http://www.riversup.com/zoqltksa/tmlrs.psvjm?gkl
Kelly Smunt
A Fano interference is an Interference between a background and a resonant
scattering process that produces the asymmetric line-shape.
In a lattice, the background frequency is infrared heat, the resonant
scattering process is dipole hole/electron oscillation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fano_r
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
> It seems a bit more logical to suggest that the lack of gammas can be
> better
> explained by the lack of the kind of nuclear reaction that produces gammas.
> The most prevalent nuclear reaction in the Universe, reversible proton
> fusion, prod
Axil
I didn't know that was the focus of Peter Hagelstein's work. However, he
says he adds a "weird kind of loss" to his model. Any idea what he means?
BTW, It occured to me that a "failed" model, i.e. a classically unstable
model, could also produce a similar result, where a given amount of
energ
From: Eric Walker
One implication appears to be that you would see 4He traveling twice as fast in
a given direction near where a reaction has taken place than you would in
normal d+d plasma fusion.
Let me emend that -- in d+d plasma fusion, you have the three branches:
1. d+d → 4H
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:00 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 1:54 PM, wrote:
>
> To put it in simple terms, the presence of the spectator nucleus provides
>> the
>> 4He, something to "push off" against, like a swimmer pushing off against
>> the end
>> of the pool. The spectator n
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
> One implication appears to be that you would see 4He traveling twice as
> fast in a given direction near where a reaction has taken place than you
> would in normal d+d plasma fusion.
>
Let me emend that -- in d+d plasma fusion, you have the
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
You can’t be serious.
>
Yes, I think that's the point. I had a friend in high school who would say
the most absurd things just to get a reaction out of people.
Eric
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 1:54 PM, wrote:
To put it in simple terms, the presence of the spectator nucleus provides
> the
> 4He, something to "push off" against, like a swimmer pushing off against
> the end
> of the pool. The spectator nucleus also gets some of the kinetic energy,
> IOW it
> moves a
Lately Rossi has been saying a home version of the Ecat is years away
although he doesn't really say why.
Harry
Well, for the sake of tying up loose ends, one reason why - could be because
the unit will not start without a "probability field" enhancement. And such
an enhancement might
Fran,
I think this would require a violation of the second law of thermodynamics.
Harry
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:
> Harry,
>
> I am ok with COE remaining a law but the “convention” that
> HUP can never be tapped needs to be stricken. My point
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 7:54 PM, David Roberson wrote:
> The recent inventions of Rossi do not have enough shielding to stop gammas
> at 511 keV. I also have not seen him mention that this is a problem
> anymore and I hope that they are not emitted in large numbers since that
> would make home us
In the case where a positron and electron annihilate each other the
conservation of momentum requires that the two photons be emitted in exact
opposition and with exactly the same energy. Perhaps it is possible to assume
that if the two opposing photons are observed then a process of this type
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 10:33 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:
Why, in some nuclear interactions, do two gammas go shooting off in OPPOSITE
directions???
Where is the physical model that explains the REASON for these basic
observations???
***Here's the physical model I proposed here on Vortex
when you
The recent inventions of Rossi do not have enough shielding to stop gammas at
511 keV. I also have not seen him mention that this is a problem anymore and I
hope that they are not emitted in large numbers since that would make home use
of his device problematic.
Dave
-Original Message-
That is my fear Jones. A photon has a large energy to momentum ratio as
compared to an electron. I would expect to see Compton reflection of the high
energy gamma as it collides with electrons. It is very presumptuous to assume
that the gammas will be absorbed quickly. Does anyone see how bo
Rossi has consistently refused to provide details of what is going on
inside the E-Cat reactor, but he has mentioned that gamma rays have been
detected. In a video interview when asked about whether the E-Cat was a
‘cold fusion’ technology he said, “we have found traces of fusion because
we have fo
The problem with such a high energy gamma hitting an electron is that the
total mass-energy of the target is only 2-3% of the mass-energy of the
driver. This slight impediment does not even slow the gamma down very much.
There could possibly be pair-production but to imagine that the re-emission
wa
From: Axil
Your inexactitude in thinking is hard to overcome. Let us try another piece
of info as follows:
When Rossi first stated his demonstrations and the public comments about
them, his first few shows were marred by a troublesome condition during
startup and shutdown where signi
Your inexactitude in thinking is hard to overcome. Let us try another piece
of info as follows:
When Rossi first stated his demonstrations and the public comments about
them, his first few shows were marred by a troublesome condition during
startup and shutdown where significant gamma radiation wa
Has anyone looked to see that momentum is conserved in these processes?
Dave
-Original Message-
From: mixent
To: vortex-l
Sent: Thu, Apr 4, 2013 5:45 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Thu, 4 Apr 2013 12:29:42 -07
In reply to Roarty, Francis X's message of Thu, 4 Apr 2013 18:58:33 +:
Hi,
[snip]
>Harry,
>I am ok with COE remaining a law but the "convention" that HUP
> can never be tapped needs to be stricken. My point is that the random forces
> normally cancelled in the macro world bec
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Thu, 4 Apr 2013 12:29:42 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>More disinformation. There is no possibility of nano-sized sites stopping
>gamma radiation. This requires thick lead shielding.
..I have often wondered if an electron that is within the wavelength of a gamma
(i.e. a
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Thu, 4 Apr 2013 16:02:17 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>*
>
>Evidence of electromagnetic radiation from Ni-H Systems
>*
>http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CDsQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnewenergytimes.com%2Fv2%2Flibrary%2F2004
I would think that the works of Charles Fort would offer strong support to the
matrix concept. Also, the appearance of ghosts often contain a strong
repetitive character that makes me think about a glitch in a computer that gets
it stuck in a loop.
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Wed, 3 Apr 2013 23:38:46 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>The higher the energy, the smaller the body, going down from outer electron
>shells to individual nucleons and, presumably, quarks. But as the size
>decreases, the probability of an interaction will no doubt go down in
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Wed, 3 Apr 2013 20:20:58 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>[1] http://phys.org/news/2013-04-quarks-dictate-proton.html
BTW, compare this to:-
http://checkerboard.dnsalias.net/
Regards,
Robin van Spaandonk
http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
You can't be serious.
These are extraordinarily low radiation counts over long periods.
35 megajoules of excess heat over 22 days and what? . a few hundred counts.
LOL
This is strong evidence against a direct correlation of radiation to heat -
not evidence for a correlation.
Yes,
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Wed, 3 Apr 2013 20:20:58 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>An example of a new branch would be:
>
>d + d ? 4He + M,
>
>where M is a nearby nucleus that shares the energy of the reaction as a
>spectator (all of this should be familiar as Ron Maimon's idea). This
>conserve
*
Evidence of electromagnetic radiation from Ni-H Systems
*
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CDsQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnewenergytimes.com%2Fv2%2Flibrary%2F2004%2F2004Focardi-EvidenceOfElectromagneticRadiation.pdf&ei=-NpdUemSBITB4AP364CYBA&usg=
_
From: MarkI-ZeroPoint
So, out of all the erudite Vorts, no one can answer the
following simple questions:
Why are the UP-spin quarks on OPPOSITE sides of the proton
from
From: Axil Axil
The reason this claim of W-L theory is ludicrous --- Of course this is not
LENR, but it is the model for gamma downshifting, and if you want to assert
two distinct miracles - then it is wise to show some other evidence than the
very phenomenon you wish to explain - with y
Harry,
I am ok with COE remaining a law but the "convention" that HUP
can never be tapped needs to be stricken. My point is that the random forces
normally cancelled in the macro world become organized by casimir geometry and
can provide an exploitable bias from zero point energy
*The reason this claim of W-L theory is ludicrous --- Of course this is not
LENR, but it is the model for gamma downshifting, and if you want to assert
two distinct miracles - then it is wise to show some other evidence than
the very phenomenon you wish to explain - with your outrageous claim.
*
G
It might be possible to develop "realistic" models which explain these
things if CoE is demoted from a law to a convention
or should a law always take precedence over intelligibility and experience?
Harry
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 1:33 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:
> So, out of all the erudite Vorts,
So, out of all the erudite Vorts, no one can answer the following simple
questions:
Why are the UP-spin quarks on OPPOSITE sides of the proton from the
DOWN-spin quarks???
Why do...
"All spin directions collapse on one or the OPPOSITE direction depending on
the measured photon polarization." ???
Jones, I forgive you for hijacking the original thread since I was an
accomplice. I would like to understand the RPF reaction better if possible and
to determine why it does not emit a gamma as you point out. If the collisions
between the protons are elastic, then the energy could be conserved
Yeah Mizzou! The place is becoming my favorite university.
- Jed
Kevin O'Malley wrote:
> . . . there is no possible way to adequately explain the lack
> of gammas in LENR - other than that they never happened at all.
>
I know little of theory, but that has long been my gut feeling. Some cold
fusion cells to produce gamma rays but I think this is a secondary
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130403131354.htm
This is a paper in the latest issue of J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sic.:
http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol11.pdf
Over the years, many experts in mass spectroscopy have told me that SIMS
can be inaccurate in some conditions, such as when one isotope is found in
much lower concentration than anoth
There seems to be two different overlapping threads going on here, since
Mark's original suggestion relating to subatomic quark resonance was
hijacked (by moi) in favor of another related subject: "lack of gammas" in
LENR. Apologies for that.
However, in regard to the latter, the take-away messag
http://www.amazon.com/Energy-Cold-Fusion-Antigravity-Znidarsic/dp/1480270237/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1365076195&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=%22znidarsic+science+books%22
In the end, it should be crystal clear to anyone who understands nuclear
engineering - that there is no possible way to adequately explain the lack
of gammas in LENR - other than that they never happened at all.
Jones
***This is an elegant aspect of the theory, it obeys Occham's Razor.
Thrusters powered by ionic wind as efficient alternative propulsion
technology -- huge solar powered high altitude airships could spiral into
orbit in a week, using their own H2 gas as reaction mass for myriad tiny
thrusters: Rich Murray 2013.04.04
http://phys.org/news/2013-04-thrusters-powered-i
45 matches
Mail list logo
