On Dec 28, 2011, at 5:44 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com
You were talking about protons. I can think of only two examples
where the
binding energy of a proton is negative.
1. Protium.
2. Helium.
Bingo. But do not miss the forest for the trees.
And perhaps it is the translation from normal 2d to Casimir type 3d by change
in conductivity and spacing of the mirror layers that is at work, where locally
the gas atoms perceive the spatial distance between the boundaries varying
rapidly while from our perspective it is only the mirror
On 12/28 Jones Beene said [snip] Fusion is completely ruled out since the
reactants are far too
cold. It is a mistake to think that gammas can be shielded by low density
elements. This would be too easy to demonstrate, if it were true.[/snip]
Jones, although I don't think this is fusion either I
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 28 Dec 2011 18:16:32 -0800:
Hi Jones,
[snip]
Yes, and that is why - by convention - one atom of thickness is treated as
2D. Were you not aware of that? In the abstract, an atom thickness may not
be true 2D, but it always works out that way with high
-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com
There are secondary nuclear reactions but most of the energy gain is from
accelerated protons.
Robin: This implies close proximity between proton and target nucleus.
Yes. That is essentially the gist of combining Miley/Holmlid with
-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com
As I pointed out on this list a few weeks back (though it may not have
been noticed in the deluge), this doesn't work because close is much
smaller than atomic dimensions, which means that there is no (Lawandy)
surface to speak of.
You are
On 12/27/2011 05:37 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Jones Beenejone...@pacbell.net wrote:
A contrarian opinion: DoE will never relent nor alter its stance against
LENR ... at least not so long as there is a DoD.
* I assume you mean as long as there is a DoE. I agree.
No, I mean DoD - DoD
Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar wrote:
Cold fusion does not appear to be a chain reaction, so I do not see how it
could be used in a weapon.
By not being the direct cause of a chain reaction?
Yup. I think only a chain reaction would be fast enough to evolve into a
major explosion before the
On 11-12-28 05:30 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
There is no doubt you can make a small explosion with cold fusion.
People have already done that, by accident. Mizuno nearly killed
himself doing that. See:
http://lenr-canr.org/Experiments.htm#PhotosAccidents
Thanks for the link, Jed!
I recalled
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 28 Dec 2011 12:10:20 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com
There are secondary nuclear reactions but most of the energy gain is from
accelerated protons.
Robin: This implies close proximity between proton and target
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 28 Dec 2011 12:10:20 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com
As I pointed out on this list a few weeks back (though it may not have
been noticed in the deluge), this doesn't work because close is much
smaller than atomic
-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com
As I pointed out on this list a few weeks back (though it may not have
been noticed in the deluge), this doesn't work because close is much
smaller than atomic dimensions, which means that there is no (Lawandy)
surface to speak of.
You are
-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com
You were talking about protons. I can think of only two examples where the
binding energy of a proton is negative.
1. Protium.
2. Helium.
Bingo. But do not miss the forest for the trees. The bottom line is that we
are only interested in the
It seems to me that LENR cannot be weaponized. The stuff that
permits chain reactions accumulates slowly, if it even exists at
all. This permits cosmic rays to limit the accumulation.
Cosmic ray secondary muons might trigger conventional fusion in super
high density pockets of hydrogen,
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
A contrarian opinion: DoE will never relent nor alter its stance against
LENR ... at least not so long as there is a DoD.
I assume you mean as long as there is a DoE. I agree.
Never, never, never. This is essentially why SPAWARS is being closed.
From Jones:
...
The biggest threat to the West, in the eyes of the
Pentagon, is a non-nuclear or nuclear-optional (less
detectable) but near kiloton capable weapon in the hands
of the Taliban (or next radical terrorist group with
access to plenty of cash or a substitute like
From: Jed Rothwell
A contrarian opinion: DoE will never relent nor alter its stance against
LENR ... at least not so long as there is a DoD.
* I assume you mean as long as there is a DoE. I agree.
No, I mean DoD - DoD has far more political clout. There is no
inter-connection between
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
A contrarian opinion: DoE will never relent nor alter its stance against
LENR ... at least not so long as there is a DoD.
* I assume you mean as long as there is a DoE. I agree.
No, I mean DoD - DoD has far more political clout. There is no
Horace,
I considered this point (no neutron chain reaction nor obvious substitute)
but am convinced that there is no need for the kind of chain reaction we are
familiar with in fission. If you understand subcritical neutron
multiplication, you will see that massive gain is possible without true
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 27 Dec 2011 12:41:55 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
Mirror electrons in the dielectric keep the protons close to each other.
As I pointed out on this list a few weeks back (though it may not have been
noticed in the deluge), this doesn't work because close is much
In reply to OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson's message of Tue, 27 Dec 2011
14:05:01 -0600:
Hi,
[snip]
Regarding the profitability of illegal businesses, like Afghani heroin, I'm
going to suggest something outrageous. We should seriously consider growing
our own poppy fields and the manufacture
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 27 Dec 2011 12:41:55 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
Gain comes from non-quark nuclear boson depletion, is instigated by strong
force attraction, followed by Coulomb repulsion - and depends on quark
statistics. Gain is in the range of tens to hundreds of keV per
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 1:07 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
I
You already do...in Afghanistan. ;) What do you think was the real reason
for
fighting the Taliban (under whom Opium production nearly died out).
This isn't a good place for politics but I can't let something that stupid
get by.
On Dec 27, 2011, at 11:41 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
Horace,
I considered this point (no neutron chain reaction nor obvious
substitute)
but am convinced that there is no need for the kind of chain
reaction we are
familiar with in fission. If you understand subcritical neutron
multiplication,
On Dec 27, 2011, at 12:31 PM, Mary Yugo wrote:
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 1:07 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
I
You already do...in Afghanistan. ;) What do you think was the real
reason for
fighting the Taliban (under whom Opium production nearly died out).
This isn't a good place for
On 11-12-27 04:31 PM, Mary Yugo wrote:
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 1:07 PM, mix...@bigpond.com
mailto:mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
I
You already do...in Afghanistan. ;) What do you think was the real
reason for
fighting the Taliban (under whom Opium production nearly died out).
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
Never, never, never. This is essentially why SPAWARS is being closed.
SPAWAR is not being closed. Perhaps you refer to only the CF tests.
SPAWAR is large:
http://www.public.navy.mil/spawar/Pages/default.aspx
T
In reply to Mary Yugo's message of Tue, 27 Dec 2011 13:31:21 -0800:
Hi,
The reasons you give have little to do with the reason for being there, as
indicated by the fact that the current incumbents are not much better. Basically
the problems you describe are part of the culture of the local
28 matches
Mail list logo
