass conversion into > energy > 3) It is Nanomagnetic in the sense that spin energy is involved at > small geometry > 4) Probably involves a tra
RE: [Vo]:Spin coupling of DDL to 62Ni
John, I’m quite familiar with what Meulenberg has written over the years on the DDL but it is not his invention. He deserves lots of credit for promoting it, however. Nor is the DDL really attributable to Mills. In fact, RM can be faulted for not acknowledging the previous work. Mills does add the Rydberg steps, which is a nice touch. In fact, Meulenberg is well aware of the Rice/Kim objections, and he cannot counter them, or at least there is no indication in published documents that he can. Rice/Kim make a strong case, despite one shaky assumption. One way to salvage the DDL, since it seems so intuitive to the problem of LENR, is to consider it as transitory. IMO – that tactic – a transitory oscillation, with inherent asymmetry, can work; but - a time-stable DDL is probably out of the picture. From: Foks0904 I don't mind the Mills hypothesis. I wouldn't be shocked if it was correct. You can even tell Storms has a begrudging respect for it. I like the Meulenberg-Sinha take on it as well. There was an article form last year I believe in JCMNS that explores the DDL in depth. Meulenberg seemed to think it was important. You might find it worthwhile considering your interest in the subject. I just think there are some serious problems with the model as well -- such as the instability issue. CF-LENR I think would be an even more amazing story if it ended up granting insight into dark matter and such. I just wouldn't proclaim that too loudly at this point -- it's not exactly a credibility-generating maneuver at this awkward time in CF-LENR's present development & image. On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Jones Beene wrote: If there is a real DDL species in LENR (hydrogen isomer with electron orbital at less than 10 Fermi), even if it is a transitory species with a lifetime of only nanoseconds, then there is a way for nickel to provide the thermal gain, by spin coupling with no fusion required. In fact, if there is such a DDL species, chances are that it could be a transitory oscillator, such that the rate of oscillation is resonant with the phonon rate of nickel. Rice and Kim show here that the DDL is not stable for extended periods. They do not show that the DDL is impossible... http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RiceRAcommentsona.pdf but they also demonstrate that they do not understand Mills' CQM theory To overcome the objections to the DDL, and to nickel spin coupling, please consider all of these points as a package, and not individually. Back in early 2011, we talked about the final revision of the Rossi patent filing. In his application Rossi's bets everything on Ni62 as THE important reactant - US 2011/0005506. His reasoning could be incorrect, but it is likely that Rossi tested pure isotopes and found that Ni-62 was indeed the active isotope. Otherwise Rossi would not have bet the farm on one isotope, since ... if he is wrong on that single detail he has lost all protection against infringement. QUOTE from application: "Accordingly, it is indispensable to use, for the above mentioned exothermal reactions, a nickel isotope having a mass number of 62". That pretty much says it all when we consider the properties of this isotope (and if we ignore Rossi's reasoning in the patent for why this isotope works). He could be "right for the wrong reason". BTW - the patent was granted in Europe to his wife Maddalena Pascucci, who is an attorney, and presumably had good advice on patent law - but again - the US application is not granted. However, the USA is a signator to the PCT so Pascucci could get protection here for the nickel-62 part - and perhaps for little else. Why Ni-62 ... and why bet the farm? Nickel-62 is at the very pinnacle of stability - having the highest binding energy per nucleon in the entire Periodic Table (8.8 MeV). There is no more stable isotope known to science. This binding stability would actually prohibit it from participating in proton nuclear fusion reactions, as Rossi suggested, but would allow spin energy (part of the binding energy) to be coupled and depleted - simply because there is plenty to spare. Too bad that he did not realize this distinction. BTW - it is duly note
Re: [Vo]:Spin coupling of DDL to 62Ni
Jones-- I would bet that Pd lattice can also provide high magnetic fields and spin coupling as you have indicated for Ni-62. It may not be as effective however. Eric--take note of Jones assessment of spin coupling and the importance of magnetic fields. What causes the latency you outline earlier as being low may be off base. I think that resonant conditions established via thermal control may be the key. To start a spin coupling reaction the proper temperature must be established. Once established it is self maintained and self limiting because higher temperatures destroy the resonant conditions needed for coupling. Note that the hot cat probably merely added items to the lattice to change the resonant conditions. The peak of the black body spectrum is the key to controlling the reaction. The sharper the peak the easier the control. Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: Jones Beene Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 9:19 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com If there is a real DDL species in LENR (hydrogen isomer with electron orbital at less than 10 Fermi), even if it is a transitory species with a lifetime of only nanoseconds, then there is a way for nickel to provide the thermal gain, by spin coupling with no fusion required. In fact, if there is such a DDL species, chances are that it could be a transitory oscillator, such that the rate of oscillation is resonant with the phonon rate of nickel. Rice and Kim show here that the DDL is not stable for extended periods. They do not show that the DDL is impossible... http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RiceRAcommentsona.pdf but they also demonstrate that they do not understand Mills' CQM theory To overcome the objections to the DDL, and to nickel spin coupling, please consider all of these points as a package, and not individually. Back in early 2011, we talked about the final revision of the Rossi patent filing. In his application Rossi's bets everything on Ni62 as THE important reactant - US 2011/0005506. His reasoning could be incorrect, but it is likely that Rossi tested pure isotopes and found that Ni-62 was indeed the active isotope. Otherwise Rossi would not have bet the farm on one isotope, since ... if he is wrong on that single detail he has lost all protection against infringement. QUOTE from application: "Accordingly, it is indispensable to use, for the above mentioned exothermal reactions, a nickel isotope having a mass number of 62". That pretty much says it all when we consider the properties of this isotope (and if we ignore Rossi's reasoning in the patent for why this isotope works). He could be "right for the wrong reason". BTW - the patent was granted in Europe to his wife Maddalena Pascucci, who is an attorney, and presumably had good advice on patent law - but again - the US application is not granted. However, the USA is a signator to the PCT so Pascucci could get protection here for the nickel-62 part - and perhaps for little else. Why Ni-62 ... and why bet the farm? Nickel-62 is at the very pinnacle of stability - having the highest binding energy per nucleon in the entire Periodic Table (8.8 MeV). There is no more stable isotope known to science. This binding stability would actually prohibit it from participating in proton nuclear fusion reactions, as Rossi suggested, but would allow spin energy (part of the binding energy) to be coupled and depleted - simply because there is plenty to spare. Too bad that he did not realize this distinction. BTW - it is duly noted that other nickel and iron isotopes have very high binding energy as well, but a lot of weight goes to Rossi's testing of isotopes against each other. That is what is meant by Rossi being "right for the wrong reason" This stability of Ni-62, combined with ferromagnetism is especially relevant for the combination of a strong magnet with a material which cannot be saturated; and the DDL, with an effective field strength at the 10 Fermi level in the range of giga-T (billions of Tesla) is that strong magnet. Deraz - claims there is no saturation level for NiO, and even if doubts are warranted on that particular point, it could be important in the context of spin coupling to find an extreme level of saturation capability, with which to mate with giga-T fields. The result is spin coupling. www.electrochemsci.org/papers/vol7/7054608.pdf In short, as of now, with dozens of alternative theories floating around for the gain in Ni-H, the best emerging scenario - from my perspective seems to be one which is 1) No fusion occurs in Ni-H. It is a different beast that Pd-D. 2) But the gain is Nuclear, in the sense of mass conversion into energy 3) It is Nanomagnetic in the sense that spin energy is involved at small geometry 4) Probably involves a transitory version of the DDL, which oscillates at IR frequency, due to SPP interaction at the top and spin coupling at the bottom, such that the collapse and reinflation are slightly a
Re: [Vo]:Spin coupling of DDL to 62Ni
I don't mind the Mills hypothesis. I wouldn't be shocked if it was correct. You can even tell Storms has a begrudging respect for it. I like the Meulenberg-Sinha take on it as well. There was an article form last year I believe in JCMNS that explores the DDL in depth. Meulenberg seemed to think it was important. You might find it worthwhile considering your interest in the subject. I just think there are some serious problems with the model as well -- such as the instability issue. CF-LENR I think would be an even more amazing story if it ended up granting insight into dark matter and such. I just wouldn't proclaim that too loudly at this point -- it's not exactly a credibility-generating maneuver at this awkward time in CF-LENR's present development & image. On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > If there is a real DDL species in LENR (hydrogen isomer with electron > orbital at less than 10 Fermi), even if it is a transitory species with a > lifetime of only nanoseconds, then there is a way for nickel to provide the > thermal gain, by spin coupling with no fusion required. In fact, if there > is > such a DDL species, chances are that it could be a transitory oscillator, > such that the rate of oscillation is resonant with the phonon rate of > nickel. > > Rice and Kim show here that the DDL is not stable for extended periods. > They > do not show that the DDL is impossible... > http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RiceRAcommentsona.pdf > but they also demonstrate that they do not understand Mills' CQM theory > > To overcome the objections to the DDL, and to nickel spin coupling, please > consider all of these points as a package, and not individually. Back in > early 2011, we talked about the final revision of the Rossi patent filing. > In his application Rossi's bets everything on Ni62 as THE important > reactant > - US 2011/0005506. His reasoning could be incorrect, but it is likely that > Rossi tested pure isotopes and found that Ni-62 was indeed the active > isotope. > > Otherwise Rossi would not have bet the farm on one isotope, since ... if he > is wrong on that single detail he has lost all protection against > infringement. QUOTE from application: "Accordingly, it is indispensable to > use, for the above mentioned exothermal reactions, a nickel isotope having > a > mass number of 62". That pretty much says it all when we consider the > properties of this isotope (and if we ignore Rossi's reasoning in the > patent > for why this isotope works). He could be "right for the wrong reason". > > BTW - the patent was granted in Europe to his wife Maddalena Pascucci, who > is an attorney, and presumably had good advice on patent law - but again - > the US application is not granted. However, the USA is a signator to the > PCT > so Pascucci could get protection here for the nickel-62 part - and perhaps > for little else. > > Why Ni-62 ... and why bet the farm? > > Nickel-62 is at the very pinnacle of stability - having the highest binding > energy per nucleon in the entire Periodic Table (8.8 MeV). There is no more > stable isotope known to science. This binding stability would actually > prohibit it from participating in proton nuclear fusion reactions, as Rossi > suggested, but would allow spin energy (part of the binding energy) to be > coupled and depleted - simply because there is plenty to spare. Too bad > that > he did not realize this distinction. BTW - it is duly noted that other > nickel and iron isotopes have very high binding energy as well, but a lot > of > weight goes to Rossi's testing of isotopes against each other. > > That is what is meant by Rossi being "right for the wrong reason" > > This stability of Ni-62, combined with ferromagnetism is especially > relevant > for the combination of a strong magnet with a material which cannot be > saturated; and the DDL, with an effective field strength at the 10 Fermi > level in the range of giga-T (billions of Tesla) is that strong magnet. > Deraz - claims there is no saturation level for NiO, and even if doubts are > warranted on that particular point, it could be important in the context of > spin coupling to find an extreme level of saturation capability, with which > to mate with giga-T fields. The result is spin coupling. > www.electrochemsci.org/papers/vol7/7054608.pdf > > In short, as of now, with dozens of alternative theories floating around > for > the gain in Ni-H, the best emerging scenario - from my perspective seems to > be one which is > 1) No fusion occurs in Ni-H. It is a different beast that Pd-D. > 2) But the gain is Nuclear, in the sense of mass conversion into > energy > 3) It is Nanomagnetic in the sense that spin energy is involved at > small geometry > 4) Probably involves a transitory version of the DDL, which oscillates > at IR frequency, due to SPP interaction at the top and spin coupling at the > bottom, such that the collapse and reinflation are slightly asymmetric in > energy > 5) T
