In reply to Eric Walker's message of Sat, 14 Nov 2015 17:56:05 -0600:
Hi,
>On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 5:13 PM, David Roberson wrote:
>
>Overall, this appears to be an example of a torque being applied to a
>> flywheel that causes its angular momentum and angular energy to change with
>> time. I do
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 16 Nov 2015 14:19:05 -0800:
Hi Jones,
[snip]
>-Original Message-
>From: mix...@bigpond.com
>
>If negative muons are present, then positive muons should be too (to balance
>the negatively charged muons), and if I'm not mistaken, they should decay
>
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 1:56 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
In short, it is conceivable to reject the past findings of helium in cold
> fusion, for the reasons Krivit has argued.
There's yet another possible take on this. There can be a helium surplus
and a correlation with excess heat, without having
>
> If negative muons are present, then positive muons should be too (to
> balance the
> negatively charged muons), and if I'm not mistaken, they should decay into
> a
> positron and a (anti?)neutrino.
> The positrons should then annihilate electrons from their surroundings
> producing
> 511 keV ga
-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com
If negative muons are present, then positive muons should be too (to balance
the negatively charged muons), and if I'm not mistaken, they should decay
into a positron and a (anti?)neutrino. The positrons should then annihilate
electrons from the
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 16 Nov 2015 11:56:51 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
>OTOH - Holmlid provides lots of data for the existence of muons - which
>decay in a few microseconds. If this is true - an interesting question is
>this: since muons decay to only neutrinos and an electron, is there
In reply to Bob Cook's message of Sun, 15 Nov 2015 14:34:43 -0800:
Hi Bob,
As I said, I'm just guessing. I don't believe or know anything for sure. The
idea that neutrons and protons are comprised of electrons and positrons is
interesting, though It makes me wonder about the stability of matter.
I will freely confess that I don’t know what system or arrangement will make
any difference. I have some hope that a hybrid system such as China or Russia
might produce results that cannot be obtained in ‘free market’ nations such as
the US. There was a recent Nobel prize given for a malaria t
Water can be good or bad in LENR depending.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Book&bookcmd=download&collection_id=9a19cfad4f4b092deac60f097f1fb95dac068d15&writer=rdf2latex&return_to=Electromagnetic+absorption+by+water
Why is water a friend to the Ni/H reaction and a enemy to the
Maybe right (Sovjet won), Chris. I still think there was no winner just a
loser in WWll like all other wars. However, having said so it is true that
the drain from the Soviet front made Hitler's reich collapse, as it did to
Napoleon a 100 years before and before that another 100 years earlier
(170
A fair reading of Holmlid's papers indicates that it is comparatively less
difficult to disintegrate nucleons of dense hydrogen/deuterium using a laser
pulse than to fuse deuterium - IOW - a strongly energetic reaction happens,
without showing the indicia of nuclear fusion.
How does this finding,
At CERN, the energy of the proton anti-proton collision is adjusted to
produce and amount of energy that matches the resonance value for example
at with a K-Meson will condense out of the vacuum.
In the Holmlid experiment, a magnetic field of sufficient power is produced
to reach the energy level
Hotson's theory does go on to hypothesize on the sub-nucleonic structure of
the proton and neutron based upon arrangements of epos (shrunken
positronium), explains the nature of the strong force, is extended to
explain gravity and electromagnetic propagation. It explains the
experiment that is the
In FQHE, the fractional charge comes from magnetic resonances of the
magnetic field forming paired vortexes. This resonance based
quasi-particle formation process
produces particles in all cases including electrons, quarks, gluons, and
the rest.
The explanation of the Fractional Quantum Hall Effec
The Fractional Quantum Hall Effect is presently a measurement in need of an
explanation. To my knowledge, no one is attributing fractional charge to
an individual elementary particle in attempted explanation of the data.
The theories seem to revolve around collective phenomena.
On Mon, Nov 16, 20
Axil--
The fractional charges are related to “holes” in a charge density, not primary
particles carrying a charge IMHO. These “holes” I believe result from
geometric arrangements of actual charged particles including combinations of
plus and minus charges.
Bob Cook
From: Axil Axil
Sen
Bob-
I agree with your assessment. As I stated yesterday in response to Eric, I
think Hatt’s theory is consistent with reality, particularly with respect to
its predictions of measurable parameters. Your note about Hotson
considerations fits in to the Hatt theory as you note.
My previous com
I have to say I like the idea. I have seen Hotson and Hatt mentioned here a few
times but must admit I don't know much about their theories. If they say all
fundemental particles are some form of electron in some kind of phase or state
do they also have an explanation for neutrinos? Sounds like
Has anyone ever measured an elementary particle with a charge other than an
integer multiple of e?
The Fractional Quantum Hall Effect
Just published:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/11/nov-16-2015-lenr-opinions-and-info.html
All the best,
Peter
--
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
> On Nov 16, 2015, at 5:28, Stephen Cooke wrote:
>
> With spin at least I suppose the current numbering system has the advantage
> of easily distinguishing fermions and Bosons.
If we reindexed spin to be only integer multiples, fermions would have odd spin
and bosons even spin.
This idea ass
The concept of the fractional charge quarks as constituents of matter is a
completely made-up story/hypothesis. Has anyone ever measured an
elementary particle with a charge other than an integer multiple of e?
Hotson proposes that because of this the electron IS the one and only
fundamental parti
A few corrections: the Soviet Union won WW2. About 75% of German casualties
were from the eastern front – they drained Hitler. Careful historians know this
but it’s not a popular subject. Then Senator Harry Truman thought ‘we ought to
help whoever’s losing’ in the fight between Stalin and Hit
Interesting ideas and points about the numbering system. I wonder what would be
the best most meaningful fundamental numbering system to use.
With spin at least I suppose the current numbering system has the advantage of
easily distinguishing fermions and Bosons. And gives insights for fermion
24 matches
Mail list logo
