Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
Lest we not forget ... A field was never a physical thing. Fields have always been a mathematical artifice used to describe/visualize the action at a distance supplied by charges - stationary and in motion. According to Hotson, these actions at a distance are all transmitted by the essentially mass-less epo sea - epos being polarizable. Physics is applying mathematical models to the observed behaviors of the real world around us. Physics is not reality. These physical models are NEVER correct, but the best models reproduce a great deal of actual behavior (but NEVER all behavior). Physics LAWS are just rules of thumb that have proved to be valid most of the time (perhaps all of the time in our historical experience, but that does not make them inviolable). Bob Higgins On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 10:26 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Another possibility is that there is no such thing as a field. What would we do without fields? If there is no such thing, what replaces them? Eric
RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
Well said. I love it when Hotson is quoted. He was intuitive about bringing Dirac’s mathematics down to earth, that he must have addressed the DDL – but a quick google turns up nothing specific. From: Bob Higgins Lest we not forget ... A field was never a physical thing. Fields have always been a mathematical artifice used to describe/visualize the action at a distance supplied by charges - stationary and in motion. According to Hotson, these actions at a distance are all transmitted by the essentially mass-less epo sea - epos being polarizable. Physics is applying mathematical models to the observed behaviors of the real world around us. Physics is not reality. These physical models are NEVER correct, but the best models reproduce a great deal of actual behavior (but NEVER all behavior). Physics LAWS are just rules of thumb that have proved to be valid most of the time (perhaps all of the time in our historical experience, but that does not make them inviolable). Bob Higgins Eric Walker wrote: Terry Blanton wrote: Another possibility is that there is no such thing as a field. What would we do without fields? If there is no such thing, what replaces them? Eric
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Well said. I love it when Hotson is quoted. Especially someone as knowledgeable as Professor Higgins!
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Mon, 18 Aug 2014 18:19:53 -0400: Hi, [snip] On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 6:15 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: Actually no place in the Universe is completely free of fields. Another possibility is that there is no such thing as a field. You've been reading CC. ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
In reply to David Roberson's message of Mon, 18 Aug 2014 23:11:51 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] And, it is possible to create an opposite field to balance out that natural one that is measured within a small location in space. This is done with pairs of coils, etc. Dave There isn't just a single natural field. You should read Puthoff et al. According to them the ZPF comprises the superposition of all the fields of all the particles in the Universe. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
At any point in space a net vector exists for both the static electric field and steady magnetic field. This is the vector set that can be balanced out fairly easily. Changing fields such as those due to electromagnetic waves are a different subject. This is off the subject somewhat since I was referring to an ideal environment with my original comment. The crux of what I was saying is that it takes an accelerated charge to generate radiation. That acceleration can readily be due to an external electric field or a magnetic field that is directed properly. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Aug 19, 2014 5:44 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism In reply to David Roberson's message of Mon, 18 Aug 2014 23:11:51 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] And, it is possible to create an opposite field to balance out that natural one that is measured within a small location in space. This is done with pairs of coils, etc. Dave There isn't just a single natural field. You should read Puthoff et al. According to them the ZPF comprises the superposition of all the fields of all the particles in the Universe. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
Circular motion produces acceleration and requires energy to maintain. On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 6:36 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: At any point in space a net vector exists for both the static electric field and steady magnetic field. This is the vector set that can be balanced out fairly easily. Changing fields such as those due to electromagnetic waves are a different subject. This is off the subject somewhat since I was referring to an ideal environment with my original comment. The crux of what I was saying is that it takes an accelerated charge to generate radiation. That acceleration can readily be due to an external electric field or a magnetic field that is directed properly. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Aug 19, 2014 5:44 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism In reply to David Roberson's message of Mon, 18 Aug 2014 23:11:51 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] And, it is possible to create an opposite field to balance out that natural one that is measured within a small location in space. This is done with pairs of coils, etc. Dave There isn't just a single natural field. You should read Puthoff et al. According to them the ZPF comprises the superposition of all the fields of all the particles in the Universe. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
True, and that energy finds itself being radiated into open space. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Aug 19, 2014 6:39 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism Circular motion produces acceleration and requires energy to maintain. On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 6:36 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: At any point in space a net vector exists for both the static electric field and steady magnetic field. This is the vector set that can be balanced out fairly easily. Changing fields such as those due to electromagnetic waves are a different subject. This is off the subject somewhat since I was referring to an ideal environment with my original comment. The crux of what I was saying is that it takes an accelerated charge to generate radiation. That acceleration can readily be due to an external electric field or a magnetic field that is directed properly. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Aug 19, 2014 5:44 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism In reply to David Roberson's message of Mon, 18 Aug 2014 23:11:51 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] And, it is possible to create an opposite field to balance out that natural one that is measured within a small location in space. This is done with pairs of coils, etc. Dave There isn't just a single natural field. You should read Puthoff et al. According to them the ZPF comprises the superposition of all the fields of all the particles in the Universe. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
Not necessarily. If the energy can be focused into a tight beam that negates the inverse square law, energy pumped into a rotating particle system can greatly amplify both the power carried by photons and the field carried by virtual protons. see *Half-solitons in a polariton quantum fluid behave like magnetic monopoles* http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1204/1204.3564.pdf On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 6:44 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: True, and that energy finds itself being radiated into open space. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Aug 19, 2014 6:39 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism Circular motion produces acceleration and requires energy to maintain. On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 6:36 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: At any point in space a net vector exists for both the static electric field and steady magnetic field. This is the vector set that can be balanced out fairly easily. Changing fields such as those due to electromagnetic waves are a different subject. This is off the subject somewhat since I was referring to an ideal environment with my original comment. The crux of what I was saying is that it takes an accelerated charge to generate radiation. That acceleration can readily be due to an external electric field or a magnetic field that is directed properly. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Aug 19, 2014 5:44 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism In reply to David Roberson's message of Mon, 18 Aug 2014 23:11:51 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] And, it is possible to create an opposite field to balance out that natural one that is measured within a small location in space. This is done with pairs of coils, etc. Dave There isn't just a single natural field. You should read Puthoff et al. According to them the ZPF comprises the superposition of all the fields of all the particles in the Universe. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
But Axil, we are talking of open space here. There is no metal nearby for the solitons to form upon. Also, be careful when you use the word amplify since this type of system is not over unity as far as total energy is concerned. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Aug 19, 2014 6:54 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism Not necessarily. If the energy can be focused into a tight beam that negates the inverse square law, energy pumped into a rotating particle system can greatly amplify both the power carried by photons and the field carried by virtual protons. see Half-solitons in a polariton quantumfluid behave like magnetic monopoles http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1204/1204.3564.pdf On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 6:44 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: True, and that energy finds itself being radiated into open space. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Aug 19, 2014 6:39 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism Circular motion produces acceleration and requires energy to maintain. On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 6:36 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: At any point in space a net vector exists for both the static electric field and steady magnetic field. This is the vector set that can be balanced out fairly easily. Changing fields such as those due to electromagnetic waves are a different subject. This is off the subject somewhat since I was referring to an ideal environment with my original comment. The crux of what I was saying is that it takes an accelerated charge to generate radiation. That acceleration can readily be due to an external electric field or a magnetic field that is directed properly. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Aug 19, 2014 5:44 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism In reply to David Roberson's message of Mon, 18 Aug 2014 23:11:51 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] And, it is possible to create an opposite field to balance out that natural one that is measured within a small location in space. This is done with pairs of coils, etc. Dave There isn't just a single natural field. You should read Puthoff et al. According to them the ZPF comprises the superposition of all the fields of all the particles in the Universe. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
There are nanoparticles distributed throughout the universe, even is the bleakest areas of space. Nanoparticles will support anapole magnetic formation. On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 8:04 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: But Axil, we are talking of open space here. There is no metal nearby for the solitons to form upon. Also, be careful when you use the word amplify since this type of system is not over unity as far as total energy is concerned. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Aug 19, 2014 6:54 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism Not necessarily. If the energy can be focused into a tight beam that negates the inverse square law, energy pumped into a rotating particle system can greatly amplify both the power carried by photons and the field carried by virtual protons. see *Half-solitons in a polariton quantum fluid behave like magnetic monopoles* http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1204/1204.3564.pdf On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 6:44 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: True, and that energy finds itself being radiated into open space. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Aug 19, 2014 6:39 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism Circular motion produces acceleration and requires energy to maintain. On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 6:36 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: At any point in space a net vector exists for both the static electric field and steady magnetic field. This is the vector set that can be balanced out fairly easily. Changing fields such as those due to electromagnetic waves are a different subject. This is off the subject somewhat since I was referring to an ideal environment with my original comment. The crux of what I was saying is that it takes an accelerated charge to generate radiation. That acceleration can readily be due to an external electric field or a magnetic field that is directed properly. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Aug 19, 2014 5:44 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism In reply to David Roberson's message of Mon, 18 Aug 2014 23:11:51 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] And, it is possible to create an opposite field to balance out that natural one that is measured within a small location in space. This is done with pairs of coils, etc. Dave There isn't just a single natural field. You should read Puthoff et al. According to them the ZPF comprises the superposition of all the fields of all the particles in the Universe. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.5465v2.pdf I think what you are looking for is a half soliton or a plasmoid. Both form a majorana spinner type quasiparticle where rotating spin is converted to linear momentum. On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 11:19 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: That is true Robin. Off center linear momentum could also be thought of as momentum at right angles to normal momentum in an orthogonal relationship. This is somewhat like cosine and sine waves which do not interact with each other. So far I have not been able to realize a method of converting angular momentum into linear momentum or vice versa. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 16, 2014 6:20 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism In reply to David Roberson's message of Sat, 9 Aug 2014 12:40:38 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] I guess that spin energy is strongly associated with angular momentum while thermal energy tends to be considered associated with linear momentum. Off centre linear momentum is angular momentum. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
I began reading the file and see that it appears to define some of these characteristics but not show how one can be converted into the other. When one looks at the currently existing universe it is apparent that both angular momentum as well as linear momentum have great influence upon what is observed. Both types of momentum have survived quite well over a period of many billions of years which suggests that neither can dominate over the other. I seek an example that can be readily understood in the macro world. Collisions between two pool balls or behavior that is exhibited among balls connected by strings, etc. would be far more convincing than purely theoretical guesses. You suggest that rotational spin(if it is stored angular momentum of these particles) is converted into linear momentum by these systems but that is not obvious since it implies a reaction less drive which has not been proven. I am aware of the work going on in that arena and find it most interesting, but many questions remain regarding their viability. Many of us will be very happy if and when these drives are proven possible. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Aug 18, 2014 2:36 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism http://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.5465v2.pdf I think what you are looking for is a half soliton or a plasmoid. Both form a majorana spinner type quasiparticle where rotating spin is converted to linear momentum. On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 11:19 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: That is true Robin. Off center linear momentum could also be thought of as momentum at right angles to normal momentum in an orthogonal relationship. This is somewhat like cosine and sine waves which do not interact with each other. So far I have not been able to realize a method of converting angular momentum into linear momentum or vice versa. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 16, 2014 6:20 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism In reply to David Roberson's message of Sat, 9 Aug 2014 12:40:38 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] I guess that spin energy is strongly associated with angular momentum while thermal energy tends to be considered associated with linear momentum. Off centre linear momentum is angular momentum. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
In reply to David Roberson's message of Sun, 17 Aug 2014 23:22:45 -0400 (EDT): Hi, Actually no place in the Universe is completely free of fields. Of course a particle moving within a magnetic or electric field emits radiation due to acceleration. This is the normal behavior and I was specifically referring to the case where nothing else was around to interact with the particle. No external fields means no radiation for a single particle. Combinations can radiate if their spin states can be lowered in net energy. Dave [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 6:15 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: Actually no place in the Universe is completely free of fields. Another possibility is that there is no such thing as a field.
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
Just valleys and hills in a wave On Monday, August 18, 2014, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 6:15 PM, mix...@bigpond.com javascript:; wrote: Actually no place in the Universe is completely free of fields. Another possibility is that there is no such thing as a field.
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
Couldn't you, being the creative person you are, explain all interactions by some form of quantum entanglement? On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 6:22 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Just valleys and hills in a wave On Monday, August 18, 2014, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 6:15 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: Actually no place in the Universe is completely free of fields. Another possibility is that there is no such thing as a field.
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
Yes, I mean no. Uncertain. On Monday, August 18, 2014, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Couldn't you, being the creative person you are, explain all interactions by some form of quantum entanglement? On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 6:22 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com javascript:; wrote: Just valleys and hills in a wave On Monday, August 18, 2014, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com javascript:; wrote: On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 6:15 PM, mix...@bigpond.com javascript:; wrote: Actually no place in the Universe is completely free of fields. Another possibility is that there is no such thing as a field.
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
Ooooh, timely. Two Drums and a symbol walk off a cliff Ba-dum-tssst http://instantrimshot.com/ Click the red-button On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 4:20 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, I mean no. Uncertain. On Monday, August 18, 2014, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Couldn't you, being the creative person you are, explain all interactions by some form of quantum entanglement? On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 6:22 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Just valleys and hills in a wave On Monday, August 18, 2014, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 6:15 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: Actually no place in the Universe is completely free of fields. Another possibility is that there is no such thing as a field.
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
And, it is possible to create an opposite field to balance out that natural one that is measured within a small location in space. This is done with pairs of coils, etc. Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Aug 18, 2014 6:19 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 6:15 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: Actually no place in the Universe is completely free of fields. Another possibility is that there is no such thing as a field.
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Another possibility is that there is no such thing as a field. What would we do without fields? If there is no such thing, what replaces them? Eric
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
That is true Robin. Off center linear momentum could also be thought of as momentum at right angles to normal momentum in an orthogonal relationship. This is somewhat like cosine and sine waves which do not interact with each other. So far I have not been able to realize a method of converting angular momentum into linear momentum or vice versa. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 16, 2014 6:20 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism In reply to David Roberson's message of Sat, 9 Aug 2014 12:40:38 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] I guess that spin energy is strongly associated with angular momentum while thermal energy tends to be considered associated with linear momentum. Off centre linear momentum is angular momentum. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
Of course a particle moving within a magnetic or electric field emits radiation due to acceleration. This is the normal behavior and I was specifically referring to the case where nothing else was around to interact with the particle. No external fields means no radiation for a single particle. Combinations can radiate if their spin states can be lowered in net energy. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 16, 2014 6:24 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism In reply to David Roberson's message of Sat, 9 Aug 2014 13:15:37 -0400 (EDT): Hi, That is the model that I try to understand Axil. But I do not believe that an isolated single moving particle can emit thermal energy directly. ...unless it happens to be in a magnetic field, in which case it can emit cyclotron radiation. A free proton moving uniformly in space has a relative velocity to every observer except one at rest to it. It therefore can not emit thermal energy in the form of IR without the interaction of other particles around it. The infrared photons contain energy that once existed as kinetic energy(thermal) of the system of particles. Gravitational energy, of course, can end up as photon energy when a cloud of hydrogen gas and dust condenses. Dave [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
In reply to David Roberson's message of Sat, 9 Aug 2014 12:40:38 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] I guess that spin energy is strongly associated with angular momentum while thermal energy tends to be considered associated with linear momentum. Off centre linear momentum is angular momentum. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
In reply to David Roberson's message of Sat, 9 Aug 2014 13:15:37 -0400 (EDT): Hi, That is the model that I try to understand Axil. But I do not believe that an isolated single moving particle can emit thermal energy directly. ...unless it happens to be in a magnetic field, in which case it can emit cyclotron radiation. A free proton moving uniformly in space has a relative velocity to every observer except one at rest to it. It therefore can not emit thermal energy in the form of IR without the interaction of other particles around it. The infrared photons contain energy that once existed as kinetic energy(thermal) of the system of particles. Gravitational energy, of course, can end up as photon energy when a cloud of hydrogen gas and dust condenses. Dave [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
Jones-- You may be right. However, Rossi in later demos was upset at observers trying to monitor the radiation from his 2011 test as I recall. In addition Focardi was advising Rossi at that time and had been helping him for some time before that with theory of the reaction. Focardi was an expert in radiation monitoring and I do not believe he would not have known how to monitor the co-incident gammas from the positron-electron reaction. Its easy if you have the correct equipment. I did it in a 2nd year physics class in the late 50’s. It sounds to me that the test you talk about in Bologna may have been a bad test. One would expect to see some decay of the electron capture reaction with a subsequent positron. It was apparent that Rossi would not let people do the monitoring. I think he carried that policy on up to the current TPT. We will see what comes from that testing soon I hope. Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: Jones Beene Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2014 9:15 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Bob Cook Keep in mind that Rossi claims low energy radiation that could be from positron-electron decay Bob, That claim was dropped years ago. Do you see it after mid-2013? In fact, in an early test at Bologna, an expert was employed with a specialized detector for positrons, and saw absolutely nothing. I say “absolutely” since the curve was flat – not even much noise. AFAIK – there is no reliable data on any form of EM radiation coming from any Rossi device.
RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
Bob, The best answer for the “Celani incident” three years ago - and the burst of radiation detected then, is that initially - Rossi required radiation triggering in order to start the reaction, but once started, the source was not needed. Thus the incident with Celani is fully explained. Then after 2012 and in later demos – Rossi found a way to avoid the need for radiation triggering and he also dropped the lead shielding, after he was fully convinced that there was no high energy radiation at all. This has been discussed here for some time – that a radiation source could somehow set the stage for a novel reaction, which did not itself produce added radiation. Peter suggested a cobalt-60 source… There are reasons to suspect that it was something else http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg51243.html (an alpha source has been used – and it was for QM “probability enhancement” – which goes back to Nelson Ying, Baron of Balquhan. That is another strange story in the annals of LENR…. From: Bob Cook You may be right. However, Rossi in later demos was upset at observers trying to monitor the radiation from his 2011 test as I recall. In addition Focardi was advising Rossi at that time and had been helping him for some time before that with theory of the reaction. Focardi was an expert in radiation monitoring and I do not believe he would not have known how to monitor the co-incident gammas from the positron-electron reaction. Its easy if you have the correct equipment. I did it in a 2nd year physics class in the late 50’s. It sounds to me that the test you talk about in Bologna may have been a bad test. One would expect to see some decay of the electron capture reaction with a subsequent positron. It was apparent that Rossi would not let people do the monitoring. I think he carried that policy on up to the current TPT. We will see what comes from that testing soon I hope. Bob, That claim was dropped years ago. Do you see it after mid-2013? In fact, in an early test at Bologna, an expert was employed with a specialized detector for positrons, and saw absolutely nothing. I say “absolutely” since the curve was flat – not even much noise. AFAIK – there is no reliable data on any form of EM radiation coming from any Rossi device.
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
Jones-- Thanks for that bit of Vortex history. I tend to believe what Focardi said. I wonder about your best explanation of the Celani incident. Has there been a statement from Rossi or Focardi before his passing to agree with your conclusion? Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: Jones Beene Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 7:57 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Bob, The best answer for the “Celani incident” three years ago - and the burst of radiation detected then, is that initially - Rossi required radiation triggering in order to start the reaction, but once started, the source was not needed. Thus the incident with Celani is fully explained. Then after 2012 and in later demos – Rossi found a way to avoid the need for radiation triggering and he also dropped the lead shielding, after he was fully convinced that there was no high energy radiation at all. This has been discussed here for some time – that a radiation source could somehow set the stage for a novel reaction, which did not itself produce added radiation. Peter suggested a cobalt-60 source… There are reasons to suspect that it was something else http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg51243.html (an alpha source has been used – and it was for QM “probability enhancement” – which goes back to Nelson Ying, Baron of Balquhan. That is another strange story in the annals of LENR…. From: Bob Cook You may be right. However, Rossi in later demos was upset at observers trying to monitor the radiation from his 2011 test as I recall. In addition Focardi was advising Rossi at that time and had been helping him for some time before that with theory of the reaction. Focardi was an expert in radiation monitoring and I do not believe he would not have known how to monitor the co-incident gammas from the positron-electron reaction. Its easy if you have the correct equipment. I did it in a 2nd year physics class in the late 50’s. It sounds to me that the test you talk about in Bologna may have been a bad test. One would expect to see some decay of the electron capture reaction with a subsequent positron. It was apparent that Rossi would not let people do the monitoring. I think he carried that policy on up to the current TPT. We will see what comes from that testing soon I hope. Bob, That claim was dropped years ago. Do you see it after mid-2013? In fact, in an early test at Bologna, an expert was employed with a specialized detector for positrons, and saw absolutely nothing. I say “absolutely” since the curve was flat – not even much noise. AFAIK – there is no reliable data on any form of EM radiation coming from any Rossi device.
RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
Bob, You are travelling to Bologna soon, correct? I’m sure you will be in a good position to find out exactly what happened. Please let us know. From: Bob Cook Jones-- Thanks for that bit of Vortex history. I tend to believe what Focardi said. I wonder about your best explanation of the Celani incident. Has there been a statement from Rossi or Focardi before his passing to agree with your conclusion? Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: Jones Beene mailto:jone...@pacbell.net Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 7:57 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Bob, The best answer for the “Celani incident” three years ago - and the burst of radiation detected then, is that initially - Rossi required radiation triggering in order to start the reaction, but once started, the source was not needed. Thus the incident with Celani is fully explained. Then after 2012 and in later demos – Rossi found a way to avoid the need for radiation triggering and he also dropped the lead shielding, after he was fully convinced that there was no high energy radiation at all. This has been discussed here for some time – that a radiation source could somehow set the stage for a novel reaction, which did not itself produce added radiation. Peter suggested a cobalt-60 source… There are reasons to suspect that it was something else http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg51243.html (an alpha source has been used – and it was for QM “probability enhancement” – which goes back to Nelson Ying, Baron of Balquhan. That is another strange story in the annals of LENR…. From: Bob Cook You may be right. However, Rossi in later demos was upset at observers trying to monitor the radiation from his 2011 test as I recall. In addition Focardi was advising Rossi at that time and had been helping him for some time before that with theory of the reaction. Focardi was an expert in radiation monitoring and I do not believe he would not have known how to monitor the co-incident gammas from the positron-electron reaction. Its easy if you have the correct equipment. I did it in a 2nd year physics class in the late 50’s. It sounds to me that the test you talk about in Bologna may have been a bad test. One would expect to see some decay of the electron capture reaction with a subsequent positron. It was apparent that Rossi would not let people do the monitoring. I think he carried that policy on up to the current TPT. We will see what comes from that testing soon I hope. Bob, That claim was dropped years ago. Do you see it after mid-2013? In fact, in an early test at Bologna, an expert was employed with a specialized detector for positrons, and saw absolutely nothing. I say “absolutely” since the curve was flat – not even much noise. AFAIK – there is no reliable data on any form of EM radiation coming from any Rossi device.
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
Jones-- I have my list of questions already and need to prioritize I’ll report back.. Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: Jones Beene Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 2:21 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Bob, You are travelling to Bologna soon, correct? I’m sure you will be in a good position to find out exactly what happened. Please let us know. From: Bob Cook Jones-- Thanks for that bit of Vortex history. I tend to believe what Focardi said. I wonder about your best explanation of the Celani incident. Has there been a statement from Rossi or Focardi before his passing to agree with your conclusion? Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: Jones Beene Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 7:57 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Bob, The best answer for the “Celani incident” three years ago - and the burst of radiation detected then, is that initially - Rossi required radiation triggering in order to start the reaction, but once started, the source was not needed. Thus the incident with Celani is fully explained. Then after 2012 and in later demos – Rossi found a way to avoid the need for radiation triggering and he also dropped the lead shielding, after he was fully convinced that there was no high energy radiation at all. This has been discussed here for some time – that a radiation source could somehow set the stage for a novel reaction, which did not itself produce added radiation. Peter suggested a cobalt-60 source… There are reasons to suspect that it was something else http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg51243.html (an alpha source has been used – and it was for QM “probability enhancement” – which goes back to Nelson Ying, Baron of Balquhan. That is another strange story in the annals of LENR…. From: Bob Cook You may be right. However, Rossi in later demos was upset at observers trying to monitor the radiation from his 2011 test as I recall. In addition Focardi was advising Rossi at that time and had been helping him for some time before that with theory of the reaction. Focardi was an expert in radiation monitoring and I do not believe he would not have known how to monitor the co-incident gammas from the positron-electron reaction. Its easy if you have the correct equipment. I did it in a 2nd year physics class in the late 50’s. It sounds to me that the test you talk about in Bologna may have been a bad test. One would expect to see some decay of the electron capture reaction with a subsequent positron. It was apparent that Rossi would not let people do the monitoring. I think he carried that policy on up to the current TPT. We will see what comes from that testing soon I hope. Bob, That claim was dropped years ago. Do you see it after mid-2013? In fact, in an early test at Bologna, an expert was employed with a specialized detector for positrons, and saw absolutely nothing. I say “absolutely” since the curve was flat – not even much noise. AFAIK – there is no reliable data on any form of EM radiation coming from any Rossi device.
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
Keep in mind that Rossi claims low energy radiation that could be from positron-electron decay. Remember both photons carry a spin quanta also with spin transfer. Both linear and angular momentum is conserved with a transfer of “rest” mass into EM fields of the photons. The transfer of energy between magnetic and electric fields at right angles to each other may vary well represent a spin and its associated angular momentum for each photon. And of course the photons each also carry linear momentum. Regarding one of Dave’s questions yesterday regarding spin interactions, it has been my thought that orbital spin momentum can be changed into intrinsic spin angular momentum without any violation of spin conservation. The extensive existence of this orbital momentum associated with a metal lattice and intense magnetic fields may allow such coupling. The change in spin quantum numbers associated with orbital momentum may vary well establish vibrations in the lattice and hence linear momentum with its classical heat or temperature of the lattice. Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: Axil Axil Sent: Saturday, August 9, 2014 7:35 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Muon catalyzed fusion could be the enabler of Proton Proton fusion (PP). The double protons seen in the Piantelli experiments might be due to the first steps in the PP fusion chain. PP will exist until there is a positron emission to form deuterium. The PP could then be fused with nickel to form copper via muon fusion. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 11:13 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Muon catalyzed fusion might come about when a magnetic field creates a muon during proton interaction with a magnetic field from meson production via meson decay. To create this effect, a stream of negative muons, most often created by decaying pions, is sent to a crystal of hydrogen. The muon may bump the electron from one of the hydrogen isotopes. The muon, 207 times more massive than the electron, effectively shields and reduces the electromagnetic repulsion between two nuclei and draws them much closer into a covalent bond than an electron can. Because the nuclei are so close, the strong nuclear force is able to kick in and bind both nuclei together. They fuse, release the catalytic muon (most of the time), and part of the original mass of both nuclei is released as energetic particles, as with any other type of nuclear fusion. The release of the catalytic muon is critical to continue the reactions. The majority of the muons continue to bond with other hydrogen isotopes and continue fusing nuclei together. However, not all of the muons are recycled: some bond with other debris emitted following the fusion of the nuclei (such as alpha particles and helions), removing the muons from the catalytic process. This gradually chokes off the reactions, as there are fewer and fewer muons with which the nuclei may bond. The number of reactions achieved in the lab can be as high as 150 fusions per muon (average). Muons will continue to be produced through energy injection into the protons and neutrons of the atoms within the influence of the magnetic beam. This magnetic based reaction is more probable than the magnetic formation of a quark/gluon plasma since it only requires 100 MeV of energy to produce the muon. Linier and angular momentum is conserved via neutrino production during the decay of the pion to keep all spins zero. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 6:00 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: OK, so that leaves just about nothing to extract. It would certainly not be adequate to explain LENR levels of energy we are expecting. So, why do we hear members of the vortex speaking of variation in the mass of the proton as being important? I have to ask about the measurement technique and how it is possible to determine the mass to that level of precision. I have never witnessed the determination of proton mass and plead ignorance to the processes that are used. Can anyone actually make a physical measurement that is to the accuracy suggested? Anyone can calculate the number to as many decimal figures as they desire by using a computer model but the results might not reflect the real world values. Does anyone have first hand experience in making this determination and what is the real standard deviation of the energy content of a lone proton? If the numbers are as precise as you are suggesting then why not put to rest the thought of being able to somehow extract this source of energy? Jones, I think you might have some input that would be helpful. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 4:45 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism I wrote: If this value is accurate, at that precision I believe we have
RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
From: Bob Cook Keep in mind that Rossi claims low energy radiation that could be from positron-electron decay Bob, That claim was dropped years ago. Do you see it after mid-2013? In fact, in an early test at Bologna, an expert was employed with a specialized detector for positrons, and saw absolutely nothing. I say “absolutely” since the curve was flat – not even much noise. AFAIK – there is no reliable data on any form of EM radiation coming from any Rossi device.
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
have some input that would be helpful. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 4:45 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism I wrote: If this value is accurate, at that precision I believe we have +/- 1 0.21 eV to use for free energy speculation. Sorry -- +/- 0.21 eV. (I need a personal editor.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
to rest the thought of being able to somehow extract this source of energy? Jones, I think you might have some input that would be helpful. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 4:45 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism I wrote: If this value is accurate, at that precision I believe we have +/- 1 0.21 eV to use for free energy speculation. Sorry -- +/- 0.21 eV. (I need a personal editor.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Regarding one of Dave’s questions yesterday regarding spin interactions, it has been my thought that orbital spin momentum can be changed into intrinsic spin angular momentum without any violation of spin conservation. If you change the intrinsic spin of a particle, it becomes a different particle. E.g., an electron has a spin of +/- 1/2. If that spin is somehow changed to 3/2 or to 1 or 2 or something, you no longer have an electron and instead have something else. Also, if orbital angular momentum and intrinsic angular momentum can go back and forth like this, I presume there has to be a corresponding change in spin (intrinsic angular momentum) in another particle involved in a scattering? Eric
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
Both linear and angular momentum are conserved through the emission of muon neutrinos as the meson decays to a negative muon. It is this muon that catalyzes fusion of hydrogen in the proton proton (PP) reaction.
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
Remember the conservation of Byron number. Nature has specific rules for particle interactions and decays, and these rules have been summarized in terms of conservation laws. One of the most important of these is the conservation of baryon number. Each of the baryons is assigned a baryon number B=1. This can be considered to be equivalent to assigning each quark a baryon number of 1/3. This implies that the mesons, with one quark and one antiquark, have a baryon number B=0. No known decay process or interaction in nature changes the net baryon number. On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Both linear and angular momentum are conserved through the emission of muon neutrinos as the meson decays to a negative muon. It is this muon that catalyzes fusion of hydrogen in the proton proton (PP) reaction.
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
In the explanation of the Piantelli reaction , Piantelli has a hydrogen negative ion catalyzing the fusion reaction. I wonder if all the conservation laws are conserved in this reaction? I seems to me that an object as complicated as a negative hydrogen ion would participate in a reaction with all the conservation laws conserved. Piantelli needs to lay out how all the conservation laws are maintained in his reaction. On the other hand, the virtual meson production through magnetic excitation of the proton is almost all verified in terms of all the conservation laws by existing science. On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Remember the conservation of Byron number. Nature has specific rules for particle interactions and decays, and these rules have been summarized in terms of conservation laws. One of the most important of these is the conservation of baryon number. Each of the baryons is assigned a baryon number B=1. This can be considered to be equivalent to assigning each quark a baryon number of 1/3. This implies that the mesons, with one quark and one antiquark, have a baryon number B=0. No known decay process or interaction in nature changes the net baryon number. On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Both linear and angular momentum are conserved through the emission of muon neutrinos as the meson decays to a negative muon. It is this muon that catalyzes fusion of hydrogen in the proton proton (PP) reaction.
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Piantelli needs to lay out how all the conservation laws are maintained in his reaction. It would also be nice if someone knowledgeable about hydrinos can explain how an electron (spin=+/- 1/2) becomes a photon (spin=0) at the most redundant level. Does CQM do away with intrinsic angular momentum? Eric
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
I seems to me that an object as complicated as a negative hydrogen ion would participate in a reaction with all the conservation laws conserved. should read I seems to me that an object as complicated as a negative hydrogen ion would find it very hard to participate in a reaction with all the conservation laws conserved. On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: In the explanation of the Piantelli reaction , Piantelli has a hydrogen negative ion catalyzing the fusion reaction. I wonder if all the conservation laws are conserved in this reaction? I seems to me that an object as complicated as a negative hydrogen ion would participate in a reaction with all the conservation laws conserved. Piantelli needs to lay out how all the conservation laws are maintained in his reaction. On the other hand, the virtual meson production through magnetic excitation of the proton is almost all verified in terms of all the conservation laws by existing science. On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Remember the conservation of Byron number. Nature has specific rules for particle interactions and decays, and these rules have been summarized in terms of conservation laws. One of the most important of these is the conservation of baryon number. Each of the baryons is assigned a baryon number B=1. This can be considered to be equivalent to assigning each quark a baryon number of 1/3. This implies that the mesons, with one quark and one antiquark, have a baryon number B=0. No known decay process or interaction in nature changes the net baryon number. On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Both linear and angular momentum are conserved through the emission of muon neutrinos as the meson decays to a negative muon. It is this muon that catalyzes fusion of hydrogen in the proton proton (PP) reaction.
Re: [Vo]:An good analogy for nanomagnetism
Interesting comparisons. Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: Jones Beene Sent: Friday, August 8, 2014 5:54 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com In automotive engineering, there are several idealized energy transfer cycles which involve four clearly segmented stages of engine operation. For instance, the Otto cycle consists of: 1) Intake, Compression, Expansion, Exhaust which are further arranged as 2) Two isentropic processes - adiabatic and reversible and 3) Two isochoric processes - constant volume 4) As an idealized cycle, this never happens completely in practice, but it permits substantial gain in a ratchet-like way and substantial understanding of the process. 5) There are many other idealized cycles for combustion, such as the Stirling which is probably closer, as an analogy, to nanomagnetism In nanomagnetism, there is a corresponding strong metaphor involving a similar kind of 4 legged hysteresis curve, where we find 1) Antiferromagnetism, superparamagnetism, ferrimagnetism and superferromagnetism working in a repeating cycle 2) The remainder of the analogy is under development but there are two reversible processes involving field alignment, requiring two operative classes of reactants - one mobile and one stationary 3) Nanomagnetism requires a ferromagnetic nucleus which is nominally stationary. (yes, palladium and titanium alloy can be ferromagnetic) 4) Nanomagnetism requires a mobile medium, loaded or absorbed into the ferromagnet which has variable magnetic properties. 5) Hydrogen and its isotopes appears to be the exclusive mobile medium, which can oscillate between diamagnetic (as a molecule) and strongly paramagnetic (as an absorbed atom) 6) Spin coupling provides the transfer of energy from the ferromagnetic nucleus to the mobile nucleus in a method similar to induction. 7) Inverse square permits very strong effective fields for transfer of spin energy from nickel-62, for instance. 8) Nanomagnetism seems to boosted by the presence of an oxide of the ferromagnet - i.e. nickel with a small percentage of nickel oxide but the oxide is not required. This is an emerging hypothesis, the details of which are fluid, but... shall we say... attractive :-)
Re: [Vo]:An good analogy for nanomagnetism
Well done, Jones! Creativity works with bisociations (see Kostler) Peter On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: In automotive engineering, there are several idealized energy transfer cycles which involve four clearly segmented stages of engine operation. For instance, the Otto cycle consists of: 1) Intake, Compression, Expansion, Exhaust which are further arranged as 2) Two isentropic processes - adiabatic and reversible and 3) Two isochoric processes - constant volume 4) As an idealized cycle, this never happens completely in practice, but it permits substantial gain in a ratchet-like way and substantial understanding of the process. 5) There are many other idealized cycles for combustion, such as the Stirling which is probably closer, as an analogy, to nanomagnetism In nanomagnetism, there is a corresponding strong metaphor involving a similar kind of 4 legged hysteresis curve, where we find 1) Antiferromagnetism, superparamagnetism, ferrimagnetism and superferromagnetism working in a repeating cycle 2) The remainder of the analogy is under development but there are two reversible processes involving field alignment, requiring two operative classes of reactants - one mobile and one stationary 3) Nanomagnetism requires a ferromagnetic nucleus which is nominally stationary. (yes, palladium and titanium alloy can be ferromagnetic) 4) Nanomagnetism requires a mobile medium, loaded or absorbed into the ferromagnet which has variable magnetic properties. 5) Hydrogen and its isotopes appears to be the exclusive mobile medium, which can oscillate between diamagnetic (as a molecule) and strongly paramagnetic (as an absorbed atom) 6) Spin coupling provides the transfer of energy from the ferromagnetic nucleus to the mobile nucleus in a method similar to induction. 7) Inverse square permits very strong effective fields for transfer of spin energy from nickel-62, for instance. 8) Nanomagnetism seems to boosted by the presence of an oxide of the ferromagnet - i.e. nickel with a small percentage of nickel oxide but the oxide is not required. This is an emerging hypothesis, the details of which are fluid, but... shall we say... attractive :-) -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
Thanks Peter and Bob. Here are a couple of additional thoughts on an emerging nanomagnetism hypothesis. Nanomagnetism can be operational parallel to other processes in any experiment, even a novel form of “fusion” if that exists. Nanomagnetism can be part of a dynamical Casimir effect as well. However, the thermal gain of nanomagnetism results from a direct conversion of mass-to-energy, where the mass lost is in the form of nuclear spin – possibly quark spin. There is no transmutation and no nuclear radiation. It is likely that there are two (or three) distinct temperature regimes for Ni-H. Nanomagnetism is involved most strongly in the lower regime which is seen in the Cravens demo. In this regime the Neel temperature is critical. We can note that Cravens adds samarium-cobalt to his active mix. This material is permanently magnetized. In a higher temperature version of nanomagnetism, the Curie point is critical. This would explain the noticeable threshold mentioned in several papers around 350 C. In the highest temperature regime (HotCat) permanent magnetism is not possible as an inherent feature, and an external field must be implemented. Thus, resistance wiring itself can be supplying the needed magnetic field alignment in the HotCat. Only a few hundred Gauss is required and it can be intermittent. At the core of the hot version, and possibly all versions, is a new kind of HTSC or high-temperature superconductivity which is local and happens only in quantum particles (quantum dots, or excitons). This form of “local HTSC” seen at the nanoscale only, is entering the mainstream as we speak, see: “Physicists unlock nature of high-temperature superconductivity” http://phys.org/news/2014-07-physicists-nature-high-temperature-superconductivity.html Summary: Magnetism is highly directional. Knowing the directional dependence … we were able, for the first time, to quantitatively predict the material's superconducting properties using a series of mathematical equations… calculations showed that the gap possesses d-wave symmetry, implying that for certain directions the electrons were bound together very strongly, while they were not bound at all for other directions, This in effect is the spin-flip seen in the transition from superparamagnetism to superferromagnetism working in a repeating cycle with intermediate stages which are antiferromagnetic or ferrimagnetic around the Neel temperature, in one version - so in effect what we have in nanomagnetism is a “heat driven electrical transformer” where the heat is self-generated. __ In automotive engineering, there are several idealized energy transfer cycles which involve four clearly segmented stages of engine operation. For instance, the Otto cycle consists of: 1) Intake, Compression, Expansion, Exhaust which are further arranged as 2) Two isentropic processes - adiabatic and reversible and 3) Two isochoric processes - constant volume 4) As an idealized cycle, this never happens completely in practice, but it permits substantial gain in a ratchet-like way and substantial understanding of the process. 5) There are many other idealized cycles for combustion, such as the Stirling which is probably closer, as an analogy, to nanomagnetism In nanomagnetism, there is a corresponding strong metaphor involving a similar kind of 4 legged hysteresis curve, where we find 1) Antiferromagnetism, superparamagnetism, ferrimagnetism and superferromagnetism working in a repeating cycle 2) The remainder of the analogy is under development but there are two reversible processes involving field alignment, requiring two operative classes of reactants - one mobile and one stationary 3) Nanomagnetism requires a ferromagnetic nucleus which is nominally stationary. (yes, palladium and titanium alloy can be ferromagnetic) 4) Nanomagnetism requires a mobile medium, loaded or absorbed into the ferromagnet which has variable magnetic properties. 5) Hydrogen and its isotopes appears to be the exclusive mobile medium, which can oscillate between diamagnetic (as a molecule) and strongly paramagnetic (as an absorbed atom) 6) Spin coupling provides the transfer of energy from the ferromagnetic nucleus to the mobile nucleus in a method similar to induction. 7) Inverse square permits very strong effective fields for transfer of spin energy from nickel-62, for instance. 8) Nanomagnetism seems to boosted by the presence of an oxide of the ferromagnet - i.e. nickel with a small percentage of nickel oxide but the oxide is not required. This is an emerging hypothesis, the details of which are fluid, but... shall we say... attractive :-)
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
dear Jones This was your second remarkable and citable idea during recent days- the first being your Mizuno D/Ni review/synthesis. ONLY NEW IDEAS CAN SAVE LENR! Peter On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 4:55 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Thanks Peter and Bob. Here are a couple of additional thoughts on an emerging nanomagnetism hypothesis. Nanomagnetism can be operational parallel to other processes in any experiment, even a novel form of “fusion” if that exists. Nanomagnetism can be part of a dynamical Casimir effect as well. However, the thermal gain of nanomagnetism results from a direct conversion of mass-to-energy, where the mass lost is in the form of nuclear spin – possibly quark spin. There is no transmutation and no nuclear radiation. It is likely that there are two (or three) distinct temperature regimes for Ni-H. Nanomagnetism is involved most strongly in the lower regime which is seen in the Cravens demo. In this regime the Neel temperature is critical. We can note that Cravens adds samarium-cobalt to his active mix. This material is permanently magnetized. In a higher temperature version of nanomagnetism, the Curie point is critical. This would explain the noticeable threshold mentioned in several papers around 350 C. In the highest temperature regime (HotCat) permanent magnetism is not possible as an inherent feature, and an external field must be implemented. Thus, resistance wiring itself can be supplying the needed magnetic field alignment in the HotCat. Only a few hundred Gauss is required and it can be intermittent. At the core of the hot version, and possibly all versions, is a new kind of HTSC or high-temperature superconductivity which is local and happens only in quantum particles (quantum dots, or excitons). This form of “local HTSC” seen at the nanoscale only, is entering the mainstream as we speak, see: “Physicists unlock nature of high-temperature superconductivity” http://phys.org/news/2014-07-physicists-nature-high-temperature-superconductivity.html Summary: Magnetism is highly directional. Knowing the directional dependence … we were able, for the first time, to quantitatively predict the material's superconducting properties using a series of mathematical equations… calculations showed that the gap possesses d-wave symmetry, implying that for certain directions the electrons were bound together very strongly, while they were not bound at all for other directions, This in effect is the spin-flip seen in the transition from superparamagnetism to superferromagnetism working in a repeating cycle with intermediate stages which are antiferromagnetic or ferrimagnetic around the Neel temperature, in one version - so in effect what we have in nanomagnetism is a “heat driven electrical transformer” where the heat is self-generated. __ In automotive engineering, there are several idealized energy transfer cycles which involve four clearly segmented stages of engine operation. For instance, the Otto cycle consists of: 1) Intake, Compression, Expansion, Exhaust which are further arranged as 2) Two isentropic processes - adiabatic and reversible and 3) Two isochoric processes - constant volume 4) As an idealized cycle, this never happens completely in practice, but it permits substantial gain in a ratchet-like way and substantial understanding of the process. 5) There are many other idealized cycles for combustion, such as the Stirling which is probably closer, as an analogy, to nanomagnetism In nanomagnetism, there is a corresponding strong metaphor involving a similar kind of 4 legged hysteresis curve, where we find 1) Antiferromagnetism, superparamagnetism, ferrimagnetism and superferromagnetism working in a repeating cycle 2) The remainder of the analogy is under development but there are two reversible processes involving field alignment, requiring two operative classes of reactants - one mobile and one stationary 3) Nanomagnetism requires a ferromagnetic nucleus which is nominally stationary. (yes, palladium and titanium alloy can be ferromagnetic) 4) Nanomagnetism requires a mobile medium, loaded or absorbed into the ferromagnet which has variable magnetic properties. 5) Hydrogen and its isotopes appears to be the exclusive mobile medium, which can oscillate between diamagnetic (as a molecule) and strongly paramagnetic (as an absorbed atom) 6) Spin coupling provides the transfer of energy from the ferromagnetic nucleus to the mobile nucleus in a method similar to induction. 7) Inverse square permits very strong effective fields for transfer of spin energy from nickel-62, for instance. 8) Nanomagnetism seems to boosted by the presence of an oxide of the ferromagnet - i.e. nickel with a small percentage of nickel oxide but the oxide is not required. This is an emerging
RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
The most important unsolved problem in physics is arguably proton/quark spin dynamics. The superset of this problem is underappreciated – variability of proton mass. It is a surprise to many scientists that quark mass is highly variable and apparently has been for billions of years … meaning that there could be gradual shifts over time. Quark mass cannot be accurately quantized; and because of that systemic problem in fundamental physics - proton mass is itself variable as a logical deduction. Protons, or at least a fraction on the distribution tail of any population, can therefore supply a great deal of energy without the need to fuse or undergo any change in identity. Quark spin and proton spin are, in one viewpoint, independent of each other, but they must be linked (as a logical deduction) which is another form of wave-particle duality. This is part of the larger so-called “proton spin crisis”. There are dozens if not hundreds of papers and scholarly articles trying to rationalize problems with the standard model of physics, based on quark mass variation going all the way back to Big Bang nucleosynthesis. Quark mass variation is a fact, and quark spin is a major feature of that mass. This is why any new model for LENR – based on mass depletion of reactants (mass-to-energy conversion) via spin coupling is on much firmer theoretical ground than a silly attempt to invent a way to completely hide gamma rays. Gamma rays are known to always be emitted when deuterium fuses to helium. It is almost brain-dead to suggest that they can be hidden with 100% success in any experiment where they should be seen. It is an embarrassment to the field of LENR when a scientist of the caliber of Ed Storms, goes on record as saying that nanomagnetism is “a distraction”. Distraction to what? one must ask: is it a distraction to promotion of a book, or a distraction to an erroneous suggestion that helium is found commensurate with excess heat in LENR? Or a distraction to the bogus idea that gamma rays can be hidden 100% of the time? That is the kind of distraction which is poised to become the new norm. Thanks Peter and Bob. Here are a couple of additional thoughts on an emerging nanomagnetism hypothesis. Nanomagnetism can be operational parallel to other processes in any experiment, even a novel form of “fusion” if that exists. Nanomagnetism can be part of a dynamical Casimir effect as well. However, the thermal gain of nanomagnetism results from a direct conversion of mass-to-energy, where the mass lost is in the form of nuclear spin – possibly quark spin. There is no transmutation and no nuclear radiation. It is likely that there are two (or three) distinct temperature regimes for Ni-H. Nanomagnetism is involved most strongly in the lower regime which is seen in the Cravens demo. In this regime the Neel temperature is critical. We can note that Cravens adds samarium-cobalt to his active mix. This material is permanently magnetized. In a higher temperature version of nanomagnetism, the Curie point is critical. This would explain the noticeable threshold mentioned in several papers around 350 C. In the highest temperature regime (HotCat) permanent magnetism is not possible as an inherent feature, and an external field must be implemented. Thus, resistance wiring itself can be supplying the needed magnetic field alignment in the HotCat. Only a few hundred Gauss is required and it can be intermittent. At the core of the hot version, and possibly all versions, is a new kind of HTSC or high-temperature superconductivity which is local and happens only in quantum particles (quantum dots, or excitons). This form of “local HTSC” seen at the nanoscale only, is entering the mainstream as we speak, see: “Physicists unlock nature of high-temperature superconductivity” http://phys.org/news/2014-07-physicists-nature-high-temperature-superconductivity.html Summary: Magnetism is highly directional. Knowing the directional dependence … we were able, for the first time, to quantitatively predict the material's superconducting properties using a series of mathematical equations… calculations showed that the gap possesses d-wave symmetry, implying that for certain directions the electrons were bound together very strongly, while they were not bound at all for other directions, This in effect is the spin-flip seen in the transition from superparamagnetism to superferromagnetism working in a repeating cycle with intermediate stages which are antiferromagnetic or ferrimagnetic around the Neel temperature, in one version - so in effect what we have in nanomagnetism is a “heat driven electrical transformer” where the heat is self-generated. __ In automotive engineering, there are several idealized energy transfer cycles which involve four clearly segmented
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
Very interesting, creates a greater context of our problems, but we have specific problems too. I have just started to write a paper about the roots (more local) of LENR 's problems. Storms considers my air poisoning hypothesis also a silly distraction but we are unable to get reproducible results- even of low level reproducibility in the FP Cell type wet systems. Why? Peter On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 6:20 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: The most important unsolved problem in physics is arguably proton/quark spin dynamics. The superset of this problem is underappreciated – variability of proton mass. It is a surprise to many scientists that quark mass is highly variable and apparently has been for billions of years … meaning that there could be gradual shifts over time. Quark mass cannot be accurately quantized; and because of that systemic problem in fundamental physics - proton mass is itself variable as a logical deduction. Protons, or at least a fraction on the distribution tail of any population, can therefore supply a great deal of energy without the need to fuse or undergo any change in identity. Quark spin and proton spin are, in one viewpoint, independent of each other, but they must be linked (as a logical deduction) which is another form of wave-particle duality. This is part of the larger so-called “proton spin crisis”. There are dozens if not hundreds of papers and scholarly articles trying to rationalize problems with the standard model of physics, based on quark mass variation going all the way back to Big Bang nucleosynthesis. Quark mass variation is a fact, and quark spin is a major feature of that mass. This is why any new model for LENR – based on mass depletion of reactants (mass-to-energy conversion) via spin coupling is on much firmer theoretical ground than a silly attempt to invent a way to completely hide gamma rays. Gamma rays are known to always be emitted when deuterium fuses to helium. It is almost brain-dead to suggest that they can be hidden with 100% success in any experiment where they should be seen. It is an embarrassment to the field of LENR when a scientist of the caliber of Ed Storms, goes on record as saying that nanomagnetism is “a distraction”. Distraction to what? one must ask: is it a distraction to promotion of a book, or a distraction to an erroneous suggestion that helium is found commensurate with excess heat in LENR? Or a distraction to the bogus idea that gamma rays can be hidden 100% of the time? That is the kind of distraction which is poised to become the new norm. Thanks Peter and Bob. Here are a couple of additional thoughts on an emerging nanomagnetism hypothesis. Nanomagnetism can be operational parallel to other processes in any experiment, even a novel form of “fusion” if that exists. Nanomagnetism can be part of a dynamical Casimir effect as well. However, the thermal gain of nanomagnetism results from a direct conversion of mass-to-energy, where the mass lost is in the form of nuclear spin – possibly quark spin. There is no transmutation and no nuclear radiation. It is likely that there are two (or three) distinct temperature regimes for Ni-H. Nanomagnetism is involved most strongly in the lower regime which is seen in the Cravens demo. In this regime the Neel temperature is critical. We can note that Cravens adds samarium-cobalt to his active mix. This material is permanently magnetized. In a higher temperature version of nanomagnetism, the Curie point is critical. This would explain the noticeable threshold mentioned in several papers around 350 C. In the highest temperature regime (HotCat) permanent magnetism is not possible as an inherent feature, and an external field must be implemented. Thus, resistance wiring itself can be supplying the needed magnetic field alignment in the HotCat. Only a few hundred Gauss is required and it can be intermittent. At the core of the hot version, and possibly all versions, is a new kind of HTSC or high-temperature superconductivity which is local and happens only in quantum particles (quantum dots, or excitons). This form of “local HTSC” seen at the nanoscale only, is entering the mainstream as we speak, see: “Physicists unlock nature of high-temperature superconductivity” http://phys.org/news/2014-07-physicists-nature-high-temperature-superconductivity.html Summary: Magnetism is highly directional. Knowing the directional dependence … we were able, for the first time, to quantitatively predict the material's superconducting properties using a series of mathematical equations… calculations showed that the gap possesses d-wave symmetry, implying that for certain directions the electrons were bound together very strongly, while they were not bound at all for other directions, This in effect is the spin-flip seen in the transition from
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
Jones, I want to ask you about your thougths about the variation in proton mass. Should the variation be measurable with high sensitivity mass spectrometers? I suppose that even a 1% variation would be more than enough to supply all of the nuclear energy that we are seeing since the energy content of the standard mass is so great. Also, are you aware of any super accurate mass measurements that have shown variation in this factor? Perhaps the best way to begin discussion of this question is to locate the basic standard variation curves that must have been generated for lone proton measurements to see if the uncertainty has enough range to be useful. If the standard deviation of mass uncertainty is adequate then this might be a productive concept. In that case, LENR is merely a process that leads to the release of the stored energy and methods to enhance that process must be available. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 11:20 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism The most importantunsolved problem in physics is arguably proton/quark spin dynamics. Thesuperset of this problem is underappreciated – variability of proton mass. It is a surprise to manyscientists that quark mass is highly variable and apparently has been forbillions of years … meaning that there could be gradual shifts over time. Quarkmass cannot be accurately quantized; and because of that systemic problem infundamental physics - proton mass is itself variable as a logical deduction. Protons,or at least a fraction on the distribution tail of any population, can thereforesupply a great deal of energy without the need to fuse or undergo any change inidentity. Quark spin and proton spin are, in one viewpoint, independent of eachother, but they must be linked (as a logical deduction) which is another formof wave-particle duality. This is part of the larger so-called “proton spin crisis”. There are dozens if nothundreds of papers and scholarly articles trying to rationalize problems withthe standard model of physics, based on quark mass variation going all the wayback to Big Bang nucleosynthesis. Quark mass variation is a fact, and quarkspin is a major feature of that mass. This is why any new modelfor LENR – based on mass depletion of reactants (mass-to-energy conversion) viaspin coupling is on much firmer theoretical ground than a silly attempt toinvent a way to completely hide gamma rays. Gamma rays are known to always beemitted when deuterium fuses to helium. It is almost brain-dead to suggest thatthey can be hidden with 100% success in any experiment where they should beseen. It is an embarrassment to thefield of LENR when a scientist of the caliber of Ed Storms, goes on record assaying that nanomagnetism is “a distraction”. Distraction to what? one must ask:is it a distraction to promotion of a book, or a distraction to an erroneous suggestionthat helium is found commensurate with excess heat in LENR? Or a distraction tothe bogus idea that gamma rays can be hidden 100% of the time? That is the kind ofdistraction which is poised to become the new norm. Thanks Peter and Bob. Here are a couple of additional thoughts onan emerging nanomagnetism hypothesis. Nanomagnetism can be operational parallel to other processes inany experiment, even a novel form of “fusion” if that exists. Nanomagnetism canbe part of a dynamical Casimir effect as well. However, the thermal gain ofnanomagnetism results from a direct conversion of mass-to-energy, where themass lost is in the form of nuclear spin – possibly quark spin. There is notransmutation and no nuclear radiation. It is likely that there are two (or three) distinct temperatureregimes for Ni-H. Nanomagnetism is involved most strongly in the lower regimewhich is seen in the Cravens demo. In this regime the Neel temperature iscritical. We can note that Cravens adds samarium-cobalt to his active mix. Thismaterial is permanently magnetized. In a higher temperature version of nanomagnetism, the Curie pointis critical. This would explain the noticeable threshold mentioned in severalpapers around 350 C. In the highest temperature regime (HotCat) permanent magnetism is notpossible as an inherent feature, and an external field must be implemented.Thus, resistance wiring itself can be supplying the needed magnetic fieldalignment in the HotCat. Only a few hundred Gauss is required and it can beintermittent. At the core of the hot version, and possibly all versions, is anew kind of HTSC or high-temperature superconductivity which is local andhappens only in quantum particles (quantum dots, or excitons). This form of“local HTSC” seen at the nanoscale only, is entering the mainstream as wespeak, see: “Physicists unlock nature of high-temperature superconductivity” http
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
The spin of the proton is the big puzzle in particle physics. The quarks in the proton contribute less than half of the required proton spin. The gluons contribute the remainder of the spin. But theory says that gluons should not have spin. If gluons have spin then they must be magnetic and they can be effected by magnetic force. But the gluons are the force carriers of the strong force; the strong force is not magnetic. But the strong force must be magnetic if the gluons have spin. Something is not right about how theory defines the strong force and it will take LENR, IMHO, to solve this issue. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 11:37 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Jones, I want to ask you about your thougths about the variation in proton mass. Should the variation be measurable with high sensitivity mass spectrometers? I suppose that even a 1% variation would be more than enough to supply all of the nuclear energy that we are seeing since the energy content of the standard mass is so great. Also, are you aware of any super accurate mass measurements that have shown variation in this factor? Perhaps the best way to begin discussion of this question is to locate the basic standard variation curves that must have been generated for lone proton measurements to see if the uncertainty has enough range to be useful. If the standard deviation of mass uncertainty is adequate then this might be a productive concept. In that case, LENR is merely a process that leads to the release of the stored energy and methods to enhance that process must be available. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 11:20 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism The most important unsolved problem in physics is arguably proton/quark spin dynamics. The superset of this problem is underappreciated – variability of proton mass. It is a surprise to many scientists that quark mass is highly variable and apparently has been for billions of years … meaning that there could be gradual shifts over time. Quark mass cannot be accurately quantized; and because of that systemic problem in fundamental physics - proton mass is itself variable as a logical deduction. Protons, or at least a fraction on the distribution tail of any population, can therefore supply a great deal of energy without the need to fuse or undergo any change in identity. Quark spin and proton spin are, in one viewpoint, independent of each other, but they must be linked (as a logical deduction) which is another form of wave-particle duality. This is part of the larger so-called “proton spin crisis”. There are dozens if not hundreds of papers and scholarly articles trying to rationalize problems with the standard model of physics, based on quark mass variation going all the way back to Big Bang nucleosynthesis. Quark mass variation is a fact, and quark spin is a major feature of that mass. This is why any new model for LENR – based on mass depletion of reactants (mass-to-energy conversion) via spin coupling is on much firmer theoretical ground than a silly attempt to invent a way to completely hide gamma rays. Gamma rays are known to always be emitted when deuterium fuses to helium. It is almost brain-dead to suggest that they can be hidden with 100% success in any experiment where they should be seen. It is an embarrassment to the field of LENR when a scientist of the caliber of Ed Storms, goes on record as saying that nanomagnetism is “a distraction”. Distraction to what? one must ask: is it a distraction to promotion of a book, or a distraction to an erroneous suggestion that helium is found commensurate with excess heat in LENR? Or a distraction to the bogus idea that gamma rays can be hidden 100% of the time? That is the kind of distraction which is poised to become the new norm. Thanks Peter and Bob. Here are a couple of additional thoughts on an emerging nanomagnetism hypothesis. Nanomagnetism can be operational parallel to other processes in any experiment, even a novel form of “fusion” if that exists. Nanomagnetism can be part of a dynamical Casimir effect as well. However, the thermal gain of nanomagnetism results from a direct conversion of mass-to-energy, where the mass lost is in the form of nuclear spin – possibly quark spin. There is no transmutation and no nuclear radiation. It is likely that there are two (or three) distinct temperature regimes for Ni-H. Nanomagnetism is involved most strongly in the lower regime which is seen in the Cravens demo. In this regime the Neel temperature is critical. We can note that Cravens adds samarium-cobalt to his active mix. This material is permanently magnetized. In a higher temperature version of nanomagnetism, the Curie point is critical. This would explain the noticeable threshold
RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
From: David Roberson * *I want to ask you about your thougths about the variation in proton mass. Should the variation be measurable with high sensitivity mass spectrometers? Yes and no. This is not unlike the problem of mass-4 similarity between D2 and He but more demanding. There could be repeatable statistical variation over a large population within measurement error of the very top level specialty spectrometer, running for substantial time periods. But in an average lab – no way. Given Rossi’s claims, it might even be possible to actually weight the difference on a sensitive scale if the hydrogen sample was say 10 grams of H2 from a blue box which had given up say a gigawatt of heat over 6 months. There are nanogram scales using piezoelectric effects which could be modified. * I suppose that even a 1% variation would be more than enough to supply all of the nuclear energy that we are seeing since the energy content of the standard mass is so great. Not that large. The usable mass variation for protons appears to be about 70 ppm (part per million). If the distribution is a bell curve, then perhaps one third of the population can be further depleted. In short, the average gain possible can be calculated to be about 5,000-10,000 times more than chemical but about 1,000-2,000 times less than nuclear fusion. * Also, are you aware of any super accurate mass measurements that have shown variation in this factor? I have a collection of published measurements of proton mass (going back to the cold war era) where there were substantial reported variations, especially as seen in Russia. Different instrumentation. Nowadays, everyone automatically seems to use the same value. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
The wiki article seems to tie down the proton mass quite accurately, but it may just be the accuracy of the calculation instead of actual measurements. I would be interested in seeing actual mass measurements by real instruments instead of super computer calculations. It is not too hard to visualize that the measurement accuracy is questionable. How can I go about finding those results? Spin variations among the various components of the proton might easily lead to interesting results. If this is indeed the source of LENR energy, then one might ask how it is shared among the total matter of the universe. Can it be passed between various protons freely by electromagnetic interaction? Does the normal trend exist that results in kinetic energy as the preferred outcome in which case the proton mass excess would want to find some way to be converted into heat ultimately? How long can the excess energy be trapped inside the proton before it finds it way out? You might want to know if the energy transfer is a two way process where spin can be given or taken away by other protons, etc. Here, our recent discussions about interaction with magnetic fields might yield fruitful results. A large external magnetic field could be the process that directs the energy exchange in a gainful manner as opposed to random exchange that is the norm. Of course all of these questions and suppositions are based upon pure speculation thus far. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 12:01 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism The spin of the proton is the big puzzle in particle physics. The quarks in the proton contribute less than half of the required proton spin. The gluons contribute the remainder of the spin. But theory says that gluons should not have spin. If gluons have spin then they must be magnetic and they can be effected by magnetic force. But the gluons are the force carriers of the strong force; the strong force is not magnetic. But the strong force must be magnetic if the gluons have spin. Something is not right about how theory defines the strong force and it will take LENR, IMHO, to solve this issue. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 11:37 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Jones, I want to ask you about your thougths about the variation in proton mass. Should the variation be measurable with high sensitivity mass spectrometers? I suppose that even a 1% variation would be more than enough to supply all of the nuclear energy that we are seeing since the energy content of the standard mass is so great. Also, are you aware of any super accurate mass measurements that have shown variation in this factor? Perhaps the best way to begin discussion of this question is to locate the basic standard variation curves that must have been generated for lone proton measurements to see if the uncertainty has enough range to be useful. If the standard deviation of mass uncertainty is adequate then this might be a productive concept. In that case, LENR is merely a process that leads to the release of the stored energy and methods to enhance that process must be available. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 11:20 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism The most importantunsolved problem in physics is arguably proton/quark spin dynamics. Thesuperset of this problem is underappreciated – variability of proton mass. It is a surprise to manyscientists that quark mass is highly variable and apparently has been forbillions of years … meaning that there could be gradual shifts over time. Quarkmass cannot be accurately quantized; and because of that systemic problem infundamental physics - proton mass is itself variable as a logical deduction. Protons,or at least a fraction on the distribution tail of any population, can thereforesupply a great deal of energy without the need to fuse or undergo any change inidentity. Quark spin and proton spin are, in one viewpoint, independent of eachother, but they must be linked (as a logical deduction) which is another formof wave-particle duality. This is part of the larger so-called “proton spin crisis”. There are dozens if nothundreds of papers and scholarly articles trying to rationalize problems withthe standard model of physics, based on quark mass variation going all the wayback to Big Bang nucleosynthesis. Quark mass variation is a fact, and quarkspin is a major feature of that mass. This is why any new modelfor LENR – based on mass depletion of reactants (mass-to-energy conversion) viaspin coupling is on much firmer theoretical ground than a silly attempt toinvent a way to completely hide gamma rays. Gamma rays are known to always beemitted when deuterium fuses to helium. It is almost
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
I assert that the magnetic component of matter as released by LENR is the source of dark energy. Dark energy is the resonance values picked up by josephson junction resonance effects instead of dark matter. http://arxiv.org/abs/1309.3790 Could it be that the bosenova that has been seen in the DGT Ni/H reactor as described by professor Kim is a microcosm of the expansion of the universe as a result of dark energy. Could it be that the universe is undergoing a bosenova? On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:18 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The wiki article seems to tie down the proton mass quite accurately, but it may just be the accuracy of the calculation instead of actual measurements. I would be interested in seeing actual mass measurements by real instruments instead of super computer calculations. It is not too hard to visualize that the measurement accuracy is questionable. How can I go about finding those results? Spin variations among the various components of the proton might easily lead to interesting results. If this is indeed the source of LENR energy, then one might ask how it is shared among the total matter of the universe. Can it be passed between various protons freely by electromagnetic interaction? Does the normal trend exist that results in kinetic energy as the preferred outcome in which case the proton mass excess would want to find some way to be converted into heat ultimately? How long can the excess energy be trapped inside the proton before it finds it way out? You might want to know if the energy transfer is a two way process where spin can be given or taken away by other protons, etc. Here, our recent discussions about interaction with magnetic fields might yield fruitful results. A large external magnetic field could be the process that directs the energy exchange in a gainful manner as opposed to random exchange that is the norm. Of course all of these questions and suppositions are based upon pure speculation thus far. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 12:01 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism The spin of the proton is the big puzzle in particle physics. The quarks in the proton contribute less than half of the required proton spin. The gluons contribute the remainder of the spin. But theory says that gluons should not have spin. If gluons have spin then they must be magnetic and they can be effected by magnetic force. But the gluons are the force carriers of the strong force; the strong force is not magnetic. But the strong force must be magnetic if the gluons have spin. Something is not right about how theory defines the strong force and it will take LENR, IMHO, to solve this issue. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 11:37 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Jones, I want to ask you about your thougths about the variation in proton mass. Should the variation be measurable with high sensitivity mass spectrometers? I suppose that even a 1% variation would be more than enough to supply all of the nuclear energy that we are seeing since the energy content of the standard mass is so great. Also, are you aware of any super accurate mass measurements that have shown variation in this factor? Perhaps the best way to begin discussion of this question is to locate the basic standard variation curves that must have been generated for lone proton measurements to see if the uncertainty has enough range to be useful. If the standard deviation of mass uncertainty is adequate then this might be a productive concept. In that case, LENR is merely a process that leads to the release of the stored energy and methods to enhance that process must be available. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 11:20 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism The most important unsolved problem in physics is arguably proton/quark spin dynamics. The superset of this problem is underappreciated – variability of proton mass. It is a surprise to many scientists that quark mass is highly variable and apparently has been for billions of years … meaning that there could be gradual shifts over time. Quark mass cannot be accurately quantized; and because of that systemic problem in fundamental physics - proton mass is itself variable as a logical deduction. Protons, or at least a fraction on the distribution tail of any population, can therefore supply a great deal of energy without the need to fuse or undergo any change in identity. Quark spin and proton spin are, in one viewpoint, independent of each other, but they must be linked (as a logical deduction) which is another form of wave-particle duality. This is part of the larger so-called “proton spin crisis”. There are dozens if not hundreds
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
Thanks Jones. There might be something here that needs further research. Would it not seem logical that there should exist some ultimate minimum energy level for the proton mass? In other words, some mass below which additional energy can not be extracted. I can imagine that higher spin energy states would exist. These may even exchange total energy among the nearby protons such that most remain elevated about the zero additional energy state. Then I might ask about how unidirectional the effect should be. Would the tendency to achieve maximum disorder push the process of converting the stored excess energy into thermal motion? Can random thermal motion ever be converted into spin? I suppose I am reaching for a mechanism that would allow an exchange of the captured spin energy with random thermal energy. I guess that spin energy is strongly associated with angular momentum while thermal energy tends to be considered associated with linear momentum. The two might not mix very well. So far I have not been able to come up with a way to exchange the two types of momentum. Forgive me for rambling on, but this is the way my mind processes interactive ideas as I try to connect the dots. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 12:14 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism From: David Roberson * *I want to ask you about your thougths about the variation in proton mass. Should the variation be measurable with high sensitivity mass spectrometers? Yes and no. This is not unlike the problem of mass-4 similarity between D2 and He but more demanding. There could be repeatable statistical variation over a large population within measurement error of the very top level specialty spectrometer, running for substantial time periods. But in an average lab – no way. Given Rossi’s claims, it might even be possible to actually weight the difference on a sensitive scale if the hydrogen sample was say 10 grams of H2 from a blue box which had given up say a gigawatt of heat over 6 months. There are nanogram scales using piezoelectric effects which could be modified. * I suppose that even a 1% variation would be more than enough to supply all of the nuclear energy that we are seeing since the energy content of the standard mass is so great. Not that large. The usable mass variation for protons appears to be about 70 ppm (part per million). If the distribution is a bell curve, then perhaps one third of the population can be further depleted. In short, the average gain possible can be calculated to be about 5,000-10,000 times more than chemical but about 1,000-2,000 times less than nuclear fusion. * Also, are you aware of any super accurate mass measurements that have shown variation in this factor? I have a collection of published measurements of proton mass (going back to the cold war era) where there were substantial reported variations, especially as seen in Russia. Different instrumentation. Nowadays, everyone automatically seems to use the same value. Jones
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
*Can random thermal motion ever be converted into spin?* I assert that this is the underlying mechanism of LENR. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:40 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Thanks Jones. There might be something here that needs further research. Would it not seem logical that there should exist some ultimate minimum energy level for the proton mass? In other words, some mass below which additional energy can not be extracted. I can imagine that higher spin energy states would exist. These may even exchange total energy among the nearby protons such that most remain elevated about the zero additional energy state. Then I might ask about how unidirectional the effect should be. Would the tendency to achieve maximum disorder push the process of converting the stored excess energy into thermal motion? Can random thermal motion ever be converted into spin? I suppose I am reaching for a mechanism that would allow an exchange of the captured spin energy with random thermal energy. I guess that spin energy is strongly associated with angular momentum while thermal energy tends to be considered associated with linear momentum. The two might not mix very well. So far I have not been able to come up with a way to exchange the two types of momentum. Forgive me for rambling on, but this is the way my mind processes interactive ideas as I try to connect the dots. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 12:14 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism From: David Roberson * * I want to ask you about your thougths about the variation in proton mass. Should the variation be measurable with high sensitivity mass spectrometers? Yes and no. This is not unlike the problem of mass-4 similarity between D2 and He but more demanding. There could be repeatable statistical variation over a large population within measurement error of the very top level specialty spectrometer, running for substantial time periods. But in an average lab – no way. Given Rossi’s claims, it might even be possible to actually weight the difference on a sensitive scale if the hydrogen sample was say 10 grams of H2 from a blue box which had given up say a gigawatt of heat over 6 months. There are nanogram scales using piezoelectric effects which could be modified. * I suppose that even a 1% variation would be more than enough to supply all of the nuclear energy that we are seeing since the energy content of the standard mass is so great. Not that large. The usable mass variation for protons appears to be about 70 ppm (part per million). If the distribution is a bell curve, then perhaps one third of the population can be further depleted. In short, the average gain possible can be calculated to be about 5,000-10,000 times more than chemical but about 1,000-2,000 times less than nuclear fusion. * Also, are you aware of any super accurate mass measurements that have shown variation in this factor? I have a collection of published measurements of proton mass (going back to the cold war era) where there were substantial reported variations, especially as seen in Russia. Different instrumentation. Nowadays, everyone automatically seems to use the same value. Jones
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
Thermal motion produces infrared photons that are central to the LENT reaction. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: *Can random thermal motion ever be converted into spin?* I assert that this is the underlying mechanism of LENR. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:40 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Thanks Jones. There might be something here that needs further research. Would it not seem logical that there should exist some ultimate minimum energy level for the proton mass? In other words, some mass below which additional energy can not be extracted. I can imagine that higher spin energy states would exist. These may even exchange total energy among the nearby protons such that most remain elevated about the zero additional energy state. Then I might ask about how unidirectional the effect should be. Would the tendency to achieve maximum disorder push the process of converting the stored excess energy into thermal motion? Can random thermal motion ever be converted into spin? I suppose I am reaching for a mechanism that would allow an exchange of the captured spin energy with random thermal energy. I guess that spin energy is strongly associated with angular momentum while thermal energy tends to be considered associated with linear momentum. The two might not mix very well. So far I have not been able to come up with a way to exchange the two types of momentum. Forgive me for rambling on, but this is the way my mind processes interactive ideas as I try to connect the dots. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 12:14 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism From: David Roberson * * I want to ask you about your thougths about the variation in proton mass. Should the variation be measurable with high sensitivity mass spectrometers? Yes and no. This is not unlike the problem of mass-4 similarity between D2 and He but more demanding. There could be repeatable statistical variation over a large population within measurement error of the very top level specialty spectrometer, running for substantial time periods. But in an average lab – no way. Given Rossi’s claims, it might even be possible to actually weight the difference on a sensitive scale if the hydrogen sample was say 10 grams of H2 from a blue box which had given up say a gigawatt of heat over 6 months. There are nanogram scales using piezoelectric effects which could be modified. *I suppose that even a 1% variation would be more than enough to supply all of the nuclear energy that we are seeing since the energy content of the standard mass is so great. Not that large. The usable mass variation for protons appears to be about 70 ppm (part per million). If the distribution is a bell curve, then perhaps one third of the population can be further depleted. In short, the average gain possible can be calculated to be about 5,000-10,000 times more than chemical but about 1,000-2,000 times less than nuclear fusion. *Also, are you aware of any super accurate mass measurements that have shown variation in this factor? I have a collection of published measurements of proton mass (going back to the cold war era) where there were substantial reported variations, especially as seen in Russia. Different instrumentation. Nowadays, everyone automatically seems to use the same value. Jones
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
Thermal motion produces infrared photons that are central to the LENT reaction. should read Thermal motion produces infrared photons that are central to the LENR reaction. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Thermal motion produces infrared photons that are central to the LENT reaction. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: *Can random thermal motion ever be converted into spin?* I assert that this is the underlying mechanism of LENR. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:40 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Thanks Jones. There might be something here that needs further research. Would it not seem logical that there should exist some ultimate minimum energy level for the proton mass? In other words, some mass below which additional energy can not be extracted. I can imagine that higher spin energy states would exist. These may even exchange total energy among the nearby protons such that most remain elevated about the zero additional energy state. Then I might ask about how unidirectional the effect should be. Would the tendency to achieve maximum disorder push the process of converting the stored excess energy into thermal motion? Can random thermal motion ever be converted into spin? I suppose I am reaching for a mechanism that would allow an exchange of the captured spin energy with random thermal energy. I guess that spin energy is strongly associated with angular momentum while thermal energy tends to be considered associated with linear momentum. The two might not mix very well. So far I have not been able to come up with a way to exchange the two types of momentum. Forgive me for rambling on, but this is the way my mind processes interactive ideas as I try to connect the dots. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 12:14 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism From: David Roberson * *I want to ask you about your thougths about the variation in proton mass. Should the variation be measurable with high sensitivity mass spectrometers? Yes and no. This is not unlike the problem of mass-4 similarity between D2 and He but more demanding. There could be repeatable statistical variation over a large population within measurement error of the very top level specialty spectrometer, running for substantial time periods. But in an average lab – no way. Given Rossi’s claims, it might even be possible to actually weight the difference on a sensitive scale if the hydrogen sample was say 10 grams of H2 from a blue box which had given up say a gigawatt of heat over 6 months. There are nanogram scales using piezoelectric effects which could be modified. * I suppose that even a 1% variation would be more than enough to supply all of the nuclear energy that we are seeing since the energy content of the standard mass is so great. Not that large. The usable mass variation for protons appears to be about 70 ppm (part per million). If the distribution is a bell curve, then perhaps one third of the population can be further depleted. In short, the average gain possible can be calculated to be about 5,000-10,000 times more than chemical but about 1,000-2,000 times less than nuclear fusion. * Also, are you aware of any super accurate mass measurements that have shown variation in this factor? I have a collection of published measurements of proton mass (going back to the cold war era) where there were substantial reported variations, especially as seen in Russia. Different instrumentation. Nowadays, everyone automatically seems to use the same value. Jones
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
Perhaps so. Can spin energy be converted into linear kinetic energy? If spin is tied to angular momentum, one might expect it to be conserved overall. How do we prove or disprove this? If you look at the universe from a distance you observe large amounts of spin(angular momentum) that does not appear to be going away by conversion into thermal energy(linear momentum). Both processes appear to be conserved and is that true for spin among smaller units such as protons? Are these phenomena always orthogonal? Energy can be converted directly between angular and linear forms, but is the same true for momentum? I suspect not. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 12:34 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism I assert that the magnetic component of matter as released by LENR is the source of dark energy. Dark energy is the resonance values picked up by josephson junction resonance effects instead of dark matter. http://arxiv.org/abs/1309.3790 Could it be that the bosenova that has been seen in the DGT Ni/H reactor as described by professor Kim is a microcosm of the expansion of the universe as a result of dark energy. Could it be that the universe is undergoing a bosenova? On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:18 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The wiki article seems to tie down the proton mass quite accurately, but it may just be the accuracy of the calculation instead of actual measurements. I would be interested in seeing actual mass measurements by real instruments instead of super computer calculations. It is not too hard to visualize that the measurement accuracy is questionable. How can I go about finding those results? Spin variations among the various components of the proton might easily lead to interesting results. If this is indeed the source of LENR energy, then one might ask how it is shared among the total matter of the universe. Can it be passed between various protons freely by electromagnetic interaction? Does the normal trend exist that results in kinetic energy as the preferred outcome in which case the proton mass excess would want to find some way to be converted into heat ultimately? How long can the excess energy be trapped inside the proton before it finds it way out? You might want to know if the energy transfer is a two way process where spin can be given or taken away by other protons, etc. Here, our recent discussions about interaction with magnetic fields might yield fruitful results. A large external magnetic field could be the process that directs the energy exchange in a gainful manner as opposed to random exchange that is the norm. Of course all of these questions and suppositions are based upon pure speculation thus far. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 12:01 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism The spin of the proton is the big puzzle in particle physics. The quarks in the proton contribute less than half of the required proton spin. The gluons contribute the remainder of the spin. But theory says that gluons should not have spin. If gluons have spin then they must be magnetic and they can be effected by magnetic force. But the gluons are the force carriers of the strong force; the strong force is not magnetic. But the strong force must be magnetic if the gluons have spin. Something is not right about how theory defines the strong force and it will take LENR, IMHO, to solve this issue. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 11:37 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Jones, I want to ask you about your thougths about the variation in proton mass. Should the variation be measurable with high sensitivity mass spectrometers? I suppose that even a 1% variation would be more than enough to supply all of the nuclear energy that we are seeing since the energy content of the standard mass is so great. Also, are you aware of any super accurate mass measurements that have shown variation in this factor? Perhaps the best way to begin discussion of this question is to locate the basic standard variation curves that must have been generated for lone proton measurements to see if the uncertainty has enough range to be useful. If the standard deviation of mass uncertainty is adequate then this might be a productive concept. In that case, LENR is merely a process that leads to the release of the stored energy and methods to enhance that process must be available. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 11:20 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism The most importantunsolved problem in physics is arguably proton/quark spin dynamics. Thesuperset of this problem
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
OK, but how does it happen? Should spin be conserved? I can picture two spins in opposite direction sharing net spin leaving heat energy on the table. And in this case, spin could be conserved. Is something like this required? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 12:42 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism Can random thermal motion ever be converted into spin? I assert that this is the underlying mechanism of LENR. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:40 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Thanks Jones. There might be something here that needs further research. Would it not seem logical that there should exist some ultimate minimum energy level for the proton mass? In other words, some mass below which additional energy can not be extracted. I can imagine that higher spin energy states would exist. These may even exchange total energy among the nearby protons such that most remain elevated about the zero additional energy state. Then I might ask about how unidirectional the effect should be. Would the tendency to achieve maximum disorder push the process of converting the stored excess energy into thermal motion? Can random thermal motion ever be converted into spin? I suppose I am reaching for a mechanism that would allow an exchange of the captured spin energy with random thermal energy. I guess that spin energy is strongly associated with angular momentum while thermal energy tends to be considered associated with linear momentum. The two might not mix very well. So far I have not been able to come up with a way to exchange the two types of momentum. Forgive me for rambling on, but this is the way my mind processes interactive ideas as I try to connect the dots. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 12:14 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism From: David Roberson * *I want to ask you about your thougths about the variation in proton mass. Should the variation be measurable with high sensitivity mass spectrometers? Yes and no. This is not unlike the problem of mass-4 similarity between D2 and He but more demanding. There could be repeatable statistical variation over a large population within measurement error of the very top level specialty spectrometer, running for substantial time periods. But in an average lab – no way. Given Rossi’s claims, it might even be possible to actually weight the difference on a sensitive scale if the hydrogen sample was say 10 grams of H2 from a blue box which had given up say a gigawatt of heat over 6 months. There are nanogram scales using piezoelectric effects which could be modified. * I suppose that even a 1% variation would be more than enough to supply all of the nuclear energy that we are seeing since the energy content of the standard mass is so great. Not that large. The usable mass variation for protons appears to be about 70 ppm (part per million). If the distribution is a bell curve, then perhaps one third of the population can be further depleted. In short, the average gain possible can be calculated to be about 5,000-10,000 times more than chemical but about 1,000-2,000 times less than nuclear fusion. * Also, are you aware of any super accurate mass measurements that have shown variation in this factor? I have a collection of published measurements of proton mass (going back to the cold war era) where there were substantial reported variations, especially as seen in Russia. Different instrumentation. Nowadays, everyone automatically seems to use the same value. Jones
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
*Energy can be converted directly between angular and linear forms, but is the same true for momentum? I suspect not.* What about a rail gun where magnetism is converted into linear momentum of the projectile. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:53 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Perhaps so. Can spin energy be converted into linear kinetic energy? If spin is tied to angular momentum, one might expect it to be conserved overall. How do we prove or disprove this? If you look at the universe from a distance you observe large amounts of spin(angular momentum) that does not appear to be going away by conversion into thermal energy(linear momentum). Both processes appear to be conserved and is that true for spin among smaller units such as protons? Are these phenomena always orthogonal? Energy can be converted directly between angular and linear forms, but is the same true for momentum? I suspect not. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 12:34 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism I assert that the magnetic component of matter as released by LENR is the source of dark energy. Dark energy is the resonance values picked up by josephson junction resonance effects instead of dark matter. http://arxiv.org/abs/1309.3790 Could it be that the bosenova that has been seen in the DGT Ni/H reactor as described by professor Kim is a microcosm of the expansion of the universe as a result of dark energy. Could it be that the universe is undergoing a bosenova? On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:18 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The wiki article seems to tie down the proton mass quite accurately, but it may just be the accuracy of the calculation instead of actual measurements. I would be interested in seeing actual mass measurements by real instruments instead of super computer calculations. It is not too hard to visualize that the measurement accuracy is questionable. How can I go about finding those results? Spin variations among the various components of the proton might easily lead to interesting results. If this is indeed the source of LENR energy, then one might ask how it is shared among the total matter of the universe. Can it be passed between various protons freely by electromagnetic interaction? Does the normal trend exist that results in kinetic energy as the preferred outcome in which case the proton mass excess would want to find some way to be converted into heat ultimately? How long can the excess energy be trapped inside the proton before it finds it way out? You might want to know if the energy transfer is a two way process where spin can be given or taken away by other protons, etc. Here, our recent discussions about interaction with magnetic fields might yield fruitful results. A large external magnetic field could be the process that directs the energy exchange in a gainful manner as opposed to random exchange that is the norm. Of course all of these questions and suppositions are based upon pure speculation thus far. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 12:01 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism The spin of the proton is the big puzzle in particle physics. The quarks in the proton contribute less than half of the required proton spin. The gluons contribute the remainder of the spin. But theory says that gluons should not have spin. If gluons have spin then they must be magnetic and they can be effected by magnetic force. But the gluons are the force carriers of the strong force; the strong force is not magnetic. But the strong force must be magnetic if the gluons have spin. Something is not right about how theory defines the strong force and it will take LENR, IMHO, to solve this issue. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 11:37 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Jones, I want to ask you about your thougths about the variation in proton mass. Should the variation be measurable with high sensitivity mass spectrometers? I suppose that even a 1% variation would be more than enough to supply all of the nuclear energy that we are seeing since the energy content of the standard mass is so great. Also, are you aware of any super accurate mass measurements that have shown variation in this factor? Perhaps the best way to begin discussion of this question is to locate the basic standard variation curves that must have been generated for lone proton measurements to see if the uncertainty has enough range to be useful. If the standard deviation of mass uncertainty is adequate then this might be a productive concept. In that case, LENR is merely a process that leads to the release of the stored energy and methods to enhance that process must be available. Dave
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
If energy comes from the strong force, and gluons, the force carrier of the strong force also carry spin, then magnetic energy can carry the energy derived from the strong force, that energy is nuclear energy, On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:58 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: OK, but how does it happen? Should spin be conserved? I can picture two spins in opposite direction sharing net spin leaving heat energy on the table. And in this case, spin could be conserved. Is something like this required? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 12:42 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism *Can random thermal motion ever be converted into spin?* I assert that this is the underlying mechanism of LENR. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:40 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Thanks Jones. There might be something here that needs further research. Would it not seem logical that there should exist some ultimate minimum energy level for the proton mass? In other words, some mass below which additional energy can not be extracted. I can imagine that higher spin energy states would exist. These may even exchange total energy among the nearby protons such that most remain elevated about the zero additional energy state. Then I might ask about how unidirectional the effect should be. Would the tendency to achieve maximum disorder push the process of converting the stored excess energy into thermal motion? Can random thermal motion ever be converted into spin? I suppose I am reaching for a mechanism that would allow an exchange of the captured spin energy with random thermal energy. I guess that spin energy is strongly associated with angular momentum while thermal energy tends to be considered associated with linear momentum. The two might not mix very well. So far I have not been able to come up with a way to exchange the two types of momentum. Forgive me for rambling on, but this is the way my mind processes interactive ideas as I try to connect the dots. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 12:14 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism From: David Roberson * * I want to ask you about your thougths about the variation in proton mass. Should the variation be measurable with high sensitivity mass spectrometers? Yes and no. This is not unlike the problem of mass-4 similarity between D2 and He but more demanding. There could be repeatable statistical variation over a large population within measurement error of the very top level specialty spectrometer, running for substantial time periods. But in an average lab – no way. Given Rossi’s claims, it might even be possible to actually weight the difference on a sensitive scale if the hydrogen sample was say 10 grams of H2 from a blue box which had given up say a gigawatt of heat over 6 months. There are nanogram scales using piezoelectric effects which could be modified. *I suppose that even a 1% variation would be more than enough to supply all of the nuclear energy that we are seeing since the energy content of the standard mass is so great. Not that large. The usable mass variation for protons appears to be about 70 ppm (part per million). If the distribution is a bell curve, then perhaps one third of the population can be further depleted. In short, the average gain possible can be calculated to be about 5,000-10,000 times more than chemical but about 1,000-2,000 times less than nuclear fusion. *Also, are you aware of any super accurate mass measurements that have shown variation in this factor? I have a collection of published measurements of proton mass (going back to the cold war era) where there were substantial reported variations, especially as seen in Russia. Different instrumentation. Nowadays, everyone automatically seems to use the same value. Jones
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
I also assert that if a magnetic force is strong enough, that force could inject so much energy into the proton in terms of spin coupling with the gluons that the proton will disintegrate into a quark/gluon plasma. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: If energy comes from the strong force, and gluons, the force carrier of the strong force also carry spin, then magnetic energy can carry the energy derived from the strong force, that energy is nuclear energy, On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:58 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: OK, but how does it happen? Should spin be conserved? I can picture two spins in opposite direction sharing net spin leaving heat energy on the table. And in this case, spin could be conserved. Is something like this required? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 12:42 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism *Can random thermal motion ever be converted into spin?* I assert that this is the underlying mechanism of LENR. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:40 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Thanks Jones. There might be something here that needs further research. Would it not seem logical that there should exist some ultimate minimum energy level for the proton mass? In other words, some mass below which additional energy can not be extracted. I can imagine that higher spin energy states would exist. These may even exchange total energy among the nearby protons such that most remain elevated about the zero additional energy state. Then I might ask about how unidirectional the effect should be. Would the tendency to achieve maximum disorder push the process of converting the stored excess energy into thermal motion? Can random thermal motion ever be converted into spin? I suppose I am reaching for a mechanism that would allow an exchange of the captured spin energy with random thermal energy. I guess that spin energy is strongly associated with angular momentum while thermal energy tends to be considered associated with linear momentum. The two might not mix very well. So far I have not been able to come up with a way to exchange the two types of momentum. Forgive me for rambling on, but this is the way my mind processes interactive ideas as I try to connect the dots. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 12:14 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism From: David Roberson * *I want to ask you about your thougths about the variation in proton mass. Should the variation be measurable with high sensitivity mass spectrometers? Yes and no. This is not unlike the problem of mass-4 similarity between D2 and He but more demanding. There could be repeatable statistical variation over a large population within measurement error of the very top level specialty spectrometer, running for substantial time periods. But in an average lab – no way. Given Rossi’s claims, it might even be possible to actually weight the difference on a sensitive scale if the hydrogen sample was say 10 grams of H2 from a blue box which had given up say a gigawatt of heat over 6 months. There are nanogram scales using piezoelectric effects which could be modified. * I suppose that even a 1% variation would be more than enough to supply all of the nuclear energy that we are seeing since the energy content of the standard mass is so great. Not that large. The usable mass variation for protons appears to be about 70 ppm (part per million). If the distribution is a bell curve, then perhaps one third of the population can be further depleted. In short, the average gain possible can be calculated to be about 5,000-10,000 times more than chemical but about 1,000-2,000 times less than nuclear fusion. * Also, are you aware of any super accurate mass measurements that have shown variation in this factor? I have a collection of published measurements of proton mass (going back to the cold war era) where there were substantial reported variations, especially as seen in Russia. Different instrumentation. Nowadays, everyone automatically seems to use the same value. Jones
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
That is the model that I try to understand Axil. But I do not believe that an isolated single moving particle can emit thermal energy directly. A free proton moving uniformly in space has a relative velocity to every observer except one at rest to it. It therefore can not emit thermal energy in the form of IR without the interaction of other particles around it. The infrared photons contain energy that once existed as kinetic energy(thermal) of the system of particles. Gravitational energy, of course, can end up as photon energy when a cloud of hydrogen gas and dust condenses. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 12:45 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism Thermal motion produces infrared photons that are central to the LENT reaction. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Can random thermal motion ever be converted into spin? I assert that this is the underlying mechanism of LENR. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:40 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Thanks Jones. There might be something here that needs further research. Would it not seem logical that there should exist some ultimate minimum energy level for the proton mass? In other words, some mass below which additional energy can not be extracted. I can imagine that higher spin energy states would exist. These may even exchange total energy among the nearby protons such that most remain elevated about the zero additional energy state. Then I might ask about how unidirectional the effect should be. Would the tendency to achieve maximum disorder push the process of converting the stored excess energy into thermal motion? Can random thermal motion ever be converted into spin? I suppose I am reaching for a mechanism that would allow an exchange of the captured spin energy with random thermal energy. I guess that spin energy is strongly associated with angular momentum while thermal energy tends to be considered associated with linear momentum. The two might not mix very well. So far I have not been able to come up with a way to exchange the two types of momentum. Forgive me for rambling on, but this is the way my mind processes interactive ideas as I try to connect the dots. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 12:14 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism From: David Roberson * *I want to ask you about your thougths about the variation in proton mass. Should the variation be measurable with high sensitivity mass spectrometers? Yes and no. This is not unlike the problem of mass-4 similarity between D2 and He but more demanding. There could be repeatable statistical variation over a large population within measurement error of the very top level specialty spectrometer, running for substantial time periods. But in an average lab – no way. Given Rossi’s claims, it might even be possible to actually weight the difference on a sensitive scale if the hydrogen sample was say 10 grams of H2 from a blue box which had given up say a gigawatt of heat over 6 months. There are nanogram scales using piezoelectric effects which could be modified. * I suppose that even a 1% variation would be more than enough to supply all of the nuclear energy that we are seeing since the energy content of the standard mass is so great. Not that large. The usable mass variation for protons appears to be about 70 ppm (part per million). If the distribution is a bell curve, then perhaps one third of the population can be further depleted. In short, the average gain possible can be calculated to be about 5,000-10,000 times more than chemical but about 1,000-2,000 times less than nuclear fusion. * Also, are you aware of any super accurate mass measurements that have shown variation in this factor? I have a collection of published measurements of proton mass (going back to the cold war era) where there were substantial reported variations, especially as seen in Russia. Different instrumentation. Nowadays, everyone automatically seems to use the same value. Jones
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
*But I do not believe that an isolated single moving particle can emit thermal energy directly...It therefore can not emit thermal energy in the form of IR without the interaction of other particles around it.* The thermal energy is converted to spin energy( aka magnetic) under the action of electrons/photons in the form polariton. The polariton is the mediator. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 1:15 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: That is the model that I try to understand Axil. But I do not believe that an isolated single moving particle can emit thermal energy directly. A free proton moving uniformly in space has a relative velocity to every observer except one at rest to it. It therefore can not emit thermal energy in the form of IR without the interaction of other particles around it. The infrared photons contain energy that once existed as kinetic energy(thermal) of the system of particles. Gravitational energy, of course, can end up as photon energy when a cloud of hydrogen gas and dust condenses. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 12:45 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism Thermal motion produces infrared photons that are central to the LENT reaction. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: *Can random thermal motion ever be converted into spin?* I assert that this is the underlying mechanism of LENR. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:40 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Thanks Jones. There might be something here that needs further research. Would it not seem logical that there should exist some ultimate minimum energy level for the proton mass? In other words, some mass below which additional energy can not be extracted. I can imagine that higher spin energy states would exist. These may even exchange total energy among the nearby protons such that most remain elevated about the zero additional energy state. Then I might ask about how unidirectional the effect should be. Would the tendency to achieve maximum disorder push the process of converting the stored excess energy into thermal motion? Can random thermal motion ever be converted into spin? I suppose I am reaching for a mechanism that would allow an exchange of the captured spin energy with random thermal energy. I guess that spin energy is strongly associated with angular momentum while thermal energy tends to be considered associated with linear momentum. The two might not mix very well. So far I have not been able to come up with a way to exchange the two types of momentum. Forgive me for rambling on, but this is the way my mind processes interactive ideas as I try to connect the dots. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 12:14 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism From: David Roberson * *I want to ask you about your thougths about the variation in proton mass. Should the variation be measurable with high sensitivity mass spectrometers? Yes and no. This is not unlike the problem of mass-4 similarity between D2 and He but more demanding. There could be repeatable statistical variation over a large population within measurement error of the very top level specialty spectrometer, running for substantial time periods. But in an average lab – no way. Given Rossi’s claims, it might even be possible to actually weight the difference on a sensitive scale if the hydrogen sample was say 10 grams of H2 from a blue box which had given up say a gigawatt of heat over 6 months. There are nanogram scales using piezoelectric effects which could be modified. * I suppose that even a 1% variation would be more than enough to supply all of the nuclear energy that we are seeing since the energy content of the standard mass is so great. Not that large. The usable mass variation for protons appears to be about 70 ppm (part per million). If the distribution is a bell curve, then perhaps one third of the population can be further depleted. In short, the average gain possible can be calculated to be about 5,000-10,000 times more than chemical but about 1,000-2,000 times less than nuclear fusion. * Also, are you aware of any super accurate mass measurements that have shown variation in this factor? I have a collection of published measurements of proton mass (going back to the cold war era) where there were substantial reported variations, especially as seen in Russia. Different instrumentation. Nowadays, everyone automatically seems to use the same value. Jones
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
Actually the linear momentum remains the same overall in this case. The gun pushes against its mount and imparts linear momentum to the earth that equals the amount given to the projectile. Energy can be freely exchanged among the various forms such as magnetic to linear in this case. Also, linear energy can be converted into angular energy, but both types of momentum remain conserved for the complete system. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 1:00 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism Energy can be converted directly between angular and linear forms, but is the same true for momentum? I suspect not. What about a rail gun where magnetism is converted into linear momentum of the projectile. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:53 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Perhaps so. Can spin energy be converted into linear kinetic energy? If spin is tied to angular momentum, one might expect it to be conserved overall. How do we prove or disprove this? If you look at the universe from a distance you observe large amounts of spin(angular momentum) that does not appear to be going away by conversion into thermal energy(linear momentum). Both processes appear to be conserved and is that true for spin among smaller units such as protons? Are these phenomena always orthogonal? Energy can be converted directly between angular and linear forms, but is the same true for momentum? I suspect not. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 12:34 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism I assert that the magnetic component of matter as released by LENR is the source of dark energy. Dark energy is the resonance values picked up by josephson junction resonance effects instead of dark matter. http://arxiv.org/abs/1309.3790 Could it be that the bosenova that has been seen in the DGT Ni/H reactor as described by professor Kim is a microcosm of the expansion of the universe as a result of dark energy. Could it be that the universe is undergoing a bosenova? On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:18 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The wiki article seems to tie down the proton mass quite accurately, but it may just be the accuracy of the calculation instead of actual measurements. I would be interested in seeing actual mass measurements by real instruments instead of super computer calculations. It is not too hard to visualize that the measurement accuracy is questionable. How can I go about finding those results? Spin variations among the various components of the proton might easily lead to interesting results. If this is indeed the source of LENR energy, then one might ask how it is shared among the total matter of the universe. Can it be passed between various protons freely by electromagnetic interaction? Does the normal trend exist that results in kinetic energy as the preferred outcome in which case the proton mass excess would want to find some way to be converted into heat ultimately? How long can the excess energy be trapped inside the proton before it finds it way out? You might want to know if the energy transfer is a two way process where spin can be given or taken away by other protons, etc. Here, our recent discussions about interaction with magnetic fields might yield fruitful results. A large external magnetic field could be the process that directs the energy exchange in a gainful manner as opposed to random exchange that is the norm. Of course all of these questions and suppositions are based upon pure speculation thus far. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 12:01 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism The spin of the proton is the big puzzle in particle physics. The quarks in the proton contribute less than half of the required proton spin. The gluons contribute the remainder of the spin. But theory says that gluons should not have spin. If gluons have spin then they must be magnetic and they can be effected by magnetic force. But the gluons are the force carriers of the strong force; the strong force is not magnetic. But the strong force must be magnetic if the gluons have spin. Something is not right about how theory defines the strong force and it will take LENR, IMHO, to solve this issue. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 11:37 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Jones, I want to ask you about your thougths about the variation in proton mass. Should the variation be measurable with high sensitivity mass spectrometers? I suppose that even a 1% variation would be more than enough to supply all of the nuclear energy that we are seeing since the energy content of the standard
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
Should the net spin be conserved? Energy can be converted and released, but does spin have to be shared with something else as that energy is extracted? This concept may be a key one to consider. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 1:07 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism If energy comes from the strong force, and gluons, the force carrier of the strong force also carry spin, then magnetic energy can carry the energy derived from the strong force, that energy is nuclear energy, On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:58 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: OK, but how does it happen? Should spin be conserved? I can picture two spins in opposite direction sharing net spin leaving heat energy on the table. And in this case, spin could be conserved. Is something like this required? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 12:42 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism Can random thermal motion ever be converted into spin? I assert that this is the underlying mechanism of LENR. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:40 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Thanks Jones. There might be something here that needs further research. Would it not seem logical that there should exist some ultimate minimum energy level for the proton mass? In other words, some mass below which additional energy can not be extracted. I can imagine that higher spin energy states would exist. These may even exchange total energy among the nearby protons such that most remain elevated about the zero additional energy state. Then I might ask about how unidirectional the effect should be. Would the tendency to achieve maximum disorder push the process of converting the stored excess energy into thermal motion? Can random thermal motion ever be converted into spin? I suppose I am reaching for a mechanism that would allow an exchange of the captured spin energy with random thermal energy. I guess that spin energy is strongly associated with angular momentum while thermal energy tends to be considered associated with linear momentum. The two might not mix very well. So far I have not been able to come up with a way to exchange the two types of momentum. Forgive me for rambling on, but this is the way my mind processes interactive ideas as I try to connect the dots. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 12:14 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism From: David Roberson * *I want to ask you about your thougths about the variation in proton mass. Should the variation be measurable with high sensitivity mass spectrometers? Yes and no. This is not unlike the problem of mass-4 similarity between D2 and He but more demanding. There could be repeatable statistical variation over a large population within measurement error of the very top level specialty spectrometer, running for substantial time periods. But in an average lab – no way. Given Rossi’s claims, it might even be possible to actually weight the difference on a sensitive scale if the hydrogen sample was say 10 grams of H2 from a blue box which had given up say a gigawatt of heat over 6 months. There are nanogram scales using piezoelectric effects which could be modified. * I suppose that even a 1% variation would be more than enough to supply all of the nuclear energy that we are seeing since the energy content of the standard mass is so great. Not that large. The usable mass variation for protons appears to be about 70 ppm (part per million). If the distribution is a bell curve, then perhaps one third of the population can be further depleted. In short, the average gain possible can be calculated to be about 5,000-10,000 times more than chemical but about 1,000-2,000 times less than nuclear fusion. * Also, are you aware of any super accurate mass measurements that have shown variation in this factor? I have a collection of published measurements of proton mass (going back to the cold war era) where there were substantial reported variations, especially as seen in Russia. Different instrumentation. Nowadays, everyone automatically seems to use the same value. Jones
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
As the energy of the proton increases via increased velocity, that energy is converted into gluons. If gluons carry spin, part of that new energy is converted to new spin energy. This energy conversion should also work in the other direction when gluons are reconfigured to a lower energy state. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 1:25 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Should the net spin be conserved? Energy can be converted and released, but does spin have to be shared with something else as that energy is extracted? This concept may be a key one to consider. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 1:07 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism If energy comes from the strong force, and gluons, the force carrier of the strong force also carry spin, then magnetic energy can carry the energy derived from the strong force, that energy is nuclear energy, On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:58 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: OK, but how does it happen? Should spin be conserved? I can picture two spins in opposite direction sharing net spin leaving heat energy on the table. And in this case, spin could be conserved. Is something like this required? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 12:42 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism *Can random thermal motion ever be converted into spin?* I assert that this is the underlying mechanism of LENR. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:40 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Thanks Jones. There might be something here that needs further research. Would it not seem logical that there should exist some ultimate minimum energy level for the proton mass? In other words, some mass below which additional energy can not be extracted. I can imagine that higher spin energy states would exist. These may even exchange total energy among the nearby protons such that most remain elevated about the zero additional energy state. Then I might ask about how unidirectional the effect should be. Would the tendency to achieve maximum disorder push the process of converting the stored excess energy into thermal motion? Can random thermal motion ever be converted into spin? I suppose I am reaching for a mechanism that would allow an exchange of the captured spin energy with random thermal energy. I guess that spin energy is strongly associated with angular momentum while thermal energy tends to be considered associated with linear momentum. The two might not mix very well. So far I have not been able to come up with a way to exchange the two types of momentum. Forgive me for rambling on, but this is the way my mind processes interactive ideas as I try to connect the dots. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 12:14 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism From: David Roberson * *I want to ask you about your thougths about the variation in proton mass. Should the variation be measurable with high sensitivity mass spectrometers? Yes and no. This is not unlike the problem of mass-4 similarity between D2 and He but more demanding. There could be repeatable statistical variation over a large population within measurement error of the very top level specialty spectrometer, running for substantial time periods. But in an average lab – no way. Given Rossi’s claims, it might even be possible to actually weight the difference on a sensitive scale if the hydrogen sample was say 10 grams of H2 from a blue box which had given up say a gigawatt of heat over 6 months. There are nanogram scales using piezoelectric effects which could be modified. * I suppose that even a 1% variation would be more than enough to supply all of the nuclear energy that we are seeing since the energy content of the standard mass is so great. Not that large. The usable mass variation for protons appears to be about 70 ppm (part per million). If the distribution is a bell curve, then perhaps one third of the population can be further depleted. In short, the average gain possible can be calculated to be about 5,000-10,000 times more than chemical but about 1,000-2,000 times less than nuclear fusion. * Also, are you aware of any super accurate mass measurements that have shown variation in this factor? I have a collection of published measurements of proton mass (going back to the cold war era) where there were substantial reported variations, especially as seen in Russia. Different instrumentation. Nowadays, everyone automatically seems to use the same value. Jones
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 9:18 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The wiki article seems to tie down the proton mass quite accurately, but it may just be the accuracy of the calculation instead of actual measurements. I would be interested in seeing actual mass measurements by real instruments instead of super computer calculations. It is not too hard to visualize that the measurement accuracy is questionable. How can I go about finding those results? The wiki article gives the proton (rest) mass as being 938.272046(21) MeV/c^2 [1]. If this value is accurate, at that precision I believe we have +/- 1 0.21 eV to use for free energy speculation. As you allude to, there's the accuracy of the mass and the precision of the mass. The precision of the mass given above implies that the standard deviation of the measurements is very small (as small as the numbers in parentheses). The precision and the accuracy of the number are related. The accuracy is the fit with experiment, and it places a bound on the precision that can be specified. The number above is most likely not an ab initio calculation and is instead a summary of the experimental findings relating to the mass of the proton. Because there was no doubt some variability found in the proton mass, a more precise number (more decimal places out) could not be specified. All of this assumes the Wikipedia people are being appropriately diligent in this particular case. Eric [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
I wrote: If this value is accurate, at that precision I believe we have +/- 1 0.21 eV to use for free energy speculation. Sorry -- +/- 0.21 eV. (I need a personal editor.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
Another point to add to this thread -- it's kind of a cool idea to think there might be different energy levels for the proton (or neutron). I gather that the idea is that the constituent particles of the proton (currently believed to be quarks) can be in different states of angular momentum (in contrast to intrinsic spin, which presumably is conserved), and together perhaps provide some kind of shell model, comparable to the electron shell model of the atom and the nuclear shell model of the nucleus. In this case there would be a ground state and then different excited states for the proton as a whole. If a shell-model approach is suitable, perhaps most protons would be in the ground state and then there would be brief periods where some of them are nudged into an excited state, and perhaps a few that are in a longer-lasting metastable state. These states would relax and give off a photon through an immediate or a proximate interaction of some kind. If a quantum system with relaxed and excited states is involved, I doubt that a Gaussian distribution would describe the energies (masses) across the population. Eric
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
I wrote: I gather that the idea is that ... some kind of shell model [is involved]. Another analogy that might be relevant -- there could be different isotopes for protons and neutrons, e.g., bound states with differing numbers of quarks. Eric
RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
From: Eric Walker * The wiki article gives the proton (rest) mass as being 938.272046(21) MeV/c^2 * If this value is accurate, at that precision I believe we have +/- 1 0.21 eV to use for free energy speculation. That is CODATA. Of course, it is no less accurate than any of the others. Unfortunately, it is no more accurate either. How can it be when quarks have variable mass? For instance, Jefferson Lab uses the value of 938.256 MeV. Other Labs, especially overseas have their own values. Some are measured, some calculated, some averaged. I’m in the process of a paper on this, but I can tell you – I have high level estimates within a range, and am convinced that there is at least 70 ppm which is in play, as excess above a median value. That can be called a narrow range, or a wide range, depending on one’s mindset. The only value not in dispute in 2014 goes to the first four digits - 938.2xx MeV … almost everything thereafter, in terms of mass variation, is in play. In fact NASA put men on the moon using a value that was pretty way off from what is now considered reliable. Jones
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: That is CODATA. Of course, it is no less accurate than any of the others. Unfortunately, it is no more accurate either. How can it be when quarks have variable mass? Variability in the mass of the quark does not prevent an accurate proton mass from being specified. What it does is places a bound on the numerical precision that an accurate proton mass value can have. In short, you say 938.2xx MeV, and CODATA (Wikipedia) says 938.272046(21) MeV. Both of these values is accurate to within your value, and the CODATA value may or may not be more accurate. (I have no opinion on whose value is the better one here.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
The energy from LENR comes from gluons. The standard model of physics got it right when it predicted where the mass of ordinary matter comes from, according to a massive new computational effort. Particle physics explains that the bulk of atoms is made up of protons and neutrons, which are themselves composed of smaller particles known as quarks, which in turn are bound by gluons. The odd thing is this: the mass of gluons is zero and the mass of quarks [accounts for] only five percent. Where, therefore, is the missing 95 percent? The answer, according to theory, is that the energy from the interactions between quarks and gluons accounts for the excess mass (because as Einstein’s famous E=mc² equation proved, energy and mass are equivalent). Gluons are the carriers of the strong nuclear force that binds three quarks together to form one proton or neutron; these gluons are constantly popping into existence and disappearing again. The energy of these vacuum fluctuations has to be included in the total mass of the proton and neutron]. The new study finally crunched the numbers on how much energy is created in these fluctuations and confirmed the theory, but it took a supercomputer over a year to do so. The theory that describes the interactions of quarks and gluons is known as quantum chromodynamics, or QCD. These exchanges bind quarks together by changing a quark property known as color charge. This charge is similar to electric charge but comes in three different types, whimsically referred to as red, green and blue. Six different types of quarks interact with eight varieties of gluons to create a panoply of elementary particles. Calculating these interactions was a massive task, as researchers explain in an article in Science, The team used more than a year of time on the parallel computer network at Jülich, which can handle 200 teraflops - or 200 trillion arithmetical calculations per second. But what, you may be saying, of the Higgs boson? The Higgs is often mentioned as an elusive particle that endows other particles with mass, and the Large Hadron Collider will search for it when it starts up again next year. But the Higgs is thought to explain only where the mass of the quarks themselves comes from. The new work confirms that the mass of the stuff around us is due only in very small part to the masses of quarks themselves. Most of it comes from the way they interact. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 5:45 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: That is CODATA. Of course, it is no less accurate than any of the others. Unfortunately, it is no more accurate either. How can it be when quarks have variable mass? Variability in the mass of the quark does not prevent an accurate proton mass from being specified. What it does is places a bound on the numerical precision that an accurate proton mass value can have. In short, you say 938.2xx MeV, and CODATA (Wikipedia) says 938.272046(21) MeV. Both of these values is accurate to within your value, and the CODATA value may or may not be more accurate. (I have no opinion on whose value is the better one here.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
OK, so that leaves just about nothing to extract. It would certainly not be adequate to explain LENR levels of energy we are expecting. So, why do we hear members of the vortex speaking of variation in the mass of the proton as being important? I have to ask about the measurement technique and how it is possible to determine the mass to that level of precision. I have never witnessed the determination of proton mass and plead ignorance to the processes that are used. Can anyone actually make a physical measurement that is to the accuracy suggested? Anyone can calculate the number to as many decimal figures as they desire by using a computer model but the results might not reflect the real world values. Does anyone have first hand experience in making this determination and what is the real standard deviation of the energy content of a lone proton? If the numbers are as precise as you are suggesting then why not put to rest the thought of being able to somehow extract this source of energy? Jones, I think you might have some input that would be helpful. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 4:45 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism I wrote: If this value is accurate, at that precision I believe we have +/- 1 0.21 eV to use for free energy speculation. Sorry -- +/- 0.21 eV. (I need a personal editor.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sat, 9 Aug 2014 06:55:58 -0700: Hi, [snip] We can note that Cravens adds samarium-cobalt to his active mix. This material is permanently magnetized. You might also note that natural Samarium contains two long lived radioactive isotopes, Sm-147 (15%) Sm-148 (11%), both of which decay via alpha decay. If this decay were somehow triggered, it might explain an energy anomaly. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
From: Eric Walker … How can it be when quarks have variable mass? Variability in the mass of the quark does not prevent an accurate proton mass from being specified. What it does is places a bound on the numerical precision that an accurate proton mass value can have You still may not have an accurate understanding. These are real differences - not a function of numerical precision. Of course, quark variability places a bound but that bound is comparatively huge. Hydrogen extracted from deep old methane can have different average mass than hydrogen split from rain water. Interstellar hydrogen or solar-wind hydrogen can vary markedly from either. The source is important. There is no other way to accurately explain the history of variation in measurements. This is not about numerical precision of an instrument so much as it is about unknown variables and the past 13 billion year history of the sample.
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
I tend to agree with your thoughts about different energy states for the proton if it in fact really does consist of a combination of smaller units in some orbital relationships. And, if it does have energy levels, then it should be possible to couple energy to and from those states somehow. Perhaps it requires direct contact or near direct contact. On the other hand, longer reaching electromagnetic interaction would be ideal for coupling to nearby atoms instead of within the same nucleus. If this process is to be the source of LENR energy one would expect the energy storage lifetime to be significant unless it is somehow replenished by another so far undefined nuclear process. Could this sort of process be associated with the sharing of energy among many atoms that arises during one nuclear release? I suppose this might fall in line along with our thoughts about spin coupling and magnetic field interaction. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 5:01 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism Another point to add to this thread -- it's kind of a cool idea to think there might be different energy levels for the proton (or neutron). I gather that the idea is that the constituent particles of the proton (currently believed to be quarks) can be in different states of angular momentum (in contrast to intrinsic spin, which presumably is conserved), and together perhaps provide some kind of shell model, comparable to the electron shell model of the atom and the nuclear shell model of the nucleus. In this case there would be a ground state and then different excited states for the proton as a whole. If a shell-model approach is suitable, perhaps most protons would be in the ground state and then there would be brief periods where some of them are nudged into an excited state, and perhaps a few that are in a longer-lasting metastable state. These states would relax and give off a photon through an immediate or a proximate interaction of some kind. If a quantum system with relaxed and excited states is involved, I doubt that a Gaussian distribution would describe the energies (masses) across the population. Eric
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
Interesting information Jones. Do you plan to distribute your paper within this list when complete? It might help our understanding of the true proton mass and it's potential of being the source of LENR. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 5:36 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism From:Eric Walker Ø Thewiki article gives the proton (rest) mass as being 938.272046(21) MeV/c^2 Ø Ifthis value is accurate, at that precision I believe we have +/- 1 0.21 eV touse for free energy speculation. That isCODATA. Of course, it is no less accurate than any of the others. Unfortunately,it is no more accurate either. How can it be when quarks have variable mass? Forinstance, Jefferson Lab uses the value of 938.256 MeV.Other Labs, especially overseas have their own values. Some are measured, somecalculated, some averaged. I’m in the process of a paper on this, butI can tell you – I have high level estimates within a range, and am convincedthat there is at least 70 ppm which is in play, as excess above a median value. That can be called a narrow range, or a wide range, depending on one’smindset. The only value not in dispute in 2014 goes tothe first four digits - 938.2xx MeV … almost everything thereafter, in termsof mass variation, is in play. In fact NASA put men on the moon using a valuethat was pretty way off from what is now considered reliable. Jones
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
Jones, you describe the proton in a manner that reminds me of different types of coal reserves. If what you say is correct then the proton internal energy storage mechanism must have a half life measured in the billions of years. Perhaps that is true, but it sounds like a revolutionary idea. Extraction of this potential energy must be extremely difficult in nature since otherwise most of it would have been depleted over the lifetime of the universe. A thought just occurred to me concerning the half life of the stored proton energy. A similar concept could be applied to the existence of normal hydrogen in the universe. All of it could eventually be converted into heaver elements in which case it ceases to exist, but a reaction threshold and the physical dimensions of the universe have slowed down the process to an extent that much of the original amount remains to this day, billions of years later. Do protons that were created in the first moments contain varying amounts of internal energy that can remain trapped until somehow triggered? I assume that this is what you are thinking. This is an interesting concept. Mills considers natural hydrogen as the potential source of energy as the electron is induced to move closer to the proton. You go a step further, all the way to the construction of the proton itself. Maybe both processes are available for us to tap. Both processes require that the original source somehow maintains its stored potential energy over eons. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 6:04 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism From:Eric Walker …How can it be when quarks have variable mass? Variability inthe mass of the quark does not prevent an accurate proton mass from beingspecified. What it does is places a bound on the numerical precision thatan accurate proton mass value can have You still may not have anaccurate understanding. These are real differences - not a function ofnumerical precision. Of course, quark variability places a bound but that boundis comparatively huge. Hydrogen extracted from deepold methane can have different average mass than hydrogen split from rain water.Interstellar hydrogen or solar-wind hydrogen can vary markedly from either. Thesource is important. There is no other way to accurately explain the history ofvariation in measurements. This is not aboutnumerical precision of an instrument so much as it is about unknown variables andthe past 13 billion year history of the sample.
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
99% of the proton mass comes from the gluon binding energy. I just want to add more detail about why the proton is heavier than the three constituent quarks that make up the proton, if you start with the three quarks bound into the proton and if you try to pull one of the quarks out of the proton, it will take more and more force and thus more and more energy as you pull the quark out. As energy is added more gluons appear. So as you try to separate the quark out of the proton, the proton actually gets heavier as gluons are created. In fact at some point when enough energy has been added to the system it becomes energetically favorable to create a new pair in the region between the quark the residual proton. Now the the newly created will be attracted to the quark that is being pulled out of the proton whereas the other newly created will be pulled back into the proton which will then constitute a normal proton again with 3 quarks. Meanwhile the that is being pulled out and the newly created will become bound together as a meson - therefore the attempt to pull a quark out of a proton will result in a final state that has a meson and a proton. So the weird thing about the strong color force is that due to the fact the force increases with distance instead of decreasing with distance, it is impossible to separate the bound state of quarks into individual quarks and thus it is impossible to compare the constituent masses to the mass of the bound state. When energy is added to a proton, the space between the quarks increases in quantum increments. When enough magnetic energy is added to the proton, you will end up creating new kinds of particles and these new particles will be heavier than the original bound state of quarks. Mesons decay into pions which controls the attraction of protons and neutrons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pion skip In particle physics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_physics, a *pion* (short for *pi meson*, denoted with π) is any of three subatomic particles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subatomic_particle: π0, π+, and π−. Each pion consists of a quark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark and an antiquark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiquark and is therefore a meson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meson. Pions are the lightest mesons and they play an important role in explaining the low-energy properties of the strong nuclear force http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_nuclear_force. Pions are unstable, with the charged pions π+ and π− decaying with a mean life time of 26 nanoseconds and the neutral pion π0 decaying with an even shorter lifetime. Charged pions tend to decay into muons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon and muon neutrinos, and neutral pions into gamma rays http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_ray. Applying a sufficiently strong magnetic field to protons may result in muon catalyzed fusion. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 6:59 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Jones, you describe the proton in a manner that reminds me of different types of coal reserves. If what you say is correct then the proton internal energy storage mechanism must have a half life measured in the billions of years. Perhaps that is true, but it sounds like a revolutionary idea. Extraction of this potential energy must be extremely difficult in nature since otherwise most of it would have been depleted over the lifetime of the universe. A thought just occurred to me concerning the half life of the stored proton energy. A similar concept could be applied to the existence of normal hydrogen in the universe. All of it could eventually be converted into heaver elements in which case it ceases to exist, but a reaction threshold and the physical dimensions of the universe have slowed down the process to an extent that much of the original amount remains to this day, billions of years later. Do protons that were created in the first moments contain varying amounts of internal energy that can remain trapped until somehow triggered? I assume that this is what you are thinking. This is an interesting concept. Mills considers natural hydrogen as the potential source of energy as the electron is induced to move closer to the proton. You go a step further, all the way to the construction of the proton itself. Maybe both processes are available for us to tap. Both processes require that the original source somehow maintains its stored potential energy over eons. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 6:04 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism *From:* Eric Walker … How can it be when quarks have variable mass? Variability in the mass of the quark does not prevent an accurate proton mass from being specified. What it does is places a bound on the numerical precision that an accurate proton mass value can have You still may
RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
-Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com We can note that Cravens adds samarium-cobalt to his active mix. This material is permanently magnetized. You might also note that natural Samarium contains two long lived radioactive isotopes, Sm-147 (15%) Sm-148 (11%), both of which decay via alpha decay. If this decay were somehow triggered, it might explain an energy anomaly. Good point Robin - and you forgot Sm-149, an alpha emitter which is also in sizeable percentage ... but the half-life of these is a hundred billion year range and up, so it would definitely require accelerated decay to be relevant - and that would also show helium in the ash. However, the wild card for samarium is probably not accelerated decay so much as it is alteration of the QM probability field which can be a function of any radioactive decay isotope in a tiny percentage. At least that was the opinion of a series of experiments which showed large gain from small additions of alpha emitters.
RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
From: Axil Axil 99% of the proton mass comes from the gluon binding energy. I just want to add more detail about why the proton is heavier than the three constituent quarks that make up the proton… Nonsense. Where did that bogon come from? It must be a typo…
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
Energy states are always quantized based on a quantum number so that there will be ascending levels of energy in the protons.
RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
Dave, I’d like to get it published when completed. This first came up in regard to a hypothesis for reversible proton fusion (RPF) which is not ruled out, but does not fit the circumstances as well as spin-coupling. In fact RPF could precede spin-coupling, in the sense of being causative. As you can see, it is more complex than just variable proton mass. Anyway, the bottom line for LENR with protium is that hydrogen from a few sources can provide as much as 15-30 keV per proton in net mass-energy, available for conversion by spin coupling with no identity change in the nucleon (there is no permanent fusion or transmutation, but the energy is nuclear). Of course, only a fraction of any population of protons will be “heavy” enough but the extra mass of the tail of that fraction can be up to 100 keV per proton. From: David Roberson Interesting information Jones. Do you plan to distribute your paper within this list when complete? It might help our understanding of the true proton mass and it's potential of being the source of LENR. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 5:36 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism From: Eric Walker * The wiki article gives the proton (rest) mass as being 938.272046(21) MeV/c^2 * If this value is accurate, at that precision I believe we have +/- 1 0.21 eV to use for free energy speculation. That is CODATA. Of course, it is no less accurate than any of the others. Unfortunately, it is no more accurate either. How can it be when quarks have variable mass? For instance, Jefferson Lab uses the value of 938.256 MeV. Other Labs, especially overseas have their own values. Some are measured, some calculated, some averaged. I’m in the process of a paper on this, but I can tell you – I have high level estimates within a range, and am convinced that there is at least 70 ppm which is in play, as excess above a median value. That can be called a narrow range, or a wide range, depending on one’s mindset. The only value not in dispute in 2014 goes to the first four digits - 938.2xx MeV … almost everything thereafter, in terms of mass variation, is in play. In fact NASA put men on the moon using a value that was pretty way off from what is now considered reliable. Jones
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: ... the proton which will then constitute a normal proton again with 3 quarks. My recollection is that there are three valence quarks which contribute to the charge and spin of the proton, together with a multitude of sea quarks that do not contribute (perhaps because they're paired up). Eric
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2014/jul/11/gluons-get-in-on-proton-spin Gluons get in on proton spin New research shows that gluons carry most of the protons spin snip In the latest work, a group of theorists – Daniel de Florian http://users.df.uba.ar/deflo/deflo/main.html, from the Aires University in Argentina, and colleagues – analysed several years' worth of collision data from RHIC's STAR and PHENIX experiments. De Florian and colleagues have now studied data collected up until 2009, and have compared those data with a theoretical model they have developed that predicts the likely spin direction of gluons carrying a certain fraction of the momentum involved in the proton collisions. The researchers discovered, in contrast to a null result they obtained using fewer data five years ago, that gluon spin does tend to line up with that of the protons, rather than against it. In fact, they estimate that gluons could supply as much as half of a proton's spin. This is the first evidence that suggests gluons could make a significant contribution to proton spin, says team member Werner Vogelsang http://www.tphys.physik.uni-tuebingen.de/~vogelsang/Welcome.html of Tübingen University in Germany, who adds that, on theoretical grounds, gluons ought to supply the same amount of spin to neutrons. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 9:06 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: ... the proton which will then constitute a normal proton again with 3 quarks. My recollection is that there are three valence quarks which contribute to the charge and spin of the proton, together with a multitude of sea quarks that do not contribute (perhaps because they're paired up). Eric
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
Muon catalyzed fusion might come about when a magnetic field creates a muon during proton interaction with a magnetic field from meson production via meson decay. To create this effect, a stream of negative muons, most often created by decaying pions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pion, is sent to a crystal of hydrogen. The muon may bump the electron from one of the hydrogen isotopes. The muon, 207 times more massive than the electron, effectively shields and reduces the electromagnetic repulsion between two nuclei and draws them much closer into a covalent bond than an electron can. Because the nuclei are so close, the strong nuclear force is able to kick in and bind both nuclei together. They fuse, release the catalytic muon (most of the time), and part of the original mass of both nuclei is released as energetic particles, as with any other type of nuclear fusion. The release of the catalytic muon is critical to continue the reactions. The majority of the muons continue to bond with other hydrogen isotopes and continue fusing nuclei together. However, not all of the muons are recycled: some bond with other debris emitted following the fusion of the nuclei (such as alpha particles and helions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helion_(chemistry)), removing the muons from the catalytic process. This gradually chokes off the reactions, as there are fewer and fewer muons with which the nuclei may bond. The number of reactions achieved in the lab can be as high as 150 fusions per muon (average). Muons will continue to be produced through energy injection into the protons and neutrons of the atoms within the influence of the magnetic beam. This magnetic based reaction is more probable than the magnetic formation of a quark/gluon plasma since it only requires 100 MeV of energy to produce the muon. Linier and angular momentum is conserved via neutrino production during the decay of the pion to keep all spins zero. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 6:00 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: OK, so that leaves just about nothing to extract. It would certainly not be adequate to explain LENR levels of energy we are expecting. So, why do we hear members of the vortex speaking of variation in the mass of the proton as being important? I have to ask about the measurement technique and how it is possible to determine the mass to that level of precision. I have never witnessed the determination of proton mass and plead ignorance to the processes that are used. Can anyone actually make a physical measurement that is to the accuracy suggested? Anyone can calculate the number to as many decimal figures as they desire by using a computer model but the results might not reflect the real world values. Does anyone have first hand experience in making this determination and what is the real standard deviation of the energy content of a lone proton? If the numbers are as precise as you are suggesting then why not put to rest the thought of being able to somehow extract this source of energy? Jones, I think you might have some input that would be helpful. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 4:45 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism I wrote: If this value is accurate, at that precision I believe we have +/- 1 0.21 eV to use for free energy speculation. Sorry -- +/- 0.21 eV. (I need a personal editor.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
Muon catalyzed fusion could be the enabler of Proton Proton fusion (PP). The double protons seen in the Piantelli experiments might be due to the first steps in the PP fusion chain. PP will exist until there is a positron emission to form deuterium. The PP could then be fused with nickel to form copper via muon fusion. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 11:13 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Muon catalyzed fusion might come about when a magnetic field creates a muon during proton interaction with a magnetic field from meson production via meson decay. To create this effect, a stream of negative muons, most often created by decaying pions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pion, is sent to a crystal of hydrogen. The muon may bump the electron from one of the hydrogen isotopes. The muon, 207 times more massive than the electron, effectively shields and reduces the electromagnetic repulsion between two nuclei and draws them much closer into a covalent bond than an electron can. Because the nuclei are so close, the strong nuclear force is able to kick in and bind both nuclei together. They fuse, release the catalytic muon (most of the time), and part of the original mass of both nuclei is released as energetic particles, as with any other type of nuclear fusion. The release of the catalytic muon is critical to continue the reactions. The majority of the muons continue to bond with other hydrogen isotopes and continue fusing nuclei together. However, not all of the muons are recycled: some bond with other debris emitted following the fusion of the nuclei (such as alpha particles and helions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helion_(chemistry)), removing the muons from the catalytic process. This gradually chokes off the reactions, as there are fewer and fewer muons with which the nuclei may bond. The number of reactions achieved in the lab can be as high as 150 fusions per muon (average). Muons will continue to be produced through energy injection into the protons and neutrons of the atoms within the influence of the magnetic beam. This magnetic based reaction is more probable than the magnetic formation of a quark/gluon plasma since it only requires 100 MeV of energy to produce the muon. Linier and angular momentum is conserved via neutrino production during the decay of the pion to keep all spins zero. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 6:00 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: OK, so that leaves just about nothing to extract. It would certainly not be adequate to explain LENR levels of energy we are expecting. So, why do we hear members of the vortex speaking of variation in the mass of the proton as being important? I have to ask about the measurement technique and how it is possible to determine the mass to that level of precision. I have never witnessed the determination of proton mass and plead ignorance to the processes that are used. Can anyone actually make a physical measurement that is to the accuracy suggested? Anyone can calculate the number to as many decimal figures as they desire by using a computer model but the results might not reflect the real world values. Does anyone have first hand experience in making this determination and what is the real standard deviation of the energy content of a lone proton? If the numbers are as precise as you are suggesting then why not put to rest the thought of being able to somehow extract this source of energy? Jones, I think you might have some input that would be helpful. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 4:45 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism I wrote: If this value is accurate, at that precision I believe we have +/- 1 0.21 eV to use for free energy speculation. Sorry -- +/- 0.21 eV. (I need a personal editor.) Eric
