To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Jun 1, 2014 1:46 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:An emerging diproton plus halo hypothesis
From:Bob Cook
As robinpoints out the size of the wave length of the EM radiation does not
depend uponthe size of the emitting entity.
Hi Bob,
Did Robin say
From: David Roberson
In the RF world emissions can be generated by antennas that
are far shorter than the wavelength of the radiation. The efficiency of the
radiator becomes lower as the size decreases but it emits non the less.
Jones-
You mention high spin emitters. What were they?
I would assume that the larger the magnetic field the spin emitters were in,
the greater the emitted energy would be since the difference between the energy
levels of adjacent states would be greater.
Things to consider:
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 2 Jun 2014 10:05:10 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
However, experience rules and if there is found to be no longer wl than
this in physics then the relative disproportion can be explained possibly
via some higher power law. For instance the square of 137 is an
From: Bob Cook
As robin points out the size of the wave length of the EM radiation does not
depend upon the size of the emitting entity.
Hi Bob,
Did Robin say that? – if so, his point comes under the category of opinion
AFAIK - since the emission of EM radiation always depends
from Robin’s email of May 23,2014: 16:58:19 -0700
The problem with normal nuclear radiation is that it is very short
wavelength - which is not seen in LENR experiments. Working backwards from a
spectrum which could have escaped detection, we can hypothesize that there
needs to be an emitter
Jones--
As a further comment I have copied a paragraph from Wikipedia which is what I
am describing as nuclear magnetic resonance.
Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) is the name given to a physical resonance
phenomenon involving the observation of specific quantum mechanical magnetic
On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:
However, the MRI absorption and emission of energy may not be called EM
radiation the way you are using the term. Nevertheless MRI does entail
nuclear emission of low energy quanta IMHO
I'm wading into a thread that I
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sun, 1 Jun 2014 10:46:36 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
In fact, my belief (pending a citation from you or Robin to contradict it) -
is that this blanket statement above about lack of a geometrical parameter is
completely incorrect - and in fact no nucleus can emit
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sun, 1 Jun 2014 10:46:36 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
The shortest emission wavelength (lowest quanta of energy) which I have seen
from a relatively cold nucleus (non kinetic radiation) corresponds to mass
energy around 6 keV. If there is anything shorter in the
Robin, etal---
It is via coupling to a magnetic field that energy is added to increase the
angular momentum of a nucleus in NMR devices and hence the energy of the
subject nucleus. The energy is then re-deposited in the magnetic field when
the field strength changes from a resonance value
I apologize for responding so tardily. But I have been in transit and
outfitting for my summer/fall in Alaska.
Jones--
The dimensions of the emitter associated with spin transitions in a nucleus or
during nuclear magnetic momentum transitions does not have anything to do with
the size
In vacuum dynamics, it is important to get the chain of causation correct.
The key in all this is to produce a huge magnetic field.
In order to get a huge magnetic field, charge must be removed from the
electrons that produce the spin that in turn will produce this magnetic
field.
There is a process that is strong enough to overcome the coulomb barrier
between the fermions in a cooper pair. In type II superconductors, this
process is called fractionalization. When a large group of electrons are
packed so tightly together by the arrangement of atoms in the
superconductor
If the spin down in the halo nucleus is the result of progressively lower spin
energy states separated by small differential energy, there may be no gammas
or x-rays.
Bob
aSent from Windows Mail
From: Jones Beene
Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2014 5:07 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
There is a process that is strong enough to overcome the coulomb barrier
between the fermions in a cooper pair. This process is called
fractionalization. When a large group of fermions are packed so tightly
together, in order for one to move one beyond another, they must tunnel to
where they are
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sun, 18 May 2014 17:07:47 -0700:
Hi Jones,
[snip]
Tritium is seen in Farnsworth Fusor, for instance and zero helium is seen -
indicating that a different channel that looks more like hot fusion is
available for tritium.
Do you have a reference for this? All
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sun, 18 May 2014 16:58:19 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com
Why invoke electrogravity when the normal nuclear force will do just fine?
Note that the neutrons in the deuterons are already within range of this
force, as the
A newly-found paper, coincidence, metaphor and side notes are converging
into a new diproton plus halo explanation for deuterium-to-helium slow
fusion sans gamma.
My apology to Ed Storms if this reflects his own viewpoint, but in fact it
came up as an alternative way to arrive at a defensible
Yes, this is aprox. the idea I developed with Akito. The fusing atoms are
like mini neutron stars.
2014-05-18 15:36 GMT-03:00 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net:
This explanation would be that D+D occasionally forms
incompletely, not as 4He but instead as a two proton core - the
On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
Instead, the diproton plus halo explanation sees EUV coming from
electrogravitational collapse of transient halo neutrons into a diproton
core.
Is gravity integral to this halo neutron explanation?
Eric
I don't know what Jones will answer, but the equations for gravity near a
neutron star are similar, as a 1st aprox., to Maxwell equations.
2014-05-18 16:01 GMT-03:00 Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com:
On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
Instead, the
From: Eric Walker
Instead, the diproton plus halo explanation sees EUV coming from
electrogravitational collapse of transient halo neutrons into a diproton
core.
Is gravity integral to this halo neutron explanation?
Only in the sense of electrogravity – as a unification of
Sounds good.
But to fit observed tritium production you also must
have an halo nucleus for tritium.
And if the neutrons spiral down
(quantified) emitting EUV in the beginning the size are shrinking and
there would be x-rays and at gamma at the end.
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sun, 18 May 2014 11:36:19 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
It builds on the insight of Bob, Dave and Robin that exclusivity to one
channel can be ingrained if the QM reaction can happen only in a reversed
mode where energy release precedes actual fusion as an operative
-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com
Why invoke electrogravity when the normal nuclear force will do just fine?
Note that the neutrons in the deuterons are already within range of this
force, as the deuteron is already bound.
Yes, of course. That's the basic problem. The
Good points.
However, tritium could result from a completely different type of LENR reaction
than helium (4He). 3He, if seen, would then be the decay product of tritium.
Tritium is seen in Farnsworth Fusor, for instance and zero helium is seen -
indicating that a different channel that
27 matches
Mail list logo
