RE: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake

[Dave Roberson]

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Dave Roberson
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2019 1:40 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake

Interesting results.  One question I have is what material is used as a gasket 
between the end flanges and the SS reaction chamber?  It is hard to believe 
that nothing is required to prevent leaks.

Dave

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

With further reading I see that some thin gasket was used.  I answered my own 
question.  Of course the type of material is very critical for anyone wanting 
to replicate the experiment.

Dave

RE: [Vo]:Exponential and self-heating reactions are not necessarily unstable

[Dave Roberson]

In my opinion, the rate at which heat energy is removed from the casing by the 
airflow is a strong controller of the reaction stability.  As expected, as long 
as the internally generated heat due to the reaction is less than the amount of 
heat energy escaping through the case at a given temperature, the device should 
usually be stable.  There may be some delay related energy releases that lead 
to local runaway events.  This is a complex system that looks simple.  I am 
hoping that we finally have a device that works.

Dave

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Arnaud Kodeck
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2019 4:24 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Exponential and self-heating reactions are not necessarily 
unstable

The huge size of the reactor is an advantage against runaway of the LENR 
reaction.

From: Jed Rothwell  
Sent: Friday, 28 June 2019 01:56
To: Vortex 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Exponential and self-heating reactions are not necessarily 
unstable

Arnaud Kodeck  wrote:

The design of the reactor is huge to compare with the amount of heat.

Oh come now. Obviously it has not been optimized. It is 60 cm long and the 
meshes are only 30 cm long. It is half empty.

It also has not been driven to maximum temperature. Mizuno has projected that 
it could be far hotter with much higher power density.

RE: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake

[Dave Roberson]

Interesting results.  One question I have is what material is used as a gasket 
between the end flanges and the SS reaction chamber?  It is hard to believe 
that nothing is required to prevent leaks.

Dave

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Jed Rothwell
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2019 5:18 PM
To: Vortex
Subject: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake

Here is an edited version of a message I posted at LENR-forum:

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/6013-mizuno-reports-increased-excess-heat/?postID=113176#post113176

“SOT” and “THH” are denizens of that forum.


Someone at LENR-forum wrote, "I think [Mizuno and Rothwell] probably have made 
some kind of mistake." I don't think so. I have seen many, many mistakes. I 
have made many myself! They do not look like this. I cannot imagine what error 
it might be. But that's the thing about errors: you cannot imagine them, so 
that's why you make them.

SOT has repeatedly emphasized the large power of this experiment. I countered 
by saying the signal to noise ratio of previous experiments was better, even 
though power was 0.3 W, 0.5 W, or 5 W (Miles and McKubre). Their instruments 
were so much better, they could measure this low power with more confidence 
than Mizuno measures 250 W. That's true from a strictly scientific or technical 
point of view. However, SOT makes a valid point here. It is true that the 
higher the power, the less likely a mistake becomes. High power automatically 
increases the signal to noise ratio. (Up to a certain point it does, until you 
have to move to a different calorimeter, which may have a whole new set of 
problems.)

In the paper, I made a point similar to this, on p. 5:
"1. A comparison of the outlet minus inlet temperatures with a 50 W calibration 
versus the 50 W excess heat test (Fig. 5). This is the raw temperature data 
from the calorimeter. This is the simplest first approximation. Assuming only 
that input power and the air flow rate is the same in both tests, this shows 
that much more heat is produced in the excess heat test. The temperature 
difference is 10°C higher with excess heat."

It is dead simple to confirm a 10°C temperature difference. Mizuno, I, or 
anyone with experience would do that with the thermometers and the Omega 
handheld thermocouples. We would do it several times a day. The inlet 
temperature is the same as ambient. It is shown on the thermometers hanging on 
the wall. You can see at a glance it is correct.

You can measure the outlet temperature by holding a thermometer in the wind 
coming out of the calorimeter. So, I do not think there is any way that 
measurement is wrong. I do not think the blower could be running much slower 
than it does during calibration. That fact would stand out boldly on the 
screen. The power consumed by the fan is shown continuously, in the data that 
scrolls down from the HP gadget. THH insists the fan may be running much 
slower. I think he said 20%. Or was it 50%? Both numbers are impossible. The 
blower fan would not slow down that much; the motor would burn out, and the fan 
would stop dead. The input power has to go somewhere, either into mechanical 
movement or waste heat. That much waste heat will burn the motor. However, for 
the sake of argument, even if we assume the fan slowed down by 50%, there would 
still be massive excess heat.

THH raised another issue. He claims the actual air speed might be much slower 
than we think, both during calibration and during active runs. I showed that is 
incorrect, because the calibrations produce a reasonably close balance, and 
furthermore the heat losses from the calorimeter chamber that we estimated from 
input power minus output captured in the air flow (Fig. 2) are confirmed by 
other methods. You can confirm them yourself with the numbers in the ICCF21 
paper, p. 8. However, for the sake of argument, even if the air flow rate is 
far lower than we think, as long as the fan is running at about the same speed 
it was during calibration, there would still be excess heat. Not as much as we 
think, but there would still be some.

In my opinion, there is no chance that the temperature difference or the air 
speed (or both together) could be wrong by such a large factor that 50 W looks 
like 300 W. That is out of the question.

The results reported at ICCF21 were closer to the margin. The likelihood of an 
error was higher.

 

The two papers are:

ICCF21https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTincreasede.pdf

ICCF22 https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTexcessheata.pdf

RE: [Vo]:Magmo in the land of lost wages...

[Dave Roberson]

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Brian Ahern
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 7:31 AM
To: bobcook39...@hotmail.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com; jone...@pacbell.net
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Magmo in the land of lost wages...

I want to let Vortex folks know that I did not merely hear about the Manelas 
device. I and two other engineers performed many tests over 18 months.
It worked. Manelas disassembled it to make a better one, but he stroked out on 
September 25 2012. I have the components, but  no circuit diagram. 
I like Bob Cooks comments herein and I now believe that bifilar windings are 
essential.


That is important information Brian.  During your testing did you isolate the 
device inside any form of magnetic shielding?  Also, did the device performance 
depend upon its orientation?
I recall that the brick cooled during operation, did anyone measure the heat 
flow into the brick to see how much heat energy was being absorbed from the 
local environment?
You are the right person to ask about interesting observations and I hope that 
you will share as much as you can.

Dave

RE: [Vo]:Magmo in the land of lost wages...

[Dave Roberson]

Nice sized flywheel.  Could store a lot of energy so it is going to be hard to 
prove that the magnets are the real source.  I am skeptical.

Dave

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Terry Blanton
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 8:06 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Magmo in the land of lost wages...


40 kw of mechanical energy

uh-huh.  They sure know what they are talking about. 

RE: [Vo]:A simple example of Mechanical Over-Unity

[Dave Roberson]

The discussion of a violation of the conservation of energy or angular momentum 
perked up my curiosity.  I have searched many times for a trick that gets 
around the rules to no avail.  So, I decided to simulate a simple yet elegant 
model system that I think might be of interest to the group.
My model consists of a mass attached to a lossy spring which is attached to a 
stationary rod.  The heating due to the conversion of spring energy is 
collected within a thermal storage mass.  I used OpenModelica as a platform and 
suggest that everyone obtain a copy of this very powerful modeling program.
For initial conditions I gave the 1kg mass a velocity of 1 meter per second in 
the X direction.   The spring, which has a spring constant of 1 Newton per 
meter is stretched by 2 meters to reach the mass located along the Y axis.  The 
spring loss, or damping constant was chosen to be .2 n*s/m so that the Moment 
of Inertia changes gradually as the orbit of the mass around the fixed point 
slowly changes from what appears to be an ellipse to a circle as the system 
reaches a stable condition.
The initial system contains 2.5 joules of energy.  Two joules are contained 
within the stretched spring according to the equation E=1/2*K*Y where K=1 and 
Y=2 meters.  One Half joules are in the form of kinetic energy of the mass 
which is 1 kg moving at a velocity of 1 meter per second.  My thermal energy 
capacitor begins at 0 Kelvin with no heat storage.
When all the transient motion had settled down I then calculated the total 
energy to be the same 2.5 joules as during the initial phase. At the end of the 
simulation the spring was only stretched to the square root of two long from a 
beginning of 2 meters. That meant its energy was only 1 joule after simulation. 
The mass is now moving at a velocity of the square root of 2 in a circle so it 
has increased its energy to 1 joule. Finally, the heat storage capacitor reads 
.5 degrees Kelvin which translates into .5 joules of energy.
As you can see, the energy of the closed system remains exactly the same while 
the Moment of Inertia is allowed to change in a smooth manner.  Of course, the 
angular momentum is shown to be constant as theory would require.
The initial angular momentum of the mass is calculated by M=angular 
velocity*Moment of Inertia. Angular velocity is Tangential velocity / radius or 
.5 in the initial case. The Moment of Inertia is M*R squared or 1*2 squared 
which is 4.  So total angular momentum is .5 * 4 = 2. When the dust settles and 
the simulation completes you will see that the orbit is circular and has a 
reduced radius of the square root of two meters compared to an initial value of 
2 meters.  The mass has a linear velocity of the square root of two meters per 
second which is increased from its original value of 1 meter per second.  The 
final Moment of Inertia has been reduced to the square root of two squared or a 
value of two. The final angular velocity of the mass becomes the square root of 
two meters per second divided by the radius which is also the square root of 
two.  The angular velocity yields 1 radian per second.  Taking the product of 
the angular velocity and the MoI gives you the angular momentum of 2*1 or 2.
I am confident that everyone noticed that my model consisted of 1 small mass 
attached to a spring which is held fixed at its far end. The actual complete 
system has an identical mass and spring connected to this point and 
symmetrically opposite in position and velocity, etc.  So, think of two masses 
connected at opposite ends of a lossy spring.  They are rotating about a common 
point that is fixed in space with no linear motion.
I hope that this simple model will inspire others to play around with 
mechanical system modelling to obtain a better understanding of physics.

Dave

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

RE: [Vo]:A simple example of Mechanical Over-Unity

[Dave Roberson]

Vibrator, I am confident that if you confine your concept to a closed system 
that both the angular momentum and angular energy will be conserved.  In  a 
simple case of a rotating object, if the MoI is changed by a factor of two, 
then the object spin will speed up or down by that factor.  And, as a 
consequence the angular energy will remain the same since it is proportional to 
the square of the angular speed but inversely proportional to the MoI.

I can not comment upon your special system because for some reason I did not 
get additional information about your setup.  You can be assured that the 
conservation laws are intact.

Dave

Sent from Mail for Windows 10


From: Vibrator ! 
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 2:34:15 PM
To: vortex-L@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:A simple example of Mechanical Over-Unity 
 
It looks to me like a fait accompli, but i might as well be claiming prince 
Albert in a can.  Yet i NEED to know whether this is real or crass error.  Some 
kind of resolution!

It's just basic mechanics - force, mass & motion.  I know there's people here 
with a good grasp of classical physics - and this really IS dead-simple - all i 
need is anyone confident enough in that knowledge to be prepared to 'call it', 
one way or the other.

I'm on me lonesome here - no academic contacts whatsoever, and with the mother 
of all absurd claims..  


What it is:

 - Changing MoI, whilst rotating, without performing any work against CF force. 
 Decreasing and increasing MoI this way effectively creates and destroys 
rotational KE.

 - MoI is caused to 'flip', instantly, thus causing an instantaneous change in 
velocity, ie. a binary change in physical velocity, without physically 
accelerating, or equivalently, via an effectively infinite acceleration.


 - A series of Working Model sims demonstrating these results, tracking all 
input and output energy; the latter, calculated via two independent routes in 
parallel, with perfect agreement and in apparent confirmation of OU.

There are two different forms of input work applied: 

 - crude 'motors' - tho not meaningfully 'electrical'; they're simply torque 
controlled over angle, and so producing a "torque * angle" plot

 - 'linear actuators' - but again, merely the application of linear force 
controlled over a displacement, and again plotted accordingly


So i've been taking these two integrals - at least, in those cases where's 
there's any input work at all - as 32,765 data points crunched with a Riemann 
sum via Excel.

Happy to provide those if anyone wants to see 'em.

Likewise, if anyone wants to see any variations / sanity checks, i can knock up 
more sims..

The thing is, in the most basic form of the interaction, there's no input work 
at all.. yet a 200% KE gain.

With only a very trivial modification (gravity brought into play), the gain 
rises to 800% - partly because the torque * angle integral goes substantially 
negative..

I've solved it down to 1/10th of a microjoule, so the gain appears to be many 
orders over noise.  

Please - anyone - is this for real or have i completely lost it?

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1P1tlUn7THSKZ0CjWaFHFzFtOfrYVY6Ls

NB: MoI switch-downs greater than factors of two are equally feasible - so we 
could likewise square or cube rotKE with little more difficulty..

Climbing the walls here..

RE: [Vo]:Cold fusion research reported at Oak Ridge

[Dave Roberson]

I just read the article and was left wondering whether or not the hydrogen 
deposited upon the surface of the metal made it much more reflective at the 
frequency of the laser.  That might explain why it took so much longer to cut 
the metal.  Does anyone know whether or not the actual energy deposited by the 
laser was measured?

Dave

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: JonesBeene
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:25 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cold fusion research reported at Oak Ridge


This is good to see. 

I remember Mike from a few years ago. He is certainly diligent and determined 
to find answers.  It is great to see that he has focused on Holmlid - who is 
drawing experimenters because he offers a perspective that is unique in a 
number of ways. 

Holmlid’s work  is similar enough to Mills, for instance to give theoretical 
credibility while also being different enough to allow easier replication. 
Holmlid’s recent patent application is almost a “how-to” since it discloses 
almost every relevant detail of making UDD - unlike Mills who makes his 
disclosures  as difficult as possible to replicate. 

The knock on Holmlid had been lack of independent replication. Now it looks 
like that may change. One decent replication and the entire field can be 
revived. New game.

But at least in this thread, it bears repeating that there are disruptive 
technologies which may be best left to rot on the vine… at least so long as 
there are terrorists out there. Not sure if UDD is one of those or not. But 
Pandora’s box is already open so there is no turning back on UDD.



From: Axil Axil

Holmlid replicator

http://www.thespectrum.com/story/news/2018/01/18/southern-utah-scientist-studying-potentially-most-dense-material-our-solar-system/1044139001/

JonesBeene wrote:

Do ”dark projects” exist in the National Labs? Of course they do. And a few 
dark projects undoubtedly derive from disparaged civilian experiments or 
uncrednetialed or cranky inventors. An example is the Hollywood actress who 
invented Spread Spectrum technology but never got a dime from the Pentagon.
It’s obvious that several National Labs have a strong  interest in the  
complete understanding of cold fusion. If it is nuclear and if it is real, then 
it is part of their mission.  They also have a long history of nondisclosure –  
a reflexive “top secret” stamp on the most mundane R This was engrained 
before the cold war.  All of the above is true, but it does not imply that cold 
fusion can be weaponized or that any Lab is hiding something. 
Yet, it is a fair appraisal to say that if cold fusion is real, then a related 
dark project already exists in which important science may have been learned 
but which is not in the public record. Only if cold fusion is bad science would 
it be truly  ignored, and worse: it would be a likely ploy for someone 
well-connected (Garwin?) to say it is bad science, if the motive is to keep 
secrets deeply hidden. 
Remember the story (probably true) that the great Teller (co-founder of LLNL) 
after first hearing about the cold fusion breakthrough in 1989 called 
Fleischman and essentially had only one question - “can you make a bomb out of 
it?” Teller got a “no” for an answer but that was probably not the 
end-of-story. The fact that the Navy and NASA allowed a bit of R to be 
published on LENR also means little – the information  could have been part of 
a larger ploy where someone was metaphorically throwing the dogs a bone.  Look 
at it this way: there is always a downside to complete disclosure (from the 
perspective of Labs which do military research) whereas the only downside to 
secrecy is to delay civilian implementation. That may not be a bad thing as 
there are a few types of disruptive technology which are probably best to 
ignore.
Fast forward almost 30 years from Teller’s inquiry and another detail emerges 
that could be more ominous, assuming that “dense deuterium” is real (but 
acknowledging that there is no public proof that it is real). If dense 
deuterium exists as a resource for energy, then the answer to the original 
inquiry would take a U-turn to: “yes, a few ounces of UDD should make one hell 
of a compact explosive”… Nobody really wants to hear that, other than 
terrorists.
In fact, it could be the beginning of the end (for “civilization”) if true… not 
just the end of CO2 but the end of us. Planet of the Apes – here we come. 
So, are we better off to continue to act ignorant as far as proliferation is 
concerned -  or do we try to become proactive at some level? That is a very 
difficult question since there are probably only a handful of researchers at 
Los Alamos, Oak Ridge or LLNL who actually know the true answer to the cold 
fusion enigma (assuming that it is not “pathological science” from the start). 
They are unlikely to ever be talking about it. 
Anyway, the reason that Holmlid has not been replicated on UDD could be that he 
is operating in the realm of 

RE: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[Dave Roberson]

I believe that the theory is that those falling into the black hole see time as 
being normal.  Only outside viewers see time slow down.

Dave

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: mix...@bigpond.com
Sent: Thursday, February 1, 2018 2:06 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Wed, 31 Jan 2018 22:19:50 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>I was of the understanding that the event horizon is merely the point of no
>return for light, where it begins to curve on a trajectory that does not
>escape the black hole.  In this understanding, time slows down
>asymptotically as objects approach the singularity, but it is still running
>(albeit more slowly) at the event horizon.
>
>To outside observers, time might seem to come to a standstill for the
>electron and positron, but they would still have time to annihilate.
>(Unless I'm mistaken.)

If time comes to standstill for them as they approach the event horizon, then
they never reach a point where they annihilate *inside* the black hole.
(Outside wouldn't be a problem).
>
>Eric
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

RE: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[Dave Roberson]

Robin,

I guess I do not understand how many far away objects would get information 
about the conversion that takes place.  If the mass equivalent remains the same 
and its center also is conserved then what is different?  Of course the photons 
would interact differently than the two particles but that effect would be 
localized I think.

Does Mills suspect that the gravitational mass is different between photons and 
electrons of the same energy?

Dave

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: mix...@bigpond.com
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 2:20 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

In reply to  Dave Roberson's message of Thu, 25 Jan 2018 13:17:02 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>I realize that mass and energy are two different forms of existence, but 
>should we expect the remainder of the universe to know this has happened other 
>than by the interactions between the two objects before and after the event 
>and other particles.
>
>Dave  

If I understand Mills correctly, then he says that it precisely the conversion
of mass into energy that causes the expansion of the universe.
IOW, yes the rest of the universe does know.

Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

RE: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[Dave Roberson]

Philippe,

If you choose a frame of reference that is stationary to the center of mass of 
the two particles, which is at rest relative to them,  then there can be very 
little motion associated with the two.  When the conversion to energy takes 
place two photons are released exactly in opposite directions keeping the 
effective center of mass in the same place.

Is there reason to believe that photons do not have actual mass and hence 
gravitational attraction?  If they do have mass then nothing has changed in the 
universe other than a conversion of mass into energy.  All gravitational 
effects remain the same.  Does that not make sense?

I realize that mass and energy are two different forms of existence, but should 
we expect the remainder of the universe to know this has happened other than by 
the interactions between the two objects before and after the event and other 
particles.

Dave  

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Philippe Hatt
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 11:50 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

Dave,
This is absolutely true and not challenged at all.
My point is not that one ,it is about physical modification of mass into energy 
.Mathematically mass and energy are related through Einstein's equation 
.Nevertheless
mass is physically different from energy .Also the speed of the  two created 
photons is different from that of the initial electron and positron.The problem 
is how can two masses be converted into energy and lose their mass ,especially 
as this two masses are positive .So, I guess there is a process creating mass 
and an opposite process annihilating mass .These two processes should enter in 
resonance to annihilate the two masses and convert them into energy.

Philippe 


Envoyé de mon iPadp

Le 25 janv. 2018 à 17:04, Dave Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> a écrit :
Is it not true that the mass is conserved when an electron and positron combine 
and two photons emerge?  The total mass-energy is the same.
 
Dave
 
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
 
From: Philippe Hatt
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 6:09 AM
To: Jürg Wyttenbach
Cc: bobcook39...@hotmail.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com; na...@gwu.edu; Nigel Dyer; 
mules...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest
 
Dear Jürg,
 
Thank you for your answer.
 
On antimass :I fully agree with what you say .For me antimass is not negative 
mass ,but positive mass leaving our space time and creating as a consequence a 
hole of mass .This is what happens 
between electron and positron when collapsing to yield two photons evolving at 
the edge of our space time .The two positive masses annihilate because they are 
submitted to a process "up and down".The demassification phase of the positron 
comes in deduction of the massification phase of the electron.To better 
illustrate the phenomenon  let us consider the process of massification 
/demassification .A particle entering our space time acquires a positive 
mass.This particle is leaving our space time after a Planck instant through 
annihilation or demassification ,creating a hole of positive mass .So the two 
masses together are counted as zero .There is never a negative mass as the 
process needs first a creation of mass (massification ) in order the opposite 
process (demassification ) can take place .The mass demassified comes in 
deduction of the positive mass while never being negative.So, it is an anti 
(positive)mass.
 
On LENR ,as previously said the binding energy of alpha particle is built with 
the binding energies of Deuterium,Tritium ,He3 and NN. This NN binding energy 
is equal to the mass of a neutron mass minus 1800x 0.511 MeV .It was the 
subject of my previous mail to you.These four binding energy values are enough 
to explain the binding energy of every nucleus.It will be explained in the 
document I am preparing on binding energy and LENR.
 
See you soon in Paris,
 
Philippe
 
 
Envoyé de mon iPadp

Le 24 janv. 2018 à 16:18, Jürg Wyttenbach <ju...@datamart.ch> a écrit :
Dear Philippe

Thanks for Your information. 

>From my side there are some very interesting findings regarding the magnetic 
>moments of the proton & 7 Lithium. The perturbation/deviation from expected 
>value is given 1) by math rules and 2) by a virtual proton/electron or a 
>proton + electron/neutron fluctuation! Thus such fluctuations as you describe 
>do exist.

The outcome for the proton clearly shows that the charge is always interacting 
with other (distant) charges. The magnitude (one factor in in proton case) of 
the interaction is given by the relativistic rest mass of the E-field, what is 
(equal to) the electron mass divided by 2 phi. This indicates why QM fails 
overall, when applied to a nucleus, without knowing the small factors. But this 
(exact) result is on thin ice, because we only have mediocre measurements of 
the proton charge radius. (Even worse some physicists still believe that muon 
proton-rad

RE: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[Dave Roberson]

Is it not true that the mass is conserved when an electron and positron combine 
and two photons emerge?  The total mass-energy is the same.

Dave

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Philippe Hatt
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 6:09 AM
To: Jürg Wyttenbach
Cc: bobcook39...@hotmail.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com; na...@gwu.edu; Nigel Dyer; 
mules...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

Dear Jürg,

Thank you for your answer.

On antimass :I fully agree with what you say .For me antimass is not negative 
mass ,but positive mass leaving our space time and creating as a consequence a 
hole of mass .This is what happens 
between electron and positron when collapsing to yield two photons evolving at 
the edge of our space time .The two positive masses annihilate because they are 
submitted to a process "up and down".The demassification phase of the positron 
comes in deduction of the massification phase of the electron.To better 
illustrate the phenomenon  let us consider the process of massification 
/demassification .A particle entering our space time acquires a positive 
mass.This particle is leaving our space time after a Planck instant through 
annihilation or demassification ,creating a hole of positive mass .So the two 
masses together are counted as zero .There is never a negative mass as the 
process needs first a creation of mass (massification ) in order the opposite 
process (demassification ) can take place .The mass demassified comes in 
deduction of the positive mass while never being negative.So, it is an anti 
(positive)mass.

On LENR ,as previously said the binding energy of alpha particle is built with 
the binding energies of Deuterium,Tritium ,He3 and NN. This NN binding energy 
is equal to the mass of a neutron mass minus 1800x 0.511 MeV .It was the 
subject of my previous mail to you.These four binding energy values are enough 
to explain the binding energy of every nucleus.It will be explained in the 
document I am preparing on binding energy and LENR.

See you soon in Paris,

Philippe


Envoyé de mon iPadp

Le 24 janv. 2018 à 16:18, Jürg Wyttenbach  a écrit :
Dear Philippe

Thanks for Your information. 

>From my side there are some very interesting findings regarding the magnetic 
>moments of the proton & 7 Lithium. The perturbation/deviation from expected 
>value is given 1) by math rules and 2) by a virtual proton/electron or a 
>proton + electron/neutron fluctuation! Thus such fluctuations as you describe 
>do exist.

The outcome for the proton clearly shows that the charge is always interacting 
with other (distant) charges. The magnitude (one factor in in proton case) of 
the interaction is given by the relativistic rest mass of the E-field, what is 
(equal to) the electron mass divided by 2 phi. This indicates why QM fails 
overall, when applied to a nucleus, without knowing the small factors. But this 
(exact) result is on thin ice, because we only have mediocre measurements of 
the proton charge radius. (Even worse some physicists still believe that muon 
proton-radius measurements are equivalent to proton/electron measurements...)

But the most important, what is independent of the measurements, is the 
mathematical proof, that all charge radii must be based on a (4D-) torus 
topology. I recently told Jean-Luc that he should use a torus topology for a 
better understanding of deep orbits. From a mathematical point of view the use 
of a sphere is less straight forward. But, at least for the proton a 4D-->3D 
torus projection seems to be OK as long as you keep the 4(6)D math rules.

Your work is true complementary and more basic than what we do. Energy finally 
is always a scalar and based on quanta, ergo there must be a building rule. 
Whether it is straight forward or not has to be shown.

I personally do not like the term anti-mass. In the 4(6)D model of the nucleus, 
we can show that all nuclear interaction (gamma levels) are exactly defined by 
the energy - holes (quasi negative energy) left behind during the building of 
the nucleus. These holes are connected to the existing mass/magnetic flux and 
must be (re-) filled to become active.
If you can define negative mass as being flux from "real" mass to holes, then 
all is fine. Negative mass would imply negative energy, what even for a 
positron (antimatter) does not hold.

An other difficulty is to directly compare the electron/proton mass with the 
magnetic moment. The nuclear magneton is defined as eh'/2mp  (Units J/T) what 
needs a field to make the masses compatible. If you make a quotient like 1.913 
/ 2.793 then this formal "problem" factors out. 

What I would like to remind everybody: To explain LENR we, at the end, need a 
formula which allows to calculate the stimulation fields needed, what includes 
their strength, topology, and most likely their frequency. (The same holds for 
the LENR energy releasing phase...) With knowing the exact energies, we can 
only derive some base