Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[Axil Axil]

LENR will redefine a goodly amount of our current science. Unfortunately
because of this new paradigm in science, LENR is very esoteric.

To support my assertion, this following reference shows that the Surface
Plasmon Polariton (SPP) quasiparticle produces a monopole magnetic field.

Half-solitons in a polariton quantum fluid behave like magnetic monopoles

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1204/1204.3564.pdf


On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 9:01 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> Axil,
> So you say, and I don't mean that disparagingly.  I don't know and don't
> have the time to investigate those esoteric theories well enough to
> understand if they are right.  As far as I know, no one has ever
> demonstrated a magnetic monopole but some talk about them as real.  The
> proof is less convincing to me than that Rossi 's E-Cat works. In both
> cases I'd rather wait and see.
>
> AA
>
> On 4/1/2017 7:30 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>
> There is a difference between a monopole fundamental particle, a monopole
> quasiparticle like the SPP, and a magnetic field formatted to support
>  monopole flux lines.
>
> The SmCo5 magnet produces a magnetic field that is anisotropic field
> (almost a monopole formated magnetic field).
>
> This SmCo5 type magnetic supports monopole flux lines of force.
>
> That is why the SmCo5 magnet can produce a LENR reaction.
>
> To refresh your memory, see
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg108069.html
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 6:36 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:
>
>> Axil,
>> I am not able to judge the properties of many of these smaller
>> particles.  They seem to be more a matter of the individual's belief than
>> pinned down by experiment.  Let me know when someone *proves* the
>> existence of a magnetic monopole.
>>
>> AA
>>
>>
>> On 4/1/2017 3:39 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>>
>> Rossi et al are confusing cause and effect. The strong and the weak force
>> produce nuclear change and the subatomic particles are the effects of how
>> those forces function. The strong and the weak force produce the pion,
>> muons, and mesons that Rossi is now factoring into his theory. But these
>> particles are just the effects of what the strong force is doing in LENR.
>> LENR is a condition where the strong force changes the way it behaves. The
>> particles are the results of this change in behavior.
>>
>> Professional science states the the fundamental forces of nature cannot
>> change unless they are affected by the application of extremes in energy.
>> If enough energy is present, then the fundamental forces will gradually
>> become unified. This is the main tenet in supersymmetry.
>>
>> But as witnessed by LENR, the fundamental forces do not behave in this
>> way. As Rossi states, these forces change when a special type of magnetism
>> is applied to the fundamental forces of nature. Rossi has picked the
>> quadrupole magnetic force as the factor that changes the action of the
>> fundamental forces. This pick is wrong. But informed by other LENR
>> experimentation, we know that the proper LENR active magnetic force format
>> is the monopole magnetic force.
>>
>> But we must give him his due, Rossi is very close to having LENR theory
>> correct in its most basic aspects.
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 3:13 PM, Daniel Rocha 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I am not being snarky. I am just stating something evident. And you seem
>>> to forget that I side with Rossi and I think all is wrong with IH
>>> "evidences".
>>>
>>> 2017-04-01 13:51 GMT-03:00 a.ashfield :
>>>
 Why be so snarky?  You have no clue when Rossi learnt that.  Jumping to
 conclusions on such flimsy evidence does nothing for your credibility.

 AA

 On 3/31/2017 6:10 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:

 Not really a big deal. That's a merely cursory knowledge of particle
 physics. He probably learned about this when writing his last paper.



>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Daniel Rocha - RJ
>>> danieldi...@gmail.com
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[Daniel Rocha]

He didn't seem to display

2017-04-01 22:20 GMT-03:00 Daniel Rocha :

> Useless aggressiveness. It's not impossible, it is just that he seem to
> display this kind of knowledge before. So, working with a specialist, did
> good to him. He seemed to answer in a more casual way about some nuclear
> phenomena than before.
>
> 2017-04-01 21:43 GMT-03:00 a.ashfield :
>
>>  I suppose it is impossible for you to  consider that one could keep up
>> to date in a subject if motivated to do so.
>>
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>



-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[Daniel Rocha]

Useless aggressiveness. It's not impossible, it is just that he seem to
display this kind of knowledge before. So, working with a specialist, did
good to him. He seemed to answer in a more casual way about some nuclear
phenomena than before.

2017-04-01 21:43 GMT-03:00 a.ashfield :

>  I suppose it is impossible for you to  consider that one could keep up to
> date in a subject if motivated to do so.
>

-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[a.ashfield]

Axil,
So you say, and I don't mean that disparagingly. I don't know and don't 
have the time to investigate those esoteric theories well enough to 
understand if they are right.  As far as I know, no one has ever 
demonstrated a magnetic monopole but some talk about them as real.  The 
proof is less convincing to me than that Rossi 's E-Cat works. In both 
cases I'd rather wait and see.


AA

On 4/1/2017 7:30 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
There is a difference between a monopole fundamental particle, a 
monopole quasiparticle like the SPP, and a magnetic field formatted to 
support  monopole flux lines.


The SmCo5 magnet produces a magnetic field that is anisotropic field 
(almost a monopole formated magnetic field).


This SmCo5 type magnetic supports monopole flux lines of force.

That is why the SmCo5 magnet can produce a LENR reaction.

To refresh your memory, see

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg108069.html


On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 6:36 PM, a.ashfield > wrote:


Axil,
I am not able to judge the properties of many of these smaller
particles.  They seem to be more a matter of the individual's
belief than pinned down by experiment.  Let me know when someone
/proves/ the existence of a magnetic monopole.

AA


On 4/1/2017 3:39 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

Rossi et al are confusing cause and effect. The strong and the
weak force produce nuclear change and the subatomic particles are
the effects of how those forces function. The strong and the weak
force produce the pion, muons, and mesons that Rossi is now
factoring into his theory. But these particles are just the
effects of what the strong force is doing in LENR. LENR is a
condition where the strong force changes the way it behaves. The
particles are the results of this change in behavior.

Professional science states the the fundamental forces of nature
cannot change unless they are affected by the application of
extremes in energy. If enough energy is present, then the
fundamental forces will gradually become unified. This is the
main tenet in supersymmetry.

But as witnessed by LENR, the fundamental forces do not behave in
this way. As Rossi states, these forces change when a special
type of magnetism is applied to the fundamental forces of nature.
Rossi has picked the quadrupole magnetic force as the factor that
changes the action of the fundamental forces. This pick is wrong.
But informed by other LENR experimentation, we know that the
proper LENR active magnetic force format is the monopole magnetic
force.

But we must give him his due, Rossi is very close to having LENR
theory correct in its most basic aspects.

On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 3:13 PM, Daniel Rocha
> wrote:

I am not being snarky. I am just stating something evident.
And you seem to forget that I side with Rossi and I think all
is wrong with IH "evidences".

2017-04-01 13:51 GMT-03:00 a.ashfield >:

Why be so snarky?  You have no clue when Rossi learnt
that. Jumping to conclusions on such flimsy evidence does
nothing for your credibility.

AA

On 3/31/2017 6:10 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:

Not really a big deal. That's a merely cursory knowledge
of particle physics. He probably learned about this when
writing his last paper.





-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ

danieldi...@gmail.com 

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[a.ashfield]

Partly true.  A lot of your professors probably went to school about 
that time.  I went to college before that.  I suppose it is impossible 
for you to  consider that one could keep up to date in a subject if 
motivated to do so.  In passing. General Relativity was discovered 1905 
- 1915.


AA

On 4/1/2017 6:42 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
That's philosophy of relativity. And that's from the 70's, not long 
after it was inventive. Moreover, you don't need to know particle 
physics to study relativity.


2017-04-01 16:39 GMT-03:00 a.ashfield >:


Rossi got a PhD in Philosophy with a thesis on relativity.  I have
no reason to think he didn't know something of atomic physics for
many years.
AA

Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com 

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[Axil Axil]

There is a difference between a monopole fundamental particle, a monopole
quasiparticle like the SPP, and a magnetic field formatted to support
 monopole flux lines.

The SmCo5 magnet produces a magnetic field that is anisotropic field
(almost a monopole formated magnetic field).

This SmCo5 type magnetic supports monopole flux lines of force.

That is why the SmCo5 magnet can produce a LENR reaction.

To refresh your memory, see

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg108069.html


On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 6:36 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> Axil,
> I am not able to judge the properties of many of these smaller particles.
> They seem to be more a matter of the individual's belief than pinned down
> by experiment.  Let me know when someone *proves* the existence of a
> magnetic monopole.
>
> AA
>
>
> On 4/1/2017 3:39 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>
> Rossi et al are confusing cause and effect. The strong and the weak force
> produce nuclear change and the subatomic particles are the effects of how
> those forces function. The strong and the weak force produce the pion,
> muons, and mesons that Rossi is now factoring into his theory. But these
> particles are just the effects of what the strong force is doing in LENR.
> LENR is a condition where the strong force changes the way it behaves. The
> particles are the results of this change in behavior.
>
> Professional science states the the fundamental forces of nature cannot
> change unless they are affected by the application of extremes in energy.
> If enough energy is present, then the fundamental forces will gradually
> become unified. This is the main tenet in supersymmetry.
>
> But as witnessed by LENR, the fundamental forces do not behave in this
> way. As Rossi states, these forces change when a special type of magnetism
> is applied to the fundamental forces of nature. Rossi has picked the
> quadrupole magnetic force as the factor that changes the action of the
> fundamental forces. This pick is wrong. But informed by other LENR
> experimentation, we know that the proper LENR active magnetic force format
> is the monopole magnetic force.
>
> But we must give him his due, Rossi is very close to having LENR theory
> correct in its most basic aspects.
>
> On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 3:13 PM, Daniel Rocha 
> wrote:
>
>> I am not being snarky. I am just stating something evident. And you seem
>> to forget that I side with Rossi and I think all is wrong with IH
>> "evidences".
>>
>> 2017-04-01 13:51 GMT-03:00 a.ashfield :
>>
>>> Why be so snarky?  You have no clue when Rossi learnt that.  Jumping to
>>> conclusions on such flimsy evidence does nothing for your credibility.
>>>
>>> AA
>>>
>>> On 3/31/2017 6:10 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
>>>
>>> Not really a big deal. That's a merely cursory knowledge of particle
>>> physics. He probably learned about this when writing his last paper.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Rocha - RJ
>> danieldi...@gmail.com
>>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[Daniel Rocha]

I mean, not after the theory of neutrinos was conceived in the standard
model.

2017-04-01 19:42 GMT-03:00 Daniel Rocha :

> That's philosophy of relativity. And that's from the 70's, not long after
> it was inventive. Moreover, you don't need to know particle physics to
> study relativity.
>
> 2017-04-01 16:39 GMT-03:00 a.ashfield :
>
>> Rossi got a PhD in Philosophy with a thesis on relativity.  I have no
>> reason to think he didn't know something of atomic physics for many years.
>> AA
>>
>> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>



-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[Daniel Rocha]

That's philosophy of relativity. And that's from the 70's, not long after
it was inventive. Moreover, you don't need to know particle physics to
study relativity.

2017-04-01 16:39 GMT-03:00 a.ashfield :

> Rossi got a PhD in Philosophy with a thesis on relativity.  I have no
> reason to think he didn't know something of atomic physics for many years.
> AA
>
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[a.ashfield]

Axil,
I am not able to judge the properties of many of these smaller 
particles.  They seem to be more a matter of the individual's belief 
than pinned down by experiment.  Let me know when someone /proves/ the 
existence of a magnetic monopole.


AA

On 4/1/2017 3:39 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
Rossi et al are confusing cause and effect. The strong and the weak 
force produce nuclear change and the subatomic particles are the 
effects of how those forces function. The strong and the weak force 
produce the pion, muons, and mesons that Rossi is now factoring into 
his theory. But these particles are just the effects of what the 
strong force is doing in LENR. LENR is a condition where the strong 
force changes the way it behaves. The particles are the results of 
this change in behavior.


Professional science states the the fundamental forces of nature 
cannot change unless they are affected by the application of extremes 
in energy. If enough energy is present, then the fundamental forces 
will gradually become unified. This is the main tenet in supersymmetry.


But as witnessed by LENR, the fundamental forces do not behave in this 
way. As Rossi states, these forces change when a special type of 
magnetism is applied to the fundamental forces of nature. Rossi has 
picked the quadrupole magnetic force as the factor that changes the 
action of the fundamental forces. This pick is wrong. But informed by 
other LENR experimentation, we know that the proper LENR active 
magnetic force format is the monopole magnetic force.


But we must give him his due, Rossi is very close to having LENR 
theory correct in its most basic aspects.


On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 3:13 PM, Daniel Rocha > wrote:


I am not being snarky. I am just stating something evident. And
you seem to forget that I side with Rossi and I think all is wrong
with IH "evidences".

2017-04-01 13:51 GMT-03:00 a.ashfield >:

Why be so snarky?  You have no clue when Rossi learnt that. 
Jumping to conclusions on such flimsy evidence does nothing

for your credibility.

AA

On 3/31/2017 6:10 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:

Not really a big deal. That's a merely cursory knowledge of
particle physics. He probably learned about this when writing
his last paper.





-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ

danieldi...@gmail.com 

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[Axil Axil]

Rossi et al are confusing cause and effect. The strong and the weak force
produce nuclear change and the subatomic particles are the effects of how
those forces function. The strong and the weak force produce the pion,
muons, and mesons that Rossi is now factoring into his theory. But these
particles are just the effects of what the strong force is doing in LENR.
LENR is a condition where the strong force changes the way it behaves. The
particles are the results of this change in behavior.

Professional science states the the fundamental forces of nature cannot
change unless they are affected by the application of extremes in energy.
If enough energy is present, then the fundamental forces will gradually
become unified. This is the main tenet in supersymmetry.

But as witnessed by LENR, the fundamental forces do not behave in this way.
As Rossi states, these forces change when a special type of magnetism is
applied to the fundamental forces of nature. Rossi has picked the
quadrupole magnetic force as the factor that changes the action of the
fundamental forces. This pick is wrong. But informed by other LENR
experimentation, we know that the proper LENR active magnetic force format
is the monopole magnetic force.

But we must give him his due, Rossi is very close to having LENR theory
correct in its most basic aspects.

On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 3:13 PM, Daniel Rocha  wrote:

> I am not being snarky. I am just stating something evident. And you seem
> to forget that I side with Rossi and I think all is wrong with IH
> "evidences".
>
> 2017-04-01 13:51 GMT-03:00 a.ashfield :
>
>> Why be so snarky?  You have no clue when Rossi learnt that.  Jumping to
>> conclusions on such flimsy evidence does nothing for your credibility.
>>
>> AA
>>
>> On 3/31/2017 6:10 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
>>
>> Not really a big deal. That's a merely cursory knowledge of particle
>> physics. He probably learned about this when writing his last paper.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[a.ashfield]

Rossi got a PhD in Philosophy with a thesis on relativity.  I have no 
reason to think he didn't know something of atomic physics for many years.

AA

On 4/1/2017 3:13 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
I am not being snarky. I am just stating something evident. And you 
seem to forget that I side with Rossi and I think all is wrong with IH 
"evidences".


2017-04-01 13:51 GMT-03:00 a.ashfield >:


Why be so snarky? You have no clue when Rossi learnt that. 
Jumping to conclusions on such flimsy evidence does nothing for

your credibility.

AA

On 3/31/2017 6:10 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:

Not really a big deal. That's a merely cursory knowledge of
particle physics. He probably learned about this when writing his
last paper.





--
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com 

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[Daniel Rocha]

I am not being snarky. I am just stating something evident. And you seem to
forget that I side with Rossi and I think all is wrong with IH "evidences".

2017-04-01 13:51 GMT-03:00 a.ashfield :

> Why be so snarky?  You have no clue when Rossi learnt that.  Jumping to
> conclusions on such flimsy evidence does nothing for your credibility.
>
> AA
>
> On 3/31/2017 6:10 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
>
> Not really a big deal. That's a merely cursory knowledge of particle
> physics. He probably learned about this when writing his last paper.
>
>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

[Vo]:about the Ssmell...and info

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2017/04/apr-01-2017-lenr-about-smell-and-info.html

peter
-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[a.ashfield]

Why be so snarky?  You have no clue when Rossi learnt that.  Jumping to 
conclusions on such flimsy evidence does nothing for your credibility.


AA

On 3/31/2017 6:10 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
Not really a big deal. That's a merely cursory knowledge of particle 
physics. He probably learned about this when writing his last paper.

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[H LV]

This conjecture also gives new meaning to the phrase 'cold fusion', if the
adjective 'cold' qualifies the output rather than the input.  ;-)

Harry


On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 1:27 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 11:46 AM, H LV  wrote:
>
> ​CoE would still be true, but there would be no mass into energy
>> conversion. Instead the iron would be slightly more massive than iron
>> produced by stellar fusion.​
>>
>
> This suggestion has the benefit of being falsifiable.  If you activate the
> Coimbatore heavy iron with neutrons, the de-excitation gammas would be in
> the neighborhood of but measurably distinct from those known for iron
> isotopes.
>
> If the masses of iron and not-iron were identical, and no energy were
> released from the reaction, there would presumably be a not-iron <=> iron
> equilibrium.
>
> Eric
>
>