RE: [Vo]:The PP fusion reaction in LENR

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Robin—



Quarks are merely a mathematical scheme to help make sense of high energy 
physics.  IMHO the do not exist.  I will send you a separate study of electron 
scattering experiments that shed light on the structure of protons and neutrons.



Bob Cook



Sent from Mail for Windows 10




From: mix...@bigpond.com 
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 12:59:00 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The PP fusion reaction in LENR

In reply to  Andrew Meulenberg's message of Tue, 22 May 2018 05:36:11 -0400:
Hi Andrew,

I have been thinking about this since Bob mentioned relativistic mass a few
posts back. It occurred to me that quarks probably move rapidly within nucleons,
lending relativistic mass to the particle. Now you mention them here below and
that tends to solidify my thoughts. We could account for all mass changes during
nuclear reactions by assuming that the velocity of quark motion changes during
the process. E.g. suppose that all the quarks in a nucleus both create and
reinforce a resonant field. As nucleons are added to the nucleus the size of the
entire system increases physically. Maybe that increases the time constant of
the resonance (lowers the frequency), implying that they all move more slowly,
releasing energy as they slow down. IOW a nucleus rings like a bell. The larger
the bell, the lower the tone.

>I am glad to see a discussion of changes in mass depending on environment.
>I feel that this is fundamental to the CF story of D-D => 4He and many
>other observables.
>
>Rest mass (stationary, isolated in space, and with zero potentials) is
>constant. Add velocity and the effective mass increases. Add
>fields/potentials, and the effective mass (not the rest mass) increases or
>decreases.
>
>Adding an electron to a proton orbit decreases the atomic mass to below the
>combined rest masses of a proton and electron. The electron effective mass
>increases from its increase in velocity. The remaining atomic mass (that of
>the proton) must decrease as a photon is released.
>
>The Klein-Gordon and Dirac equations predict deep electron orbits with
>binding energy of > 0.5 MeV. The
>resulting femto-atom will have that much less mass. The femto-hydrogen
>electron will be relativistic (~ 1 or ~100 MeV depending on the model
>used). The nucleus (a proton) mass must be reduced by at least that amount.
>In either model, the atomic mass changes by the same amount (~ 0.5 MeV).
>This change in nuclear mass has a major impact on how we calculate things
>and claim what is possible or not in this new regime.
>
>The basis for the nuclear change comes from the nucleon interactions in a
>compound nucleus and in the quark interactions in even a single proton.
>These charged components are greatly affected by the strong fields of a
>proximate (fermi distance of a) deep-orbit electron.
>
>Andrew M.
>
>
>On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 3:35 AM, Russ  wrote:
>
>> Redefining the language in mid-stream always makes exchanging ideas
>> difficult. The long standing convention is that all neutrons have the same
>> mass, the binding energy in collections of nucleons in different nuclides
>> varies.
>>
>> Everything gains mass as it approaches the speed of light.
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: mix...@bigpond.com 
>> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 10:42 PM
>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:The PP fusion reaction in LENR
>>
>> In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 21 May 2018 11:00:54 -0400:
>> Hi,
>> [snip]
>> >Russ  wrote:
>> >
>> >Might you point to a reference where the mass of neutrons in deuterium vs.
>> >> other nuclides is said to be different.
>> >>
>> >
>> >I do not understand. Is the claim here that a neutron in deuterium is
>> >heavier or lighter than a neutron in some other element?
>>
>> Yes (heavier), that's what I'm suggesting.
>>
>> > There are
>> >different kinds or neutrons, or entering deuterium changes the mass?
>>
>> The latter. The energy release from the nuclear reaction has to came from
>> somewhere. I am simply saying that it comes from the conversion of part of
>> the mass of the constituent particles.
>>
>> >
>> >That seems extremely unlikely to me.
>>
>> Then you need to explain where the fusion energy comes from. (I'm counting
>> addition of a neutron to a nucleus as a form of fusion).
>>
>> Note that the formation of D from a free proton & a free neutron releases
>> only
>> 2.2 MeV of energy whereas at the other extreme, addition of a neutron to a
>> Ni nucleus releases about 8 MeV of energy. Hence my conclusion that
>> neutrons
>> in Ni have lower mass than those in D.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>> Robin van Spaandonk
>>
>> local asymmetry = temporary success
>>
>>
>>
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

[Vo]:EM Drive artifact

[Jack Cole]

New research seems to point to probable systematic error for the EM drive.
I have thought for quite some time that this was the most likely outcome
(based on a lack of correlation between input power and output thrust).
They believe that the EM field of the cabling was most likely interacting
with the Earth's magnetic field (resulting in apparent thrust).  I think
they are continuing research, so all may not be lost yet.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/05/nasas-em-drive-is-a-magnetic-wtf-thruster/

Jack

[Vo]:LENR in SAFIRE

[Axil Axil]

Putting things into context...



I have been interested in SAFIRE as a possible LENR platform since 2015
when I saw a video where some unexplained reactions were happening in the
phase 1 SAFIRE experiment. Two of these unexplained reactions held exciting
possibilities as aout-of-the-box LENR reaction. First, transmutation of an
element on the hydrogen gas with an atomic weight of 3 was being produced.
and second, huge bursts of energy were produced which ranged up to 20
million watts of power.


Even way back then, SAFIRE information mentioned that there was LENR going
on in SAFIRE. But the SAFIRE system is comprised of just hydrogen...no
palladium...no nickel...no metal...how could LENR be occurring in SAFIRE.
This situation was very interesting and possibly revealing.


Now in 2018, the new status report video shows how a metal interacts with
the double layer that forms in a hydrogen plasma. The tungsten probe should
have easily withstood the temperature in the plasma. The temperatures in
the plasma is well under the melting point of tungsten. Yes, the electron
energy level (7.5 Ev) is equivalent to a black-body temperature of 80,000C
, but electron energy levels are not temperature levels.


The tungsten probe should have withstood the environment in the double
layer. Instead, the tungsten probe vaporized in nanoseconds...it did not
first melt. A thick tungsten probe version partially vaporized but what
remained looked unaffected. But its interior was transmuted into various
other elements even when its surface remained pure tungsten. Anther telling
revilation is that the alumina isolation held up well in the double layer.


The .thunderbolts.

 crew has been interested in double layers in plasma since .thunderbolts

 first began as a primary format that appears in plasma in space.


http://www.thunderbolts.info/eg_draft/eg_chapter_6.htm



We learn from this old paper that the SAFIRE experiment is the spherical
version of this plasma tube experiment. The Double layers in plasma are
produced in the plasma tube as well as in the spherical SAFIRE plasma mode.
What Alan/Russ did with the metal foil in their plasma tube experiment is
identical to what SAFIRE did by inserting the Langmuir Probe into the
double layer. The two experiments produced the same LENR effect when the
metal was inserted into the double layer. In both these systems, the
interaction between the metal and the double layer is to produce a
population of surface plasmon polaritons that merge to generate a polariton
BEC.


The Alan/Russ plasma tube experiment has been conducted by young plasma
students for over a 100 years. This goes to show that there is not much new
under the Sun. The glow tube experiment is a demonstration of the
Goldstein–Wehner law.


See


http://campus.mst.edu/aplab/index_files/PlasmaTheory.pdf


Plasma Theory for Undergraduate Education - Missouri S&T


[image: plasma_discharge_tube_480x357.jpg]


Detecting double layers in plasma physics is the first thing that these
students learn is plasma school. But the most telling clue is the
production of gamma radiation when the emissions of the metal interaction
with the double layer plasma is shielded by a metal foil. This shielding
method is how Holmlid built his peer reviewed muon detector. What the
Holmlid experiment is producing and what metal irradiation by plasma is
producing is the same thing...polaritons.

Re: [Vo]:The PP fusion reaction in LENR

[mixent]

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Mon, 21 May 2018 18:11:35 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>Is the binding energy released from a change in the configuration of the
>nucleus derived from the protons and neutrons that comprise the nucleus or
>does it come from the nucleus itself?
[snip]
Are these two mutually exclusive?
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: [Vo]:The PP fusion reaction in LENR

[mixent]

In reply to  Andrew Meulenberg's message of Tue, 22 May 2018 05:36:11 -0400:
Hi Andrew,

I have been thinking about this since Bob mentioned relativistic mass a few
posts back. It occurred to me that quarks probably move rapidly within nucleons,
lending relativistic mass to the particle. Now you mention them here below and
that tends to solidify my thoughts. We could account for all mass changes during
nuclear reactions by assuming that the velocity of quark motion changes during
the process. E.g. suppose that all the quarks in a nucleus both create and
reinforce a resonant field. As nucleons are added to the nucleus the size of the
entire system increases physically. Maybe that increases the time constant of
the resonance (lowers the frequency), implying that they all move more slowly,
releasing energy as they slow down. IOW a nucleus rings like a bell. The larger
the bell, the lower the tone.

>I am glad to see a discussion of changes in mass depending on environment.
>I feel that this is fundamental to the CF story of D-D => 4He and many
>other observables.
>
>Rest mass (stationary, isolated in space, and with zero potentials) is
>constant. Add velocity and the effective mass increases. Add
>fields/potentials, and the effective mass (not the rest mass) increases or
>decreases.
>
>Adding an electron to a proton orbit decreases the atomic mass to below the
>combined rest masses of a proton and electron. The electron effective mass
>increases from its increase in velocity. The remaining atomic mass (that of
>the proton) must decrease as a photon is released.
>
>The Klein-Gordon and Dirac equations predict deep electron orbits with
>binding energy of > 0.5 MeV. The
>resulting femto-atom will have that much less mass. The femto-hydrogen
>electron will be relativistic (~ 1 or ~100 MeV depending on the model
>used). The nucleus (a proton) mass must be reduced by at least that amount.
>In either model, the atomic mass changes by the same amount (~ 0.5 MeV).
>This change in nuclear mass has a major impact on how we calculate things
>and claim what is possible or not in this new regime.
>
>The basis for the nuclear change comes from the nucleon interactions in a
>compound nucleus and in the quark interactions in even a single proton.
>These charged components are greatly affected by the strong fields of a
>proximate (fermi distance of a) deep-orbit electron.
>
>Andrew M.
>
>
>On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 3:35 AM, Russ  wrote:
>
>> Redefining the language in mid-stream always makes exchanging ideas
>> difficult. The long standing convention is that all neutrons have the same
>> mass, the binding energy in collections of nucleons in different nuclides
>> varies.
>>
>> Everything gains mass as it approaches the speed of light.
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: mix...@bigpond.com 
>> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 10:42 PM
>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:The PP fusion reaction in LENR
>>
>> In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 21 May 2018 11:00:54 -0400:
>> Hi,
>> [snip]
>> >Russ  wrote:
>> >
>> >Might you point to a reference where the mass of neutrons in deuterium vs.
>> >> other nuclides is said to be different.
>> >>
>> >
>> >I do not understand. Is the claim here that a neutron in deuterium is
>> >heavier or lighter than a neutron in some other element?
>>
>> Yes (heavier), that's what I'm suggesting.
>>
>> > There are
>> >different kinds or neutrons, or entering deuterium changes the mass?
>>
>> The latter. The energy release from the nuclear reaction has to came from
>> somewhere. I am simply saying that it comes from the conversion of part of
>> the mass of the constituent particles.
>>
>> >
>> >That seems extremely unlikely to me.
>>
>> Then you need to explain where the fusion energy comes from. (I'm counting
>> addition of a neutron to a nucleus as a form of fusion).
>>
>> Note that the formation of D from a free proton & a free neutron releases
>> only
>> 2.2 MeV of energy whereas at the other extreme, addition of a neutron to a
>> Ni nucleus releases about 8 MeV of energy. Hence my conclusion that
>> neutrons
>> in Ni have lower mass than those in D.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>> Robin van Spaandonk
>>
>> local asymmetry = temporary success
>>
>>
>>
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: [Vo]:The PP fusion reaction in LENR

[mixent]

In reply to  Russ's message of Tue, 22 May 2018 08:35:29 +0100:
Hi,
[snip]
>Redefining the language in mid-stream always makes exchanging ideas
>difficult. The long standing convention is that all neutrons have the same
>mass, the binding energy in collections of nucleons in different nuclides
>varies. 

If the constituent particles of a nucleus retained the mass they had as separate
particles, then nuclei would be more massive.

>
>Everything gains mass as it approaches the speed of light. 
>
>-Original Message-
>From: mix...@bigpond.com  
>Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 10:42 PM
>To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>Subject: Re: [Vo]:The PP fusion reaction in LENR
>
>In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 21 May 2018 11:00:54 -0400:
>Hi,
>[snip]
>>Russ  wrote:
>>
>>Might you point to a reference where the mass of neutrons in deuterium vs.
>>> other nuclides is said to be different.
>>>
>>
>>I do not understand. Is the claim here that a neutron in deuterium is 
>>heavier or lighter than a neutron in some other element?
>
>Yes (heavier), that's what I'm suggesting.
>
>> There are
>>different kinds or neutrons, or entering deuterium changes the mass?
>
>The latter. The energy release from the nuclear reaction has to came from
>somewhere. I am simply saying that it comes from the conversion of part of
>the mass of the constituent particles.
>
>>
>>That seems extremely unlikely to me.
>
>Then you need to explain where the fusion energy comes from. (I'm counting
>addition of a neutron to a nucleus as a form of fusion).
>
>Note that the formation of D from a free proton & a free neutron releases
>only
>2.2 MeV of energy whereas at the other extreme, addition of a neutron to a
>Ni nucleus releases about 8 MeV of energy. Hence my conclusion that neutrons
>in Ni have lower mass than those in D.
>
>Regards,
>
>
>Robin van Spaandonk
>
>local asymmetry = temporary success
>
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: [Vo]:The PP fusion reaction in LENR

[Andrew Meulenberg]

I am glad to see a discussion of changes in mass depending on environment.
I feel that this is fundamental to the CF story of D-D => 4He and many
other observables.

Rest mass (stationary, isolated in space, and with zero potentials) is
constant. Add velocity and the effective mass increases. Add
fields/potentials, and the effective mass (not the rest mass) increases or
decreases.

Adding an electron to a proton orbit decreases the atomic mass to below the
combined rest masses of a proton and electron. The electron effective mass
increases from its increase in velocity. The remaining atomic mass (that of
the proton) must decrease as a photon is released.

The Klein-Gordon and Dirac equations predict deep electron orbits with
binding energy of > 0.5 MeV. The
resulting femto-atom will have that much less mass. The femto-hydrogen
electron will be relativistic (~ 1 or ~100 MeV depending on the model
used). The nucleus (a proton) mass must be reduced by at least that amount.
In either model, the atomic mass changes by the same amount (~ 0.5 MeV).
This change in nuclear mass has a major impact on how we calculate things
and claim what is possible or not in this new regime.

The basis for the nuclear change comes from the nucleon interactions in a
compound nucleus and in the quark interactions in even a single proton.
These charged components are greatly affected by the strong fields of a
proximate (fermi distance of a) deep-orbit electron.

Andrew M.


On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 3:35 AM, Russ  wrote:

> Redefining the language in mid-stream always makes exchanging ideas
> difficult. The long standing convention is that all neutrons have the same
> mass, the binding energy in collections of nucleons in different nuclides
> varies.
>
> Everything gains mass as it approaches the speed of light.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: mix...@bigpond.com 
> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 10:42 PM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:The PP fusion reaction in LENR
>
> In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 21 May 2018 11:00:54 -0400:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >Russ  wrote:
> >
> >Might you point to a reference where the mass of neutrons in deuterium vs.
> >> other nuclides is said to be different.
> >>
> >
> >I do not understand. Is the claim here that a neutron in deuterium is
> >heavier or lighter than a neutron in some other element?
>
> Yes (heavier), that's what I'm suggesting.
>
> > There are
> >different kinds or neutrons, or entering deuterium changes the mass?
>
> The latter. The energy release from the nuclear reaction has to came from
> somewhere. I am simply saying that it comes from the conversion of part of
> the mass of the constituent particles.
>
> >
> >That seems extremely unlikely to me.
>
> Then you need to explain where the fusion energy comes from. (I'm counting
> addition of a neutron to a nucleus as a form of fusion).
>
> Note that the formation of D from a free proton & a free neutron releases
> only
> 2.2 MeV of energy whereas at the other extreme, addition of a neutron to a
> Ni nucleus releases about 8 MeV of energy. Hence my conclusion that
> neutrons
> in Ni have lower mass than those in D.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> local asymmetry = temporary success
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:The PP fusion reaction in LENR

[Russ]

Redefining the language in mid-stream always makes exchanging ideas
difficult. The long standing convention is that all neutrons have the same
mass, the binding energy in collections of nucleons in different nuclides
varies. 

Everything gains mass as it approaches the speed of light. 

-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com  
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 10:42 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The PP fusion reaction in LENR

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 21 May 2018 11:00:54 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>Russ  wrote:
>
>Might you point to a reference where the mass of neutrons in deuterium vs.
>> other nuclides is said to be different.
>>
>
>I do not understand. Is the claim here that a neutron in deuterium is 
>heavier or lighter than a neutron in some other element?

Yes (heavier), that's what I'm suggesting.

> There are
>different kinds or neutrons, or entering deuterium changes the mass?

The latter. The energy release from the nuclear reaction has to came from
somewhere. I am simply saying that it comes from the conversion of part of
the mass of the constituent particles.

>
>That seems extremely unlikely to me.

Then you need to explain where the fusion energy comes from. (I'm counting
addition of a neutron to a nucleus as a form of fusion).

Note that the formation of D from a free proton & a free neutron releases
only
2.2 MeV of energy whereas at the other extreme, addition of a neutron to a
Ni nucleus releases about 8 MeV of energy. Hence my conclusion that neutrons
in Ni have lower mass than those in D.

Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

RE: [Vo]:Fwd: Glow tube experiment

[Russ]

There were complications on pursuing the Mischugenons which I now call 
Tellerons. Teller’s world was/is very different than what most take is our 
reality. My compact fusion light-bulb technology, pieces of which are on my new 
lab bench, is today’s outgrowth of that work. 

 

Progress in the process of invention and delivery as practical technology as 
Thomas Edison rightly noted is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. My 
apologies but there is just so much one old guy can perspire, but after a 
couple months on my feet back at the lab bench I am regaining my wind.

 

The curse/blessing of cold fusion in the atom-ecology of the universe is that 
people seem to think that its presence is a miracle and that means an unlimited 
number of miracles ought to be at hand. Sorry it is one miracle to a customer. 
A team of 50 at ‘the bench’ would develop and deliver the suite of technologies 
using this clean limitless energy to save the world from the fossil fool age in 
about a year. Alas one full time old guy and a couple of part-time old guy 
assistants changes the rate.  

 

Russ

 

From: Axil Axil  
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 7:45 PM
To: vortex-l 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Fwd: Glow tube experiment

 

I am referring to the  Meshuganon experiment not your current experiment. Its 
too bad that you moved on from that Meshuganon experiment, you has something 
there. 

 

On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 1:28 PM, Russ mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Sorry that dog won’t hunt, the present experiment is nothing like this. Keep 
fishing.

 

From: Axil Axil mailto:janap...@gmail.com> > 
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 6:13 PM
To: vortex-l mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> >
Subject: [Vo]:Fwd: Glow tube experiment

 

The Alan/Russ experiment has been conducted by young plasma students for over a 
100 years. This goes to show that there is not much new under the Sun. The glow 
tube experiment is a demonstration of the Goldstein–Wehner law.

 

See

 

http://campus.mst.edu/aplab/index_files/PlasmaTheory.pdf

 

Plasma Theory for Undergraduate Education - Missouri S&T

 

 

 

http://www.thunderbolts.info/eg_draft/images/plasma_discharge_tube_480x357.jpg

 

More info here

 

http://www.thunderbolts.info/eg_draft/eg_chapter_6.htm

 

The SAFIRE experiment is the spherical version of this plasma tube experiment. 
The Double layers are produced in the plasma tube as well as in the spherical 
SAFIRE mode. What Alan did with the metal foil is identical to what SAFIRE did 
by inserting the Langmuir Probe into the double layer. The two experiments 
produced the same LENR effect when the metal was inserted into the double 
layer. In both these systems, the interaction between the metal and the double 
layer is to produce a population of surface plasmon polaritons that merge to 
generate a polariton BEC.

 

In this plasmoid generation mode of the LENR reaction where the petal 
Condensate intercepts the energy output that the double layer reaction 
produces, that energy is reformatted in the singular way that the petal 
condensate is constrained to produce as a analog black hole. That reformatting 
process includes a very wasteful segment of the total output. The condensate 
produces muons (aka Meshuganon) with that fraction of total output energy that 
is essentially lost to the far field. Muons has a long delay time and they 
travel a long way from the place in which they were created. As Alan has 
observed, the generation of gamma radiation when the tube is heavily shielded 
is a sure sign that muons are being produced by the inserted metal surface.

 

In the SAFIRE reaction, no condensate is formed and therefor all the energy 
that the LENR reaction produces in the formation of helium is retained as heat 
output. I predict that Helium 3 will be detected in a spectrogram of the gases 
in the glow tube over some extended period of its operation. Excess heat will 
also be produced by the glow tube in the same why that SAFIRE produces excess 
heat.

 

Alan/Russ should take the glow tube experiment to ICCF-21. The SAFIRE people 
will greatly profit from the Muon demo.