Re: [Vo]:New force couples electron to neutron
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomalous_magnetic_dipole_moment both the muon and the tau have dipole monments that don't add up in the standard model. This is what the dark force is all about... The search for dark photons and the g-2 anomaly http://theory.fnal.gov/jetp/talks/Rouven-Essig-Fermilab.pdf On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 10:25 PM, a.ashfield wrote: > The whole idea of a particle like a boson holding things together seems to > make little sense, unless particle is a bad name and it is like Carver > Mead's idea that an electron can be infinitely long. > >
Re: [Vo]:New force couples electron to neutron
The whole idea of a particle like a boson holding things together seems to make little sense, unless particle is a bad name and it is like Carver Mead's idea that an electron can be infinitely long.
Re: [Vo]:New force couples electron to neutron
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin%E2%80%93charge_separation The electron may be forming from the two more fundamental electron parts that show symmetry breaking at this 140 degree angle. This pre election might be a twister that contains all the fundamental parts of the electron and positron all contained inside. This could be a good thing for sting theory. It's bad news for the L&W theory since a boat load of energy is required to make the electron compatible with protons conversion to neutrons. On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 8:59 PM, John Berry wrote: > I should have said: And that only as a group and or over time or at a > distance does the fields become a smooth inverse square with > no irregularities, perturbations or features. > > On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 12:56 PM, John Berry > wrote: > >> Maybe I'm missing something here, but all this strong, weak and 5th force >> nonsense... >> >> Couldn't it simply be that the electric field from a single subatomic >> particle isn't a perfect inverse square law field on the micro-scale >> especially at a single point in time, but has perturbations. maybe an axis >> related to spin. >> >> And that only as a group and or over time does the field become a smooth >> inverse square, indeed perhaps "lines of force" actually exist. >> >> This up close, packed into a nucleus or another tight cluster (Ken >> Shoulder electron charge cluster) the repulsion might be overcome. >> >> Not another force, just discontinuities in the electric field. >> >> Otherwise doesn't Ken Shoulders work point to a 6th force? >> >> John >> >> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 8:18 AM, Axil Axil wrote: >> >>> Thanks Russ, a great find. >>> >>> A new boson must carry a new force since bosons are force carriers. But >>> I wonder if this force could be something that comes out of the dirac >>> equations that has not been seen before experimentally, Maybe this new >>> particle is carrying the monopole charge? The experimenters should put this >>> particle in a magnetic field and see how it bends. >>> >>> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Russ George >>> wrote: >>> Here’s a lead on one of the great mysteries, just how is an electron coupled to a neutron as clearly neutrons spit out electrons when they decay. http://www.nature.com/news/has-a-hungarian-physics-lab-found-a-fifth-force-of-nature-1.19957 Of course if ordinary neutrons hold on to ordinary electrons, albeit weakly, that could explain more than a few mysteries. >>> >>> >> >
Re: [Vo]:New force couples electron to neutron
I should have said: And that only as a group and or over time or at a distance does the fields become a smooth inverse square with no irregularities, perturbations or features. On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 12:56 PM, John Berry wrote: > Maybe I'm missing something here, but all this strong, weak and 5th force > nonsense... > > Couldn't it simply be that the electric field from a single subatomic > particle isn't a perfect inverse square law field on the micro-scale > especially at a single point in time, but has perturbations. maybe an axis > related to spin. > > And that only as a group and or over time does the field become a smooth > inverse square, indeed perhaps "lines of force" actually exist. > > This up close, packed into a nucleus or another tight cluster (Ken > Shoulder electron charge cluster) the repulsion might be overcome. > > Not another force, just discontinuities in the electric field. > > Otherwise doesn't Ken Shoulders work point to a 6th force? > > John > > On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 8:18 AM, Axil Axil wrote: > >> Thanks Russ, a great find. >> >> A new boson must carry a new force since bosons are force carriers. But I >> wonder if this force could be something that comes out of the dirac >> equations that has not been seen before experimentally, Maybe this new >> particle is carrying the monopole charge? The experimenters should put this >> particle in a magnetic field and see how it bends. >> >> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Russ George >> wrote: >> >>> Here’s a lead on one of the great mysteries, just how is an electron >>> coupled to a neutron as clearly neutrons spit out electrons when they >>> decay. >>> http://www.nature.com/news/has-a-hungarian-physics-lab-found-a-fifth-force-of-nature-1.19957 >>> >>> >>> >>> Of course if ordinary neutrons hold on to ordinary electrons, albeit >>> weakly, that could explain more than a few mysteries. >>> >> >> >
Re: [Vo]:New force couples electron to neutron
Maybe I'm missing something here, but all this strong, weak and 5th force nonsense... Couldn't it simply be that the electric field from a single subatomic particle isn't a perfect inverse square law field on the micro-scale especially at a single point in time, but has perturbations. maybe an axis related to spin. And that only as a group and or over time does the field become a smooth inverse square, indeed perhaps "lines of force" actually exist. This up close, packed into a nucleus or another tight cluster (Ken Shoulder electron charge cluster) the repulsion might be overcome. Not another force, just discontinuities in the electric field. Otherwise doesn't Ken Shoulders work point to a 6th force? John On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 8:18 AM, Axil Axil wrote: > Thanks Russ, a great find. > > A new boson must carry a new force since bosons are force carriers. But I > wonder if this force could be something that comes out of the dirac > equations that has not been seen before experimentally, Maybe this new > particle is carrying the monopole charge? The experimenters should put this > particle in a magnetic field and see how it bends. > > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Russ George > wrote: > >> Here’s a lead on one of the great mysteries, just how is an electron >> coupled to a neutron as clearly neutrons spit out electrons when they >> decay. >> http://www.nature.com/news/has-a-hungarian-physics-lab-found-a-fifth-force-of-nature-1.19957 >> >> >> >> Of course if ordinary neutrons hold on to ordinary electrons, albeit >> weakly, that could explain more than a few mysteries. >> > >
Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.
Jed, "That is not a straw man. Anyone can compute that. As I said, it is like having 26 times more heating capacity than normal for that square footage, turned on full blast with no thermostat. Obviously that will make the room too hot to survive." This started because you objected to me saying you wrote the heat would be fatal and then denying you meant that. The title of you post suggests it was a straw man. This is getting repetitive and I suggest we quit it.
[Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.
S V Johnson. IH have obviously attempted to make E-Cats. How else would they check the IP they have received from Rossi? It is recorded that they made the Hot Cats used in the Lugano tests. Cherokee may not have a spotless record as you think. I gave the link of them being charged over the "Medowlands"(?) project earlier but that has now fallen off the bottom of the archive page and not worth searching for. Suggest moving on to my later post, now near the top, The Rossi Saga Part 1. This gives the basic background data.
Re: [Vo]:New force couples electron to neutron
Thanks Russ, a great find. A new boson must carry a new force since bosons are force carriers. But I wonder if this force could be something that comes out of the dirac equations that has not been seen before experimentally, Maybe this new particle is carrying the monopole charge? The experimenters should put this particle in a magnetic field and see how it bends. On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Russ George wrote: > Here’s a lead on one of the great mysteries, just how is an electron > coupled to a neutron as clearly neutrons spit out electrons when they > decay. > http://www.nature.com/news/has-a-hungarian-physics-lab-found-a-fifth-force-of-nature-1.19957 > > > > Of course if ordinary neutrons hold on to ordinary electrons, albeit > weakly, that could explain more than a few mysteries. >
Re: [Vo]:Dear Johannes
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 6:08 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson < orionwo...@charter.net> wrote: > Woah! I didn't expect to see so much commentary on this particular > thread. I had to re-subscribe a while longer. > > > > Harry, the link you supplied on Feynman's Lost Lecture on Motions around > the Sun did the trick for me. I finally get what your animated GIF was > trying to tell me. I like what Feynman did with the empty foci. That is > cool! Thanks! > > > > It will be interesting to see if I can find any linkages with what Feynman > did and what I'm trying to work out with my own velocity vector work. > > > > You're working on a third way? > > > Feynman's way appears to be the same as my own, but there are differences. Notice that Feynman's large circle or velocity circle, which contains the ellipse, is centred on the Sun. I don't use a velocity circle but I do use a large circle which appears to be the same thing as the velocity circle. However, the centre of my large circle is located at the empty focus (Fe). I see gravitational motion as a dance of circles rather than as a force acting on inertial motion. In my opinion the law of inertia should only apply to motions which are clearly caused by collisions or forces of contact. In this respect I am granting circles a power they have not had since before Newton. Harry
[Vo]:interview with LENRHUN.HU, multiplicative vs. additive excess heat, Storm's strategy
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/05/may-25-2016-interview-with-lenrhunhu.html I enjoyed composing this issue peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
RE: [Vo]:New force couples electron to neutron
Wow. This could definitely have implications for LENR. Surprised there is not more mention of it in the science news. SLAC has concluded that the particle could carry an extremely short-range force that acts over distances only several times the width of an atomic nucleus. This could be in the range of Holmlid’s claim for dense hydrogen. From: Russ George Here’s a lead on one of the great mysteries, just how is an electron coupled to a neutron as clearly neutrons spit out electrons when they decay. http://www.nature.com/news/has-a-hungarian-physics-lab-found-a-fifth-force-of-nature-1.19957 Of course if ordinary neutrons hold on to ordinary electrons, albeit weakly, that could explain more than a few mysteries.
[Vo]:New force couples electron to neutron
Here’s a lead on one of the great mysteries, just how is an electron coupled to a neutron as clearly neutrons spit out electrons when they decay. http://www.nature.com/news/has-a-hungarian-physics-lab-found-a-fifth-force-of-nature-1.19957 Of course if ordinary neutrons hold on to ordinary electrons, albeit weakly, that could explain more than a few mysteries.
RE: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.
>From Jed: >> Alain Sepeda wrote: >> what seems unavoidable is that IH was unable to replicate. > I have not heard that they tried to replicate. Oh! This is interesting news to me. I did not know that. > Perhaps they did, but I have no information on that. The only thing > I know is that they analyzed Rossi's data and they say there is no > heat in his test. I too analyzed it, and I agree. I realize I have not kept up on all the latest Rossi vs I.H. news on this matter. (I have my own research to deal with.) As such, I admit the fact that I may be ignorant of certain crucial details. I completely get it that I.H. is telling us that Rossi's data shows no COP+1 heat. Apparently, Rossi and his colleagues claim otherwise. For, now we in the peanut gallery will just have to sit on our arses and hope that we may eventually see for ourselves which way the chips fall. We may not find out. What I didn't realize was the apparent fact that I.H. may... and I repeat "may" not have attempted to perform their own independent replication of Rossi's work. I think this is a very significant fact that needs 100% CLARIFICATION ASAP. I had (mistakenly?) assumed I.H. HAD attempted to perform independent replication of Rossi's work - and that it was their own independent DATA they were working from and reporting on. In all honesty, while I can accept the fact that I.H. is a completely honest and reputable organization, the fact that I.H. might have been only analyzing ROSSI's data leaves MANY, MANY questions unanswered. In a nutshell: I obviously would not want to base my final conclusions on what Rossi sez. I would not want to base my final conclusion on data supplied to me by Rossi - or by a contraption built by ROSSI. All that has been apparently proven here is the fact that Rossi claims don't add up. Well... that's a well found suspicion that many have learned long ago! No excess heat was measured. Yes. I get that loud and clear. Lesson learned: DON'T BASE YOUR CONCLUSIONS ON WHAT ROSSI SEZ, OR ON DATA THAT ROSSI MAY HAVE SUPPLIED YOU WITH, OR BY A CONTRAPTION BUILT BY ROSSI. If no independent replication test was performed by I.H. here, it seems to me we're still back at square one. Only an independent replication of Rossi's contraption will definitely tell us whether there is anything here or not. Jed, what am I missing here? Steven Vincent Johnson orionworks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks stevenvincentjohnson.bandcamp.com
RE: [Vo]:Some questions about H(1) ultra dense hydrogen.
From: Stephen Cooke * If the two nuclei are separated by 2.3 pm I suppose the are rotating about their center of mass… Would those nuclei generate Bremsstrahlung radiation… Not the b-word, as usually defined; but if the pair, or the cluster, became destabilized, the result could be strong mutual repulsion. Once hot scattered protons interact with the support or containment structure, we would see soft x-rays and UV. If an electron cascade is absent, it should not be confused with bremsstrahlung…. A possible way to test for the Holmlid effect is UV radiation. However, UV is hard to detect since there is no good “window” (material transparent to UV). Mills uses a pinhole technique. There are other methods which could work, depending on circumstances. One is Ultraviolet Fluorescence, which is well studied. In the right design UVF could actually provide positive feedback to the reaction.
Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project
Oops, Default Oops, Fire http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/ivanpah-solar-plant-catches-fire-but-taxpayers-get-burned/ Oops On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > I wrote: > > >> The taxpayers will get their money back eventually. The power companies >> are not going to stop buying electricity from this installation. They may >> renegotiate the price . . . >> > > Source: > > I think I read this at Renewable Energy World, but I cannot find the > article. Anyway, that is the usual arrangement. Since the machine is up and > running, and making a profit on current operations, the taxpayers should be > reimbursed. The owners may face bankruptcy. > > http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/index.html > > The article went on to say this is quite different from the situation at > Solyndra. There was no revenue stream when Solyndra went bankrupt. They did > not have anything up and running. > > When a company goes bankrupt, if there are parts of the company which are > making a current profit, the courts are careful to keep those parts in > business. They try not to sell off assets or do anything else which will > disrupt those parts and stop the flow of income. They try not to cause more > unemployment than necessary. On the other hand, they direct the current > profit flow to the creditors, and away from stockholders. When Uncle Sam is > among the creditors or unpaid vendors, he always goes to the front of the > line. That's how it works. > > The Solyndra bankruptcy has been called a scandal. It is not a scandal. > Any investment can go south. Many governments supported ventures have > failed. In this case, the Solyndra portion of the fund failed but overall > the fund did exceptionally well and made a ton of money for the taxpayers. > You might argue that the Federal government should not be investing in > technology. That might appeal to purists who think the government should > play no role in the economy, but as I have often pointed out, the > government has played a leading role since the construction of the Erie > Canal, and in ever major technology since then. If it had not, I expect the > U.S. would have lost the Civil War, WWI and WWII. > > Since most Federal money goes to conventional technology such as coal and > oil, I do not think the industry should complain. > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.
Alain Sepeda wrote: what seems unavoidable is that IH was unable to replicate. > I have not heard that they tried to replicate. Perhaps they did, but I have no information on that. The only thing I know is that they analyzed Rossi's data and they say there is no heat in his test. I too analyzed it, and I agree. - Jed
[Vo]:do not open "So Exciting"
It looks like its from out Peter G. but its not. Frank
Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.
a.ashfield wrote: ""[Vo]:1 MW of heat in a 6,500 sq. ft. facility without industrial > ventilation would be fatal"" > > Why did you set up that straw man in the first place? > That is not a straw man. Anyone can compute that. As I said, it is like having 26 times more heating capacity than normal for that square footage, turned on full blast with no thermostat. Obviously that will make the room too hot to survive. There has to be a large fan with a 22" vent (or larger). The I.H. expert has to examine this fan and vent, because the calorimetry shows no excess. That's all I am saying. > As I said, the Rossi affair reminds me of Fleischmann and Pons, where the > poorly executed efforts at replication were sufficient to get academia and > the supposed experts to pile on and accuse them of fraud. > This is not a replication. Rossi himself was unable to make the machine produce excess heat over one year. It is not clear to me whether IH's statement is that the 1 MW plant > didn't work or that that they can't duplicate the results. > It is 100% clear to me they are saying the 1 MW plant did not work. They told me that. I have a sample of the calorimetry data and I agree. If you don't believe them, and you don't believe me, that's fair enough. But don't say "it is not clear to me . . ." You should say "I don't believe I.H. and Jed when they say the 1 MW plant did not work." - Jed
