On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 6:04 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Sat, 23 Mar 2013 04:04:55 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
The weak force doesn't actually present a barrier. It presents a chance that
something will occur. Electrons and protons don't normally combine into
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Sun, 24 Mar 2013 20:36:40 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
It's actually classically forbidden. 1 baseball + a second baseball does not
make 3 baseballs.
I don't understand your analogy.
Aren't we talking about 1e combining with 1p to make 1n?
Yes, but that's the
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 10:50 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Sun, 24 Mar 2013 20:36:40 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
It's actually classically forbidden. 1 baseball + a second baseball does not
make 3 baseballs.
I don't understand your analogy.
Aren't we talking
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 4:14 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Mon, 18 Mar 2013 21:40:15 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 5:10 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Sun, 17 Mar 2013 22:56:07 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
On Sun,
In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Wed, 20 Mar 2013 19:41:08 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 7:38 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 4:03 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
I
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Sat, 23 Mar 2013 04:04:55 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
The weak force doesn't actually present a barrier. It presents a chance that
something will occur. Electrons and protons don't normally combine into
neutrons
because their combined mass is inadequate. It's 782
I had the opportunity to speak to Peter about this, and I was led to
believe that they were indeed mystified by what they had found, but also
felt that they needed some kind of hypothesis in order to get the paper
published. I know from bitter experience that it is very difficult to
get a
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 5:52 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
This is due to the fact that an electron undergoing translational motion
creates
a magnetic field. It isn't an indication that the electron is rotating on it's
own axis, and thus has an intrinsic magnetic field.
Okay, but the free
In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Sat, 23 Mar 2013 18:33:44 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 5:52 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
This is due to the fact that an electron undergoing translational motion
creates
a magnetic field. It isn't an indication that the electron is
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 7:45 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
This is behind a pay-wall, but I get the impression that it's a theoretical
paper, not an experimental one.
Well, if you are right, the ionization energy to free an electron must
include the negative spin momentum energy. Otherwise
In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Sat, 23 Mar 2013 19:51:16 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 7:45 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
This is behind a pay-wall, but I get the impression that it's a theoretical
paper, not an experimental one.
Well, if you are right, the ionization
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 8:04 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
What exactly is negative spin momentum energy?
You say the electron has spin when in orbit; but, when free, has no
spin momentum. If so, the energy to totally ionize an electron, free
it from the nucleus, must also eliminate the spin
In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Sat, 23 Mar 2013 20:07:07 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 8:04 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
What exactly is negative spin momentum energy?
You say the electron has spin when in orbit; but, when free, has no
spin momentum. If so, the energy to
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 5:27 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
Now let the
entire ellipse swing around the focus like a hoola hoop. We have a second
form
of angular momentum (l). Note that the electron itself is still following
the
original trajectory around the perimeter of the ellipse as
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 8:27 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
Consider the following:-
I'll have to cogitate on that.
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
What's to make this kind of precession not be a spherical one, e.g., such
that the movement of the ellipsoid over time rather than being planar
instead cancels out any magnetic moment?
To attempt an answer to my own
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Sat, 23 Mar 2013 17:40:02 -0700:
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 5:27 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
Now let the
entire ellipse swing around the focus like a hoola hoop. We have a second
form
of angular momentum (l). Note that the electron itself is still
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Sat, 23 Mar 2013 18:01:48 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
What's to make this kind of precession not be a spherical one, e.g., such
that the movement of the ellipsoid over time rather than being
In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Mon, 18 Mar 2013 19:49:19 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 5:37 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
I suspect that *free* electrons (don't) have any spin momentum.
And no magnetic moment? Come now!
I would much appreciate a reference to the
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Mon, 18 Mar 2013 21:40:15 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 5:10 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Sun, 17 Mar 2013 22:56:07 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 2:50 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
BTW
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 4:03 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
I would much appreciate a reference to the measurement of the *magnetic
moment*
of *free* electrons.
Isn't that how a cathode ray tube works?
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 4:03 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
I would much appreciate a reference to the measurement of the *magnetic
moment*
of *free* electrons.
Isn't that how a cathode ray tube works?
Have you ever
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 7:38 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 4:03 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
I would much appreciate a reference to the measurement of the *magnetic
moment*
of
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Sun, 17 Mar 2013 22:56:07 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 2:50 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
BTW there is no potential barrier here. The proton and the electron carry
opposite charges, so they are attracted to one another, rather than
repelled.
In reply to pagnu...@htdconnect.com's message of Sun, 17 Mar 2013 20:43:13
-0400 (EDT):
Hi Lou,
[snip]
Robin,
I believe that the 782 keV represents a steep electroweak barrier that
repels electrons from protons at a very close range where it overwhelms
the coulomb attractive force. Since the
In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Sun, 17 Mar 2013 18:22:01 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 5:50 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
BTW there is no potential barrier here. The proton and the electron carry
opposite charges, so they are attracted to one another, rather than repelled.
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 5:37 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
I suspect that *free* electrons (don't) have any spin momentum.
And no magnetic moment? Come now!
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 5:10 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Sun, 17 Mar 2013 22:56:07 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 2:50 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
BTW there is no potential barrier here. The proton and the electron carry
opposite
Robin,
It's been a long time since I looked at it, but a bare, high kinetic
energy e-p collision (not just a coulombic deflection) can emit an
unpredictable variety of subatomic particle sprays which must, of course,
satisfy all conservation laws.
An e-p collision involving collective electric
close
companionship with the proton, but not too close. Two protons are repelled as
expected by the coulomb barrier.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: pagnucco pagnu...@htdconnect.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Mar 17, 2013 12:53 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Graneau Questions
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 10:03 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
I assume that the only reason that they do not join together is because of
some form of quantum mechanical process. It is interesting that the
electron seeks close companionship with the proton, but not too close.
I
In reply to pagnu...@htdconnect.com's message of Sun, 17 Mar 2013 12:53:23
-0400 (EDT):
Hi,
[snip]
Robin,
It's been a long time since I looked at it, but a bare, high kinetic
energy e-p collision (not just a coulombic deflection) can emit an
unpredictable variety of subatomic particle sprays
In reply to pagnu...@htdconnect.com's message of Sun, 17 Mar 2013 12:53:23
-0400 (EDT):
Hi,
[snip]
but the
magnetic field it couples to can possess enormous momentum, allowing it
to surmount potential barriers greater than KE.
BTW there is no potential barrier here. The proton and the electron
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 5:50 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
BTW there is no potential barrier here. The proton and the electron carry
opposite charges, so they are attracted to one another, rather than repelled.
What is missing is sufficient mass to form a neutron. This can however be
Robin,
I believe that the 782 keV represents a steep electroweak barrier that
repels electrons from protons at a very close range where it overwhelms
the coulomb attractive force. Since the proton is a quark bag, the
equations governing the complete interaction become quite challenging
- too
Interesting thought.
Are you suggesting the energy could be supplied by a reduction in
collective electron spin? - i.e., by raising collective e-spin entropy?
Terry Blanton wrote:
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 5:50 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
BTW there is no potential barrier here. The proton
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 8:47 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:
Interesting thought.
Are you suggesting the energy could be supplied by a reduction in
collective electron spin? - i.e., by raising collective e-spin entropy?
Not really my idea; but one that changed Don Hotson's life from being
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 2:50 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
BTW there is no potential barrier here. The proton and the electron carry
opposite charges, so they are attracted to one another, rather than
repelled.
I take it that when physicists refer to a potential barrier, they mean
I think lightning is the discharge from the buildup of charge in the
atmosphere created from the surface LENR of orbital quantum micro black
holes of entropy and the cooling condensing, rain and snow is triggered
as they extract entropy from the surrounding gaseous atmosphere along cold
fronts
In reply to pagnu...@htdconnect.com's message of Sat, 16 Mar 2013 01:09:56
-0400 (EDT):
Hi,
[snip]
Lightning strikes produce free neutrons, and were not sure how -
Low energy neutrons not due to cosmic rays or any other previously
known source.
Robin,
Possibly.
If the p + e- -- n reaction actually occurs (as per W-L), though,
my guess is that electrons borrow just enough energy from their
neighbors to climb the 782 keV electroweak barrier - just like the atom
(or electrons) on the tip of an arrow borrows energy from the other atoms
in
Maybe.
Who can do the math on quantum black holes, though?
Daunting.
ChemE Stewart wrote:
I think lightning is the discharge from the buildup of charge in the
atmosphere created from the surface LENR of orbital quantum micro black
holes of entropy and the cooling condensing, rain and snow is
In reply to pagnu...@htdconnect.com's message of Sat, 16 Mar 2013 19:09:49
-0400 (EDT):
Hi,
[snip]
I could be mistaken, but I think that e-p free space bare collisions
over 782 keV will result in all kinds of subatomic particle shards and
debris, but seldom in a single neutron.
What sort of
An interesting paper - a printable copy is at URL:
Arc-liberated chemical energy exceeds electrical input energy
http://ose.accomazzi.net/files/15115795-Graneau-Paper-on-Water-Explosions.pdf
There are also seven papers that cite this one, availble thru google.
-- Lou Pagnucco
James Bowery
Quoting from the conclusion of the article they reiterate the explanation
of the source of energy:
The difference in the latent heat between fog and bulk water is eventually
restored by heat in the atmosphere, which allows the fog to condense and
return to earth.
Does this make any sense to
In reply to James Bowery's message of Fri, 15 Mar 2013 16:43:42 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
Quoting from the conclusion of the article they reiterate the explanation
of the source of energy:
The di?erence in the latent heat between fog and bulk water is eventually
restored by heat in the atmosphere, which
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 4:49 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to James Bowery's message of Fri, 15 Mar 2013 16:43:42 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
Quoting from the conclusion of the article they reiterate the
explanation
of the source of energy:
The di?erence in the latent heat between fog
In reply to James Bowery's message of Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:05:34 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 4:49 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to James Bowery's message of Fri, 15 Mar 2013 16:43:42 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
Quoting from the conclusion of the article they reiterate the
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 5:18 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to James Bowery's message of Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:05:34 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 4:49 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to James Bowery's message of Fri, 15 Mar 2013 16:43:42 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
,
Charles B. Allison, Daniel Cavazos, Frank M. Mullen
-Mark Iverson
From: James Bowery [mailto:jabow...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 3:25 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Graneau Questions
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 5:18 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to James
In reply to James Bowery's message of Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:24:47 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
That's very problematic given Figure 6.
They're showing 10 gain in that figure from E7 to E12.
How can plasma physicists who are staking their careers on billions of
dollars of investment to get to near break be
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 8:04 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to James Bowery's message of Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:24:47 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
That's very problematic given Figure 6.
They're showing 10 gain in that figure from E7 to E12.
How can plasma physicists who are staking their
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 6:04 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
The sentence:-
The loss of intermolecular bond energy in the conversion from liquid to
fog
must be the source of the explosion energy.
... is the problem. First, they have the sign of intermolecular bond energy
wrong. When water
In reply to James Bowery's message of Fri, 15 Mar 2013 20:16:02 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 8:04 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to James Bowery's message of Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:24:47 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
That's very problematic given Figure 6.
They're showing 10 gain
It should be noted that George Hathaway was a co-author on several of the
Graneau papers. He retracted some of conclusions:
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg26685.html
“I published a rebuttal of the Graneau excess-energy claims a letter to the
editor of Infinite Energy
Well, of course he would retract the nonsense about ambient energy.
HOWEVER
Did Hathaway retract the experimental data presented? If not, then the
comparison of E7 to E12 still stands as true with very little in the way of
inference.
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 9:07 PM, Jones Beene
Well, it would not be nonsense if there was gain from the zero point field.
That kind of gain is expected to carry ambient heat with it - with the side
effect of cooling the surroundings.
From: James Bowery
Well, of course he would retract the nonsense about ambient energy.
Touché
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 9:44 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
Well, it would not be nonsense if there was gain from the zero point
field.
** **
That kind of gain is expected to carry ambient heat with it – with the
side effect of cooling the surroundings.
**
Yes. There are a number of papers proposing a counter-intuitive
environment-to-system heat energy concentration based on non-thermal
entropy exchanges (e.g. from spin baths) and/or taylored quantum
measurement wavefunction collapses.
Also, the anomalous effects surrounding lightning may be
59 matches
Mail list logo
