http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/faqs/faqs.htm
Snowflakes have 6 arms. Kenneth Libbrecht a physicist at Caltech <http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/> writes about snow crystal formation on his website <http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/faqs/faqs.htm>: The story begins up in a cloud, when a minute cloud droplet first freezes into a tiny particle of ice. As water vapor starts condensing on its surface, the ice particle quickly develops facets <http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/faceting/faceting.htm>, thus becoming a small hexagonal prism <http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/primer/primer.htm>. For a while it keeps this simple faceted shape as it grows. As the crystal becomes larger, however, branches <http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/dendrites/dendrite.htm> begin to sprout from the six corners of the hexagon (this is the third stage in the diagram at right). Since the atmospheric conditions (e. g. temperature and humidity) are nearly constant across the small crystal, the six budding arms all grow out at roughly the same rate. While it grows, the crystal is blown to and fro inside the clouds, so the temperature it sees changes randomly with time. On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Bob Cook <[email protected]> wrote: > Axil-- > > I doubt that the final snow flake is determined by the “seed” which starts > the snow flake (an accumulation of water crystals) growing. I would > imagine that the subsequent accumulation of dust particles etc also > influence the final shape as it grows. In other words it’s a random growth > process resulting from the chaos of parameters--dust concentration, wind > currents, temperatures, heavy or light water molecules, ionizing radiation > etc. > > I have considered that your “finger of God” is merely chaos of things > created in accordance with the various Laws of Nature, reflecting the > thesis of pantheism. > > Bob Cook > > *From:* Axil Axil <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 19, 2016 8:53 AM > *To:* vortex-l <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Is the proton friable? > > Bob Higgins question about the size of the hydrogen bonds in metalized > hydrogen might be best seen in the light of how a snowflake formed from a > seed. The seed around which a snowflake gets it structure can be > microscopic in size and yet provide the snowflake with all the instructions > it needs to grow into all sorts of patterns and symmetries. > > Then there is the patterns stored in DNA that can reproduce all sorts of > body forms from bacteria to whales. > > Mark Leclair believes that the water crystal, a form of metalized water > provided the template for the creation of the DNA molecule when a asteroid > produced cavitation is a protein rich soup. The structure of the water > crystal and DNA are the same. > > So the way metalized hydrogen forms may be the same process as what > created life...the finger of GOD. > > > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Bob Higgins <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> One of the things I don't get about Holmilid's theory for RM formation is >> that the small RM cluster has a 150pm atomic separation, or about 300pm >> radius. The Fe-K Fischer-Tropsch catalysts typically have pore diameters >> of 10-20nm, or nearly 100 times the size of the already huge RM cluster. >> How can this large catalyst geometry be responsible for producing UDH >> almost 100x smaller than the original RM cluster? Experiment has shown >> that porous F-T catalysts are able to catalyze formation of RM. It is >> interesting to note that the size of the UDH/UDD is much smaller than even >> the lattice parameters for Fe2O3 which are in the 500pm range. >> >> Also, it is not clear to me how currents from RM inside one of these >> pores could produce a "vortex". The magnetic field is already the curl of >> the current. If the current (electron or proton) was flowing around the ID >> of the pore, the magnetic field would be a closed toroid. It would not >> have extents outside of the diameter of the pore because current flow on >> one side of the pore would cancel the current flow on the opposite side. >> To be able to create a magnetic field that has a larger extent than the >> diameter of the pore, the current would have to be flowing as a tube in the >> direction of the axis of the pore - in which case, what is the current >> flowing from and to? >> >> Any thoughts on these? >> >> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> *From:* Bob Higgins >>> >>> Ø What you describe is certainly an interesting and scary >>> proposition - that protons could be sheared or broken apart. However, it >>> is hard to imagine a number of thing in this hypothesis and that of >>> Olafssen/Holmlid. First of all, where did the potential energy come from >>> to put two hydrogen nuclei in 2.3pm proximity? >>> >>> My view on this differs from Holmlid and incorporates Lawandy’s view. >>> For the sake of argument, consider that SPP are the formative cause of >>> densification. They form a magnetic vortex on a surface between a >>> conductor (not necessarily a metal) and a dielectric, and if hydrogen >>> is also there, the H orbitals become entrained in the catalyst, powering >>> the ring current and leaving Cooper pairs of protons as the end product, >>> which can then further group into clusters. The hexagonal structure of >>> hematite is critical. >>> >>> Yes, this requires energy from a flux of photons and is lossy. So the >>> cumulative photons would supply the energy of densification. Any excess >>> comes later. >>> >>> Ø Second, SPP is an electron resonance at a metal/dielectric >>> interface, but the electrons themselves are in the metal (AFIK). How would >>> these electrons that are in the metal (resonant in SPP or not) be complicit >>> in a UDD/UDH breakup? >>> >>> >>> >>> IMO the electrons appear as ring current around the hexagon structure of >>> iron oxide in the same way that electrons appear around the hexagonal ring >>> of graphene oxide. A “local conductor” has substituted for the metal of >>> the normal SPP and that is hematite, which fills both roles – >>> dielectric and local conductor. >>> >>> Ø Thirdly, why would UDD/UDH be stable? >>> >>> Now that is a big mystery. Unlike metallic hydrogen, which is only >>> stable so long as high pressure is applied and maintained, and which is >>> far less dense than UDH, what we are probably seeing is a new isomer of >>> metallic hydrogen which does not require continuous pressure. >>> >>> Holmlid is the expert but his view changes over time and he is probably >>> incorrect on some points. Same with Miley, Lawandy, Mills, Winterberg, >>> Hora, Olafsson and everyone else who comes into this field with their >>> own background and preconceived notions. >>> >>> IMO – everyone can cherry pick up to the point that a defining >>> experiment comes along and this may come from an unexpected source, maybe >>> one of Holmlid’s students… who knows? Thankfully there does seem to be >>> a cadre of younger researchers, mostly Nordic, getting involved in this >>> R&D. >>> >> >> > >
